Source
r/DebateReligion•
hammiesink

To All: Detailed pickings of Aquinas' First Way #7: God

NOTE: THIS IS LESS OF A DEBATE THREAD AND MORE OF AN EXPLANATORY THREAD, FOR EASY LATER REFERENCE. THE AIM OF THIS THREAD IS TO GIVE READERS PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ARGUMENT, NOT NECESSARILY TO DEBATE ITS TRUTH VALUE.

Click here to start from the beginning

To sum up, given the act/potency distinction, and that no potential can actualize itself, and that an essentially ordered series must trace to a presently operative terminator, we are brought to something that is pure actuality. Something on the "bottom" of every chain of change. In my earlier example, there would be pure actuality somewhere deep in the coal at the power plant. There is pure actuality deep in the atomic structure of every star in the heavens. And so forth.

So what are the attributes of something that is purely actual, that drives all change and anything that happens? Aquinas draws these attributes out over the course of many later articles, the famous Five Ways serving as merely a brief summary as a sort of prologue. This article can not do justice to the entire line of thought, and so it is only a brief sketch.

  1. Matter/energy are changeable, and hence are a mixture of potential and actual. Therefore, an agent of pure actuality is incorporeal.
  2. Things composed of matter and form and actuality and potentiality are varying levels of complexity, but an agent of pure actuality has no parts, no matter, and no form, and thus is extremely simple.
  3. The only way to tell the difference between two things is if one thing has an attribute that another lacks. With two different beings, one is to the left (say), and one is to the right. The one on the left is potentially to the right, and vice versa. Both are hence mixtures of potentiality and actuality. But an agent of pure actuality by definition has no potentialities, and thus lacks nothing, and therefore every agent of pure actuality is really the same agent. There is only one agent of pure actuality, and thus it has unity.
  4. An agent of pure actuality cannot come into or go out of existence, as these are potentialities being realized. Thus, an agent of pure actuality is eternal.
  5. An agent of pure actuality cannot change from one state to another, and so it is immutable.
  6. Being the source of all change in the universe, and the source of any change that could ever logically occur, an agent of pure actuality is omnipotent.
  7. This one is a bit tricky and really requires an understanding of the entire Thomistic system to do it justice, but a purely actual agent is the source of all change and everything that could ever happen or will happen. As shown in the Second Way as well, the purely actual agent is the source of the continual existence of everything. Thus it is the grounding of every true proposition. Therefore, it doesn't have knowledge, but it is knowledge itself. As Aquinas would say, it is only intelligent in the analogical sense, like saying that love is blind and Ray Charles is blind, but not in the univocal sense, like saying that stop sign is red and the firetruck is red. So, in the analogical sense, a purely actual agent is omniscient.
  8. A being of pure actuality cannot be made to change, as that would meant that he was mixture of potential and actual. So the agent is also impassable.
  9. Thomism includes the view that evil is a privation of good. "Goodness" on this view does not mean just "a nice guy", but rather "goodness" is synonymous with being, or existence. The dog that is missing a leg is suffering from evil because he lacks something: his leg. But an agent of pure actuality, or existence itself, does not by definition lack anything and is therefore wholly good.

To sum up, the agent of pure actuality has the following attributes:

  • Incorporeality
  • Simplicity
  • Unity
  • Eternity
  • Immutability
  • Omnipotence
  • Omniscience
  • Impassibility
  • Goodness

You don't have to look far to see that this is nothing less than this fellow.

And finally, we are brought to Aquinas' last line of the First Way:

...and this everyone understands to be God.

<<<<Back to Part 6

Posted Jan 20, 2012, 6:40 PM UTC · edited

22272
lordzorkI get high on the man upstairs•

The elegance and simplicity of this deduction are truly something to be admired.

7
hammiesinkOP•

I thought so. Whether right or wrong, that is why I find Thomism so alluring. It really puts to shame modern evangelicals, obsessing about evolution and "you just have to have faith" and all that crap. It's like sitting on a pile of tanks and rocket launchers, and throwing sticks at your enemy. I wanna slap the living shit out of them even more than I did before. "YOU'RE SITTING ON A TANK!!! USE THAT FUCKER!!!"

6
lordzorkI get high on the man upstairs•

I believe that the view among Evangelicals is that Thomas belongs to the Catholics, while they get Paley for themselves. There is also a strong element of common-sense materialism and anti-intellectualism in Evangelical culture which produces an antipathy to metaphysical reasoning similar to what one encounters among the "new" atheists.

So Evangelicals would probably disapprove of Thomas's attempt to demonstrate God's existence using nothing but reason, while the "new" atheists, who like to present themselves as champions of reason, tend to ignore the content of the argument because because of their predisposition to dislike the conclusion.

2
Daekingnostic atheist•

If the premises are flawed, the conclusion is flawed. Modern physics has proven Aquinas wrong. Unfortunately he didn't have the understanding of the universe that we have today.

In his day, his argument was probably damn near undeniable, even if it was still a GoG and Argument from ignorance then.

But in this day, when we have things that actualize their own potentials, and exist and cease to exist of their own accord, and do not break the Law of Conservation of Energy. We can easily show the flaws in Aquinas' argument.

Aquinas did excellent with the knowledge he had, but the knowledge we now have points out the obvious flaws in his reasoning.

Real physics is what proves things. Not metaphysics. Aquinas was playing around with assumptions based on his current understanding of the universe to try to reason a God into existence.

4
hammiesinkOP•

when we have things that actualize their own potentials, and exist and cease to exist of their own accord, and do not break the Law of Conservation of Energy. We can easily show the flaws in Aquinas' argument.

If you see how the Second Way works, you can see that it merges with the First and is a lot harder to refute. It isn't about the transfer of energy, it's about the actualization of potentials, which applies to existence as well. The essence of something is what makes it what it is rather than some other thing, and that essence must be made actual by something else. And this can only lead to something whose essence is existence. In other words, something that is existence itself. None of this has anything to do with physics.

Real physics is what proves things. Not metaphysics.

As the word indicates, "meta" physics comes prior to physics. Physics takes for granted that things change. The meta physics says: things change. Physics cannot prove that solipsism is false either; that is a question for metaphysics.

2
[deleted]•

Modern physics has proven Aquinas wrong.

How?

Let me guess, you're going to point to virtual particles, aren't you?

Seriously.

But in this day, when we have things that actualize their own potentials, and exist and cease to exist of their own accord, and do not break the Law of Conservation of Energy. We can easily show the flaws in Aquinas' argument.

"Things that actualize their own potentials." lol. That means something that causes itself, I believe. Can you give me any examples of this?

I'm not going to say anything about virtual particles. Do you wish to live in Groundhog Day, continually making the same arguments and receiving the same answers over and over?

1
hammiesinkOP•

And the criticism of Paley is so easy it makes him entirely worthless. Even if there is a gap in scientific reasoning, the most it could be filled with is a demi-urge, aliens, or a naturalistic explanation. But not God god. Even if it worked, Paley's argument is stillborn.

So Evangelicals would probably disapprove of Thomas's attempt to demonstrate God's existence using nothing but reason

I would like to add that, although minimal, the Thomistic arguments do have empirical premises as a start: things change, things exist, things go out of and come into existence, things are flawed, and things act for an end. So that distinguishes it from the ontological argument.

2
Trollfailbotatheist•

Thomism includes the view that evil is a privation of good. "Goodness" on this view does not mean just "a nice guy", but rather "goodness" is synonymous with being, or existence. The dog that is missing a leg is suffering from evil because he lacks something: his leg. But an agent of pure actuality, or existence itself, does not by definition lack anything and is therefore wholly good.

Why cant 'evilness' be synonymous with being, or existence? Why not say the dog just lacks something instead of calling it evil?

It does appear that the use of the terms 'good' and 'evil' are really meant to confuse the issue and link this purely actual being to the already presumed to exist God. By changing the meanings of good and evil Aquinas is now able to call the being 'good' which I feel is unwarranted.

It would be like saying,

To actualize something is, in the Trollfailbot view, known as 'dying on the cross for the sins of mankind.' (BUT DIFFERENT FROM DYING ON THE CROSS LITERALLY) Therefore, if this being is the pure actualization, it follows that it died on the cross the for sins of mankind.

Its a dishonest attempt to link this actualizer with the word 'good' in order to fit preconceived notions. If, lets say, Aquinas had no notion that the God he believed in was a good God, then I highly doubt he would have added in point #9, since the good label would have been unnecessary.

7
hammiesinkOP•

By changing the meanings of good and evil Aquinas is now able to call the being 'good' which I feel is unwarranted.

What good and evil are exactly, or whether they even exist, is still quite the open question. Everyone is allowed to put forth their own theories. This is his.

3
RabornFluttershyism|Reformed Church of Molestia|Psychonaut•

I think his kind of sucks, as I could just say "Good is the absence of evil" and I think that would just be as correct as his. Everything is evil, but when it lacks evil it's good. So good is the lack of something. Any problems here?

2
hammiesinkOP•

But to say that it sucks would require you to understand his argument first, and my brief sketch does not even scratch the surface. It's a huge topic unto itself. A "good" triangle is one drawn carefully with a ruler, because it gets closer to that ideal form of triangle. A sloppy one drawn by hand is "evil" because it is farther from that ideal triangle.

2
RabornFluttershyism|Reformed Church of Molestia|Psychonaut•

But to say that it sucks would require you to understand his argument first

  1. What about his argument don't I understand?

  2. Why would i need to to arbitrarily decide what was good and evil?

  3. If ideals are the basis for what's good and evil, what happens with differing ideals?

2
dasbushCatholic | Thomist•

Rather than the problem of evil, the problem of good raises its head.

There's an assertion Thomas makes that "being = good." Such a position supported by stuff going on with the transcendentals (being, good, unity, beauty, truth), which are all synonymous terms (tautologies, essentially) for various reasons which I can't remember without doing some research. But that's the framework.

From such a premise, it follows that anything which has being is therefore good and hence evil qua evil doesn't exist. The problem of evil thus becomes a problem of privation of the good, which is something that can be handled by the theist, with great difficulty.

We should note that there are two kinds of problems of evil - the metaphysical problem and the "pastoral" problem. Thomas deals with only the metaphysical and in no way is offering a soothing explanation for someone who experiences great trials in his or her life.

1
RabornFluttershyism|Reformed Church of Molestia|Psychonaut•

I don't think good or evil exist at all, they're just what we call what is. Heat doesn't exist, nor does cold, just excitation. It's all one thing and as far as we know it never completely goes away outside of the theoretical.

I don't see anything that's "good" or "evil" only comparisons to an ideal that doesn't (demonstrably) exist and can change depending upon our knowledge. This is why I see this (reduced) definition as meaningless and personally I simply cannot grok the concept of metaphysics. It's meaningless to me, I can't even tell if the questions are worth asking let alone being answerable.

1
[deleted]•

I think it's just an actual definition of what is "good," rather than being vague appeals to a mysterious standard that are supposed to hit your emotional buttons.

What definition of "good" would you use?

1
Trollfailbotatheist•

This is fine

Argue all you want about what might be 'satisfactory' or 'morally excellent,' but it appears that the word is meant to indicate these things - something I think Aquinas knows, which is why hes trying to equivocate.

The whole premise of #9 seems to be tautological, but is concealed by the changing of words.

But an agent of pure actuality, or existence itself, does not by definition lack anything and is therefore wholly [in existence].

I substituted Hammiesinks' use of 'good' with the definition he provides. If Aquinas chooses not to come up with some definition of 'good' to fit his needs, and just uses existence, then #9 kind of looks ridiculous and redundant.

1
hammiesinkOP•

morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious

And what is morally excellent? What makes something moral? Aquinas would say living up to the closest you can to that ideal human archetype. Fullest in being.

of high quality; excellent.

Again, closer in being, or existence. More perfect. Not lacking, not having flaws.

"Good."

You really have to understand the transcendentals.

1
Trollfailbotatheist•

And what is morally excellent? What makes something moral? Aquinas would say living up to the closest you can to that ideal human archetype. Fullest in being.

The word is used to describe moral excellence. What is moral excellence? I dont know, and really dont wish to debate it.

of high quality

Again, closer in being, or existence. More perfect. Not lacking, not having flaws.

High quality = existence? What? How does that follow?

What is more perfect? Closer to perfection? How do you measure distance from perfection?

My objection with #9 is the attempt to sneak 'goodness' into the equation where it is unwarranted in order to further link this argument with the God of the Christian faith. Like I said before, the statement seems tautological until he throws in a synonym that throws people off.

2
joefluxatheist|antitheist•

And what is morally excellent? What makes something moral? Aquinas would say living up to the closest you can to that ideal human archetype.

So... God is human?

1
pconwellphysicalist | humanist•

  • Incorporeality - what definition of 'matter' and 'incorporeality' are we using here? How would 'massless' particles and light be treated here?

  • Simplicity - Why? I don't get it. No matter, no moving parts... How do we come to this conclusion?

  • Unity - really seems like a stretch to me here. To me is sounds like: "Look, a round hole, must have been a round peg that fit in there."

  • Eternity - Okay, I can agree with this. (I'm not saying I believe in it, I just understand it)

  • Immutability - Why can't it change? How do we know there is only one type of pure actuality?

  • Omnipotence - Eh, I see what you are saying - as in all powerful - but doesn't omnipotence usually mean "all powerful with a consciousness"? By your use of the word, you would call the big bang omnipotent.

  • Omniscience - Maybe I just don't understand the argument well enough, but again, this really feels like we are applying a word that doesn't really fit here. Saying love is blind is not a property of love, it's a way we describe love (which, by the way, I think that saying is a bunch of crap). I don't think you can apply the property of omnipotence to the 'pure actuality' any more than you can say that love IS EQUAL TO blind.

  • Impassibility - Er, isn't this the same thing as immutable?

  • Goodness - I feel like this is really just mincing words and crossing definitions to make the 'round hole' sound nicer. You could just as well say that it is "smorgishness" as in existing. Like a dog missing a leg is suffering from 'antismorishness' - and really, when you hammer down to the basics, is just a parrot of the omnipotence argument.

4
hammiesinkOP•

what definition of 'matter' and 'incorporeality' are we using here? How would 'massless' particles and light be treated here?

Nonphysical. Not made out of matter, energy, particles, etc. Light still moves, bounces off, etc, and is thus rife with potentialities.

Why? I don't get it. No matter, no moving parts... How do we come to this conclusion?

Complexity = lots of parts. Simple = no parts.

really seems like a stretch to me here. To me is sounds like: "Look, a round hole, must have been a round peg that fit in there."

I don't know how to explain it any better than it is. If there are "two things", then there is some way of telling them apart and hence one has a property the other lacks. Pure actuality doesn't lack anything.

Why can't it change? How do we know there is only one type of pure actuality?

Because change is the actualization of potentials, which pure actuality doesn't have.

Saying love is blind is not a property of love, it's a way we describe love (which, by the way, I think that saying is a bunch of crap).

That was just an example of analogical use of words, as opposed to univocal. See here.

I feel like this is really just mincing words and crossing definitions to make the 'round hole' sound nicer. You could just as well say that it is "smorgishness" as in existing. Like a dog missing a leg is suffering from 'antismorishness' - and really, when you hammer down to the basics, is just a parrot of the omnipotence argument.

Since good and evil are still up for grabs about what they are, Aqinas offers the privation view of evil as a lack of being.

4
pconwellphysicalist | humanist•

Complexity = lots of parts. Simple = no parts.

I get that, how do you come to the conclusion that 'pure actuality' = simplicity.

Since good and evil are still up for grabs about what they are, Aqinas offers the privation view of evil as a lack of being.

Why should I start with the premise that there is such a thing as 'good' and 'evil' in the first place. We use the words 'hot' and 'cold' to describe things, but there is no such thing as 'hot' or 'cold' other than the words humans invented to describe the relative temperatures of an object. We don't have philosophical discussions on why we have hot and cold because we understand what they are - not to mention what I call cold, a polar bear might call unbearably hot.

I think good and evil are the same thing - nothing more than human words we use to describe arbitrary and relative points on a continuum of things we 'like' and things we 'don't like'. Someone might call homosexuality evil, I would call it mostly benign. Someone else might call burning witches 'good' (because they are doing 'god's work), but I would call it evil.

2
hammiesinkOP•

I get that, how do you come to the conclusion that 'pure actuality' = simplicity.

Pure actuality = non-physical = no parts.

.Why should I start with the premise that there is such a thing as 'good' and 'evil' in the first place.

Well, that's a whole other debate. But within the context of the first way, there is a scale from act on one side to potency on the other. The fullest in act is God, and down the scale is everything less than that. In the direction of potency is "evil."

2
pconwellphysicalist | humanist•

Pure actuality = non-physical = no parts.

I don't think you can apply physical attributes to non-physical entities. It's having your cake and eating it, too. "No, no, those rules don't apply because this is a non-physical entity... but it doesn't have any physical parts, so you know, it's simple".

The fullest in act is God, and down the scale is everything less than that. In the direction of potency is "evil."

Oh, bleck, bleck, get it off me... That's... seriously, bleck. Now they are just making up crap, slapping 'feel good' words on it, and hoping the laymen don't notice the seems under the shiny veneer they call an argument.

5
Zamda•

If I may butt in at this point,I think that using the words "good" and "evil" to represent something closer to "complete" and "incomplete" is misleading. Good and evil are completely subjective terms to individuals, whereas you're applying them to something objective. People understand good and evil to be subjective, they understand morality to be subjective, but they're being applied to something completely different to what they're usually used for. This sounds more like a wordplay to get to omnibenevolence, to me.

1
timoumdAgnostic Atheist•

Omniscience

This is really the only relevant one. Otherwise all of this basically describes physics. Not that all of this isnt a huge stretch. Looks like creation science to me, know your answer and work backwards.

4
hammiesinkOP•

Otherwise all of this basically describes physics.

Energy, matter, gravity, and so forth is changeable, and hence is a mixture of potency and act.

Looks like creation science to me, know your answer and work backwards.

It's not science, it's meta-physics. The same thing as "solipsism is true" and "solipsism is false." Neither of those are science either; they are just philosophical interpretations of the world. Same here.

1
[deleted]•

"Energy, matter, gravity, and so forth is changeable, and hence is a mixture of potency and act."

Prove that it is all changeable. Also, prove there is no unchanging or 'unmoved' matter.

'potency and act' are just terms defined by aquinas or you, to suit a particular purpose, and do not reflect how the universe works.

Without proof that there is nothing within the universe that is 'unmoved' there is no reason to jump to things 'without parts' and outside of the physical universe. Defining matter in a way that assumes your conclusion is not useful.

2
LynusBorgatheist•

What he means, without omniscience (and, I want to add, without the "good" part which I find especially unconvincing), what the First way describes is nothing that I can imagine to have a conscience, and emotions for us humans, and a plan to judge us after our death and so on. And given the "analogous" nature of "omniscience" that you stressed, I wonder weither it would fit that role even if it was omniscient in the sense you defined it.

It rather sounds like a personified (for emotional or pragmatic reasons), yet totally impersonal, source of the laws of physics.

As a sidenote, I wonder where this image of reality leaves a place for free will.... guess I will write a direct answer to your thread about this tomorrow.

1
hammiesinkOP•

You have to couple it with all the other stuff as well. Included with Thomism are arguments for an immortal human soul. If successful, then that would indicate that God, being the one who sustains us in existence at all times we exist, has personal plans for us after death.

1
[deleted]•

Otherwise all of this basically describes physics.

No, it doesn't? Physics is a description of how the universe functions, not what the argument describes.

I think you just see everything that isn't science, besides what you like, as an enemy of science.

Not that all of this isnt a huge stretch. Looks like creation science to me, know your answer and work backwards.

Could you explain this? I can't see how it is vaguely related to Creationism.

-2
pconwellphysicalist | humanist•

As I said above, basically - to me - it sounds like someone found a round hole, then someone else said "Yeah! It must be a round peg that fits!". Then everyone else jumped on board and started adding "Oh, and the peg is all-knowing, because how else would it know to fit so perfectly in this hole" and then someone else said "Right! and it must be all-powerful, because it fits the hole completely and nothing else could fit in there!" and then another said "OH OH! the peg is clearly all good, because only non pegs are evil..."

5
GoodDamonIgnostic atheist|Physicalist|Blueberry muffin•

All hail the peg!

3
GoodDamonIgnostic atheist|Physicalist|Blueberry muffin•

It really is quite elegant. So much effort went into an incredibly sophisticated metaphysical framework that doesn't just logically allow for a god, but requires one. Thomas Aquinas was undeniably a thinker.

In some ways it's actually a shame that it relies so completely on the faulty physics of Aristotle. Without the act/potency formulation, nothing else stands.

4
freferfrefrefrferfrq•

You can obsess over these faulty arguments for the rest of your life, but no matter how much you break it down it still won't make your particular God exist.

3
hammiesinkOP•

Whose particular God? Do you have anything of substance to add, or just evidence-free assertions that the argument is "faulty?"

4
freferfrefrefrferfrq•

Well what's the point of all this? No matter how detailed you get into this tired argument, It's still not proof, and it still doesn't convince anyone to warrant it getting trotted out over and over again. By particular God I mean whichever one you subscribe to, and I don't have to provide evidence, since you're the one that wants this God of yours to exist.

5
dVntagnostic atheist | theological noncognitivist | anti-theist•

Hammiesink doesn't subscribe to any god but himself. We should be thankful that he bless us with his grace and majesty.

I for one look forward to the day that Hammiesink explains what's wrong with these arguments, so that I can have this knowledge handed down from on high, as the Great Prophet Aquinas handed it down to Hammiesink.

3
robrmm•

Poor Hammiesink must feel like this guy on here explaining Aquinas but I for one appreciate his explanation as I'm on here more to learn than to debate.

3
hammiesinkOP•

Do you have anything of substance to add, or just evidence-free assertions that the argument is "faulty?"

2
freferfrefrefrferfrq•

Add what? I asked you several questions, you don't need to repeat yourself.

2
Def-Star•

To sum up, given the act/potency distinction, and that no potential can actualize itself, and that an essentially ordered series must trace to a presently operative terminator, we are brought to something that is pure actuality.

Translation: Assuming a bunch of Prescientific nonsense accurately describes the universe, and assuming an irrelevent mathematical fallacy, thus made up bullshit.

Something on the "bottom" of every chain of change. In my earlier example, there would be pure actuality somewhere deep in the coal at the power plant. There is pure actuality deep in the atomic structure of every star in the heavens. And so forth.

I can't wait to hear your Nobel acceptance speech.

So what are the attributes of something that is purely actual, that drives all change and anything that happens? Aquinas draws these attributes out over the course of many later articles, the famous Five Ways serving as merely a brief summary as a sort of prologue. This article can not do justice to the entire line of thought, and so it is only a brief sketch.

Tell me, HS, what are your thoughts on Phlogiston? the Luminiferous Aether? Time Cube? Pure Actuality is a similar fantasy.

  1. Matter/energy are changeable, and hence are a mixture of potential and actual. Therefore, an agent of pure actuality is incorporeal.

Which is potential and which is actual? Is energy actual or potential? Is matter actual or potential? What is pure actual? What do you mean by "agent of pure actuality" exactly?

  1. Things composed of matter and form and actuality and potentiality are varying levels of complexity, but an agent of pure actuality has no parts, no matter, and no form, and thus is extremely simple.

How exactly is something composed of form? Of potentiality? Of actuality? What does that even mean? What is the difference between an "agent of pure actuality" and "pure actuality?" If it has no matter, no parts and no form how is it doing anything to be called an agent? An agent requires energy. Agent = action. Just because it has no moving parts, form, or matter does not mean it is not complex. It can still be extraordinarily complex, but because you have never seen, measured, studied, or truly formulated a working model, you have no idea. You are just making stuff up. Or Aquinus, whoever.

  1. The only way to tell the difference between two things is if one thing has an attribute that another lacks. With two different beings, one is to the left (say), and one is to the right. The one on the left is potentially to the right, and vice versa. Both are hence mixtures of potentiality and actuality. But an agent of pure actuality by definition has no potentialities, and thus lacks nothing, and therefore every agent of pure actuality is really the same agent. There is only one agent of pure actuality, and thus it has unity.

Thus it has potentiality because it potentially has unity therefore it is not pure actuality. What else you got?

  1. An agent of pure actuality cannot come into or go out of existence, as these are potentialities being realized. Thus, an agent of pure actuality is eternal.

Or, since it can't come into existence, it doesn't exist? That makes a lot more sense. But, just for giggles, let's say it exists and is eternal. So it's eternality is potentialized via its eternal nature compared to potentially not being a pure actual eternal. Of course, there is no reason why an agent of pure actuality shouldn't or couldn't come into or out of existence and still be purely actual if one is just inventing attributes. It is an agent so it should be able to come into or out of existence with purely actual means. Why not? What ever that means. So far, none of this means anything so it's a definition attribution free for all.

  1. An agent of pure actuality cannot change from one state to another, and so it is immutable.

Then what makes it an agent?

  1. Being the source of all change in the universe, and the source of any change that could ever logically occur, an agent of pure actuality is omnipotent.

The source of change? Exactly how does something that is immutable cause change? That's a violation of thermodynamics if I've ever heard one. But yeah, this is all prescientific time cube nonsense so who cares? Free energy for every one!

  1. This one is a bit tricky and really requires an understanding of the entire Thomistic system to do it justice, but a purely actual agent is the source of all change and everything that could ever happen or will happen.

Riiiight.

As shown in the Second Way as well, the purely actual agent is the source of the continual existence of everything.

/Eating popcorn

Thus it is the grounding of every true proposition. Therefore, it doesn't have knowledge, but it is knowledge itself.

Yeah. Gödel's Incompleteness theorem would like to have a word with you. But then again, you also exclude all false propositions and random letter propositions. What about the million monkeys typing at typewriters for a million years? Why are they excluded? This is also particularly philosopher-centric. "Only true propositions, not those other propositions by that one guy. We don't like him so he's not invited!"

Also, this is very Judeo-Christian Centric: In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was the bird, and it was angry and did smite the swine with thy holy slingshot so that it may be smoten. Aquinus wouldn't be trying to sneak Yahweh in now, would he? Nah. He'd never do that.

As Aquinas would say, it is only intelligent in the analogical sense, like saying that love is blind and Ray Charles is blind, but not in the univocal sense, like saying that stop sign is red and the firetruck is red. So, in the analogical sense, a purely actual agent is omniscient.

And that doesn't mean anything. It is intelligent by analogy? What?

  1. A being of pure actuality cannot be made to change, as that would meant that he was mixture of potential and actual. So the agent is also impassable.

All of a sudden, we go from agent to being. How did that happen? Oh yeah, just making stuff up to sneak Yahweh in without those gullible philosophers noticing.

  1. Thomism includes the view that evil is a privation of good. "Goodness" on this view does not mean just "a nice guy", but rather "goodness" is synonymous with being, or existence. The dog that is missing a leg is suffering from evil because he lacks something: his leg. But an agent of pure actuality, or existence itself, does not by definition lack anything and is therefore wholly good.

It does not lack anything? It lacks form, material, potentiality, whatever that means. It lacks complexity, apparently. I guess. It lacks the ability to come into or out of existence so it's eternal, but doesn't have form, or matter, or energy, or any thing that exists so it doesn't exist. Is this a joke? Is this proof that God does not exist? Because when you connect all the dots, it seems to say that God does not exist.

To sum up, the agent of pure actuality has the following attributes:

That it doesn't exist.

And finally, we are brought to Aquinas' last line of the First Way:

...and this everyone understands to be God.

Which Aquinus proves does not exist.

3
hammiesinkOP•

"When you have no basis for argument, abuse the plaintiff." - Cicero

3
Def-Star•

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them." ― Thomas Mother Fucking Jefferson

1
hammiesinkOP•

Then see here.

1
Def-Star•

Saw there. Pure gibberish. As I detailed.

1
pconwellphysicalist | humanist•

an essentially ordered series must trace to a presently operative terminator

Why? Why can't it be a loop?

2
hammiesinkOP•

A loop would still be all powerless members. Imagine the hand-stick-stone example. If the rock and stick went in a loop (add a few more sticks), then it would just sit there. Loop or not, the hand is needed to make the rock move.

3
pconwellphysicalist | humanist•

You need to make the loop bigger, obviously. My point is it wouldn't violate the laws of thermodynamics to have a loop within a closed system.

2
hammiesinkOP•

But these arguments also account for existence. For the thing to change, it must exist, and its existence must be actualized by something else.

3
RabornFluttershyism|Reformed Church of Molestia|Psychonaut•

According to kinematics, yes. But not all forms of physics.

2
pconwellphysicalist | humanist•

What is the explanation for radioactive decay? Nothing acts on the particles to cause them to decay.

2
[deleted]•

"But what exactly does the theist mean by saying that the parts of the universe are contingent? The theist could mean that everything properly called contingent is dependent on something else for its existence. But if this is what he means, then we have no reason to believe that the fundamental parts of the universe (which combine to form contingent things) are themselves contingent. For all we know the ultimate sub-atomic particles which compose the universe just exist, being dependent on nothing. If the theist says they depend on God, then he is assuming what he has to prove. Remember, if the theist argues that God's existence is based upon the contingent nature of the various parts comprising the universe, he must first prove that these components are contingent. The theist often responds to such a challenge by pointing out that mere sub-atomic particles may be imagined not to exist, therefore they are in some sense contingent. But what needs to be established is the dependence of such particles on something else for their actual existence, not for their existence in the imagination." http://www.sillybeliefs.com/atheist_debaters_handbook.pdf

2
simat6•

But these arguments also account for existence. For the thing to change, it must exist, and its existence must be actualized by something else.

Sounds familiar.

Why can't there be something that has always existed but can still have potential to be something else? Or going the other way. Why can't there be something that hasn't always existed that doesn't have potential to be anything else?

1
blacksheep998Strict Rationalist•

I know we've had this conversation before but I still disagree with you on this.

I see no reason why there cannot be an infinite regression of events. Whatever step we're talking about, there can always be one before it. Even if we defined 'the entire universe' as an event, there's no reason it couldn't have been kicked off by some action in either a previous universe (in a cycling universe system) or spawned by some currently unknown event in another universe.

1
hammiesinkOP•

there's no reason it couldn't have been kicked off by some action in either a previous universe (in a cycling universe system) or spawned by some currently unknown event in another universe.

See here.

1
blacksheep998Strict Rationalist•

I've seen that post before, or perhaps another one with the same argument, but still don't agree with it.

I'll confess that you're WAY more into metaphysics than I am, so that could be the source of the problem. That I'm simply not understanding something on the same level as you are. But no matter how many times you try to explain otherwise, I still have no problem whatsoever accepting the idea of an infinite regression of events with no prime mover. It is not illogical to me in the slightest.

1
simat6•

Why do all the members have to be powerless?

1
hammiesinkOP•

If it were a loop of just sticks, then there would be no hand. The rock only moves inasmuch as the hand moves. No hand, no rock movement.

1
simat6•

So the only thing with any power to initiate a chain of potentials being actualized is the first mover?

1
fernly•

Starting at the beginning I can't buy it. It's just frickin' word-play, inventing a series of terms and defining them with other empty terms.

What the bleeding heck are "actuality" and "potentiality" supposed to correspond to? He treats "potential" like a substance, an etheric fluid. Piffle. It's a vague concept introduced and then used as if its meaning were clear. But it ain't. And he has the actual being incorporeal? What's the potential, solid?

It's word-play and woo-woo to impress the peasants.

2
hammiesinkOP•

What the bleeding heck are "actuality" and "potentiality" supposed to correspond to?

It's all explained at the beginning. You can read it there.

1
fernly•

Well, let's see.

Matter/energy are changeable, and hence are a mixture of potential and actual.

The first clause is unclear: Is it matter and energy that are changeable, or the combination, or does he mean interchangeable (which Aquinas didn't know)? And what does he mean by matter, or energy, or changeable? Don't tell me he means anything like the definitions of modern physics; and frankly, I don't care what Aristotle meant by them.

And right at "hence" it turns into gobbledy-gook. How does the [inter]changeability of matter (and/or energy) demonstrate that it (they? individually or together?) are a "mixture of potential and actual"?

And what is potential and how does it "mix" with anything, let alone an undefined (and uncorporeal) "actual"?

The emperor's butt is frost-bitten from exposure.

2
hammiesinkOP•

Is it matter and energy that are changeable, or the combination, or does he mean interchangeable (which Aquinas didn't know)?

It doesn't matter. Can it change from one state to another or not? If yes, then it is a mix of act and potency.

How does the [inter]changeability of matter (and/or energy) demonstrate that it (they? individually or together?) are a "mixture of potential and actual"?

Because it's actually one way, and potentially another way. This is all explained in the first few parts of the series.

It seems like you haven't read the rest.

1
S11008•

Kind of an aside, but wouldn't the impossibility of potency actualizing itself also validate the first premise of the Kalam?

2
hammiesinkOP•

Seems like it to me! I think Feser brings that up somewhere. You should listen to his whole speech. He goes into Leibniz and Kalam, and why they are inferior.

1
S11008•

Oh shit, I entirely forgot about that. I'll have to watch the rest when I get back Sunday.

Must watch How I Met Your Mother first... true story.

1
tannatwe're here•

Matter/energy are changeable, and hence are a mixture of potential and actual. Therefore, an agent of pure actuality is incorporeal.

I guess we should not blame Aquinas for claiming this? He was not aware of energy, and the fact that it can't be changed?

Energy is conserved movement (unchangeable), movement is pure actualization in Aquinas terminology. It has always been the same and can't be said to be either actual or potential (or a mix thereof). It is the only ingredient needed for actualization, again in Aquinas terminology.

Thanks for the series. It has been an interesting insight into historical apologetic philosophy. I hope my questions have not been too annoying. It also think I understand quite clearly why it fell out of interest. I've received Fesers book though, and will take a look when time and interest allow.

1
hammiesinkOP•

Energy can be transfer from one group of molecules to the other. The actualization of a previous potential. Thus, it is a mixture of potential and actual and not fully actual.

Thanks for the series. It has been an interesting insight into historical apologetic philosophy. I hope my questions have not been too annoying.

You're welcome. Not annoying!

2
tannatwe're here•

Energy can be transfer from one group of molecules to the other. The actualization of a previous potential. Thus, it is a mixture of potential and actual and not fully actual.

That movement moves is not an actualization, I guess you mean that energy actualizes things and therefore should be a mix of the endpoints?

But energy can't be either actual or potential (items with movement), neither can it be a mix of them. Because energy is always the same, pure actualization. Energy is not a two component entity of "are", it is a one component entity of "do".

You can fill energy up in a vessel but you can never change energy. However, you change the vessel temporarily by doing it.This is what Thomism calls actualization.

To again visualize this fault in the definition, remember energy is conserved movement. Now ask yourself the question: What potential and actual can conserved movement be a mix of? - None that makes sense.

That's why I'm curious where the Thomistic definition of energy comes from. It may not be as collateral as the Thomistic motion definition but it still seems seriously wrong. This can't be Aristotle or Aquinas thinking, energy was introduced later.

2
hammiesinkOP•

But energy can't be either actual or potential (items with movement), neither can it be a mix of them.

And then:

You can fill energy up in a vessel but you can never change energy.

If you can move energy to a vessel then it was potentially in the vessel, and is now actually in the vessel. So it's a mixture of potency and act.

1
tannatwe're here•

If you can move energy to a vessel then it was potentially in the vessel, and is now actually in the vessel. So it's a mixture of potency and act.

Your energy is not compatible with universe, probably more importantly here, t isn't compatible with the Thomist definition of motion.

When you redirect ( what you call move) movement net moment change is zero. This is true globally, and in any smaller closed system.

Energy is conserved movement, location can't change energy. It is physically impossible. You may temporarily change the amount of movement in a material, and call that actualization of the material but you never change the total movement. That's what conservation means.

Claiming movement as a mix of two things (potential and actual), when it is previously (correctly) defined as a mechanism, creating the difference between them just don't sum up logically in my eyes.

But the question remains, this is not Aquinas words, energy was patched in later, by whom?

1
frontseatdoga choo-choo train•

Is this intended to describe a god or to prove the existence of a god?

1
hammiesinkOP•

Yes. Start with with part 1. Follow the links on the bottom to each part.

2
frontseatdoga choo-choo train•

Yes.

Wat? Is it the former, the latter, or does the tl;dr series attempt to do both?

1
hammiesinkOP•

Both.

1
frontseatdoga choo-choo train•

Ok. So, do you feel that it is a convincing proof for the existence of a god?

I ask because often on reddit people post arguments that they themselves don't find convincing. IMO, If an OP doesn't find an argument convincing, it's somewhat silly to initiate debate on it because the OP isn't in a position to honestly advocate for the proposition.

1
SharmaKatheist•

I don't think that the conclusion necessarily states that God exists only that there are humans who believe that their deities purport to have such properties.

All this is, as all theist arguments turn out, is completely circular and requires an initial belief in the deity being proved. And you pull in Thomism at the last minute adding extra qualities of God - "omniscient" and "good".

And when you come up with some other 'quality' that God will need you'll create some other unfounded justification for it. It's really not a very compelling argument for non-believers. It looks from here that you're just adding arguments until you get the result you want.

1
hammiesinkOP•

I'd call this DH1 or DH2.

2
SharmaKatheist•

Nope, I have shown that the structure argument is false:

  1. Already having an idea of what God should be "..and this everyone understands to be God".
  2. Bringing in two separate arguments to combine into one until all the properties of God are satisfied - 7 & 9 do not follow from the material and come from nowhere.
2
hammiesinkOP•

Genetic fallacy.

1
SharmaKatheist•

I appreciate the work you put into this but right right at the end you bring in all the conclusions plus some other work to neatly line up with your own preconception of your deity.

But if you want specific rebuttals:

  1. Just because some matter and energy are changeable it doesn't mean that it all is. There may exist some matter (or energy) that will never change from their original state.
  2. There is no direct line of argument that something that is an agent of pure actuality is simple just because it has no physical form. Complexity can determined by the different qualities something has - you already mention 7 qualities which doesn't sound 'simple' to me.
  3. "But an agent of pure actuality by definition has no potentialities, and thus lacks nothing, and therefore every agent of pure actuality is really the same agent." doesn't follow because there could still be many agents that have those qualities. Just because it lacks nothing, it doesn't follow that there can be only one agent with that quality. A multiplicity of agents that lack nothing is no less pure.
1
[deleted]•

That's a lot of words to say "no he's wrong."

When you debate, you should use arguments instead of simply saying what you believe to be true.

0
SharmaKatheist•

There is no real counter argument because I would be making something up in order to disprove something else that is made up. Instead, I am pointing out that the argument is merely a definition of what someone believes God to be as opposed to a 'proof' that there is a God.

1
[deleted]•

So you have no substance behind your words?

Why post, then?

0
SharmaKatheist•

I didn't say that. I said that there's no point dreaming up another non-existent deity or finding some new qualities that are "understood to be God" that aren't in this argument or arguing that these qualities are/aren't proper qualities of a non-existent being.

The structure of the argument:

  1. Create deity
  2. Imbue with qualities
  3. Create arguments to justify qualities

does not prove the original deity exists - it is circular. You had to have had the qualities to begin with - they are not 'discovered' during the argument process.

1
littlekappaanatheist•

So here's my issue ... and perhaps you can answer it.

How does Thomism address Agency without reducing to dualism? As far as I can tell it contains within itself a complete explanation of a Mechanistic universe, but gives no explanation as to what happens when "I" actualize a potential (a rock is potentially tossed in the water. I come along and toss it into the water), or even how "I" could exist at all ... unless it assumes that agency and existence are equivalent?

Or maybe I completely misunderstand.

1
hammiesinkOP•

It's actually the opposite of mechanism, because it also involves final causality. And final causality is what allows things such as minds, "you", and so forth to exist.

3
littlekappaanatheist•

Ah ... so I completely misunderstand then.

Let me go back to 1 and reread and I'll be back.

2
compilingatheist•

Most of these properties can only be arrived at because of the metaphysical assumptions made by Aquinas' model of reality (and some of them still don't fit).

If this argument has any basis in reality, then it will translate to modern physics/metaphysics and does not require a description in terms of outdated concepts like potentiality and actuality.

1
hammiesinkOP•

The argument is meta physical in nature. It is the same as saying that "solipsism is true" or "solipsism is false." It is entirely in the realm of philosophical interpretation. Both would line up with physics.

1
compilingatheist•

Clearly, it's not.

1
joefluxatheist|antitheist•

To sum up, given the act/potency distinction, and that no potential can actualize itself, and that an essentially ordered series must trace to a presently operative terminator, we are brought to something that is pure actuality. Something on the "bottom" of every chain of change.

Why couldn't you have something which is a mix of act and potency, but started off as that mix of act/potency, and didn't start off as just potential. Thus nothing actualized it (since it started off as something actual with potential), yet it can still change.

Likewise you could have something which was potential, was actualised but now has no further potentials. Sure something a pure actuality could have still once been potential and required something to actualize it.

1
hammiesinkOP•

Because if it started off as something purely actual, and then changed to a mix of act/potency, then while it was purely actual it had the potential to become a mix. And hence, it was never purely actual.

1
joefluxatheist|antitheist•

Sorry, I didn't mean that it started off as something purely actual. But that it started off as a mix of act/potency.

1
hammiesinkOP•

It started off as a mix of act/potency, and then changed to purely actual? Then it's potential to be purely actual was realized and, even if it never changes again, it is still a mix of act/potency.

1
joefluxatheist|antitheist•

Then it's potential to be purely actual was realized and, even if it never changes again, it is still a mix of act/potency.

Huh? Why it is still a mix of act/potency if it has no possible potential?

1
joefluxatheist|antitheist•

I edited to clarify.

1
freferfrefrefrferfrq•

What's the point of this?

1
OceanSprayminimalist•

I really dislike how you attempt to forbid discussions of these proofs' validity. Having a lively discussion in the comments section does not at all hamper the post's ability to inform. I strongly urge you to remove the NOTE.

1
Sadnotatheist•

Could an existence of complete actuality be said to lack potentiality and thus be "less" in certain respects than an existence of actuality/potentiality?

Or did I miss a bit?

1
GenericSpecialty•
  • 1: OK.
  • 2: Does that mean if "God" truly was this being, it's making things that are more complicated than itself? Really? E.g a rock is more complex than "God"? Based on what can a pure act judge its creations, if it's not as complex as they are?
  • 3a: If god lacks nothing and has everything, then doesn't that mean god is "everything"? I.e.: if god is not and cannot be whatever it is that it's actualizing, and god is not lacking anything, then god has to be that something too (as a part of god). I see you've mentioned this too in point 9: pure act is synonymous to "existence".
  • 3b: If this is true, then what exactly is it actualizing, other than itself (which is logically impossible, since pure acts can't be actualized)?
  • 4: OK.
  • 5: Isn't continuously actualizing potentialities a change itself? Or is (the trigger for) actualizing things the exact same for everything? Also, if an agent of pure actuality = existence: in what sense is existence immutable?
  • 6: Can you define omnipotence?
  • 7: Can you define omniscience? And how can you tell this agent of pure act isn't robotic? Without free will? Essentially, what you're describing here is a being that can do nothing else but the same thing (pure act, immutable) over and over again its entire existence.
  • 8: I'm not sure what you mean with impassable in this context? Can you define it?
  • 9: An agent of pure act, by definition, lacks potentiality. It also lacks complexity, if your #2 is anything to go by. It also lacks the ability to actualize things that are wholly good, logically. Going by #1, it also lacks matter/energy. It is therefore, even by Aquinas' definition/logic of "good", not wholly good at all.
1
[deleted]•

You don't have to look far to see that this is nothing less than this fellow.

With the exception of goodness (for which the argument is rather lacking) the attributes you mentioned, insofar as they are defined, could apply to any arbitrary first cause that is not a god. For example quantum fluctuation.

1
hammiesinkOP•

for which the argument is rather lacking

As I said, this is brief and doesn't do it justice. If you draw a triangle carefully on paper with a rule, and someone else draws one sloppily on a napkin, then your triangle is "good" and the other one is "bad." The second one is "bad" because it is farther away from that perfect triangle archetype, and other one is "good" because it is closer to it. That's what good and bad mean in the privation view of evil.

For example quantum fluctuation.

Quantum fluctuations are constantly changing. They are full of various potencies. Not to mention, they are not the ground of every true proposition. For example, if nothing exists (which technically is impossible, but let that pass), then the proposition "nothing exists" would be true, and "something exists" would be false. The proposition "2+2=4" would be true, and "2+2=5" would be false. And so on. Quantum fluctuations can't ground those propositions' truth values because they would even exist in that "world."

But "nothing" cannot exist. There is no logically possible world where nothing exists. Every logically possible world must contain something. But it is not necessary that that something be anything in particular. What is the common denominator to all logically possible worlds? Existence itself.

1
joefluxatheist|antitheist•

If you draw a triangle carefully on paper with a rule, and someone else draws one sloppily on a napkin, then your triangle is "good" and the other one is "bad." The second one is "bad" because it is farther away from that perfect triangle archetype, and other one is "good" because it is closer to it.

Why not say that the hastily drawn one is closer to a perfect wonky triangle, and the carefully drawn one is further away from a wonky triangle. Thus the hastily drawn one is good.

1
[deleted]•

Quantum fluctuations are constantly changing

Quantum fluctuation is a phenomenon of temporary change in energy. This phenomenon does not change.

Not to mention, they are not the ground of every true proposition.

If quantum fluctuation produced the laws of physics, and those laws of physics govern all truth statements, then by law of syllogism quantum fluctuation is the source of every true proposition.

If you draw a triangle carefully on paper with a rule, and someone else draws one sloppily on a napkin, then your triangle is "good" and the other one is "bad."

Why should arbitrary human ideals apply to the first cause?

1
hammiesinkOP•

Quantum fluctuation is a phenomenon of temporary change in energy.

Yes. Change. Not to mention it is physical: energy and particles. A mixture of act and potency.

Why should arbitrary human ideals apply to the first cause?

Thomism assumes realism of universals. If you dispute that, that's fine, but that's another debate.

1
[deleted]•

Yes. Change.

The phenomenon itself doesn't change though. You seem to be confusing its ability to change things with it itself changing.

Not to mention it is physical: energy and particles

A phenomenon or law isn't physical.

Quantum mechanics aside, just take your description of god and remove his sentience and/or intelligence, and what are you left with? A valid first cause that is not god. For example an ether or a computer.

1