Atheist response to big bang.

[Kenny]

Those are not assumptions, they are metaphysical facts.

Can you provide any metaphysical facts that prove your idea of God even exists?

Ken

[Mallz]

Most definitely. Look into Aquinas' 5 ways. And when you don't understand at first (you won't), you'll need to study the concepts you don't understand about what is explained, and then it will make sense to you.

I say you won't understand it at first, because anyone who isn't familiar with the terms used and their meaning wont. And the only person who would 'get it' by reading it straight right away, would be someone well versed in metaphysical and philosophical terminology. I didn't understand it at first and had to go looking to make sense of what was being said before continueing on to fully appreciate what is being taught. So please don't think this is an attack on you. It's complicated stuff and takes time and study and conversation.

Anyways, it's a start. Look into it, I'm positive people here, including myself would engage you further on these grounds. Although I'm a beginner in this field. Even though for more than a decade I've versed myself generally in philosophy and extremely basic metaphysical concepts, I still realized I have a LOT to learn.

[Kenny]

I googled Aquinas 5 ways and here is what I got:

St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.

Argument Analysis of the Five Ways
© 2004 Theodore Gracyk

The First Way: Argument from Motion
Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
Therefore nothing can move itself.
Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
Nothing exists prior to itself.
Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)
We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
Assume that every being is a contingent being.
For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design
We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
Most natural things lack knowledge.
But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.


My disagreements are as follows:
1) The first one; “argument from motion” #8 contradicts #6. Six says everything in motion is moved by something else. Number 8 says (paraphrasing) God is in motion and was not moved by something else. You can’t have it both ways; either everything moving requires a mover which includes God (according to #6) or God is not in motion. Of course if you are going to make an exception for God as the one this law does not apply to, (which #6 did not do) then an exception can be made for other stuff; nature, universe, or whatever a wild imagination can conjure.
2) I don’t believe mankind is qualified to make such statements as “everything that moves is moved by something else”. There is so much about the Universe that we just don’t know about. While true; this may apply to everything we currently know about the Universe, you can’t assume the laws of physics, and nature on Earth and the (comparatively) small area around earth that mankind has studied is the same for the entire Universe. That would be akin to a person going to a library for the first time, reading and studying a book then assuming all the rest of the books in the library are like the one he just studied.
The second argument; “Argument from efficient causes” I disagree that it is necessary to admit a single cause that is called God. Most consider God to be intelligent and just because something caused something else to exist doesn’t mean it is intelligent; also there could be multiple first causes.

The third argument: “argument from possibility and necessity” #10 contradicts #2. 2 say “assume that every being is a contingent being” #10 says not everything is a contingent being (referring to God) again; if an exception can be made for God it can be made for anything

The fourth argument: Graduation of being: #4 we don’t have to assume a single being that caused all goodness and perfections. It can be multiple things and it doesn’t have to be an intelligent God.

The Fifth: Design; there are many things that many things that happen by chance. Not everything that happens, is by design.

These are my objections to St Thomas Aquinas claims. So where am I going wrong?

Ken

[Jac3510]

Number 8 says (paraphrasing) God is in motion and was not moved by something else.

#8 does not say that God is in motion. It is extremely important to note exactly the opposite. God is the unmoved mover. He is pure act, but act is not motion.

Mallz has given you very good advice so far. I would advise you to pick one of these (hint: pick one of the first three; extra hint, Aquinas called the First the "most manifest" or "most obvious"--there are good reasons for that!) and go in depth from there rather than trying to discuss all five together. You are going to discover that you are unfamiliar with a lot of the language and metaphysical concepts Aquinas is working from. But, thankfully, you'll also find you can learn them sooner rather than later if you are so inclined. For everyone's confusion on what Thomas said, he actually writes in a very straightforward manner. He simply wrote within the tradition of his time, and he was able to assume a lot of background knowledge that we cannot today. For his intended readers, the definitions of motion (motus) and actuality (actus) were common knowledge. But they aren't for us, and that's why we have to ask, "Wait . . . what does he mean?"

Once you see it, though, it's impossible to unsee it.

At this point, I'm going to sit back a bit and watch the exchange. I've discussed this in great detail with others on this board and others. I'm curious to just follow.

[Mallz]

These are my objections to St Thomas Aquinas claims. So where am I going wrong?

You didn't comprehend what was being said. I was going to show that same outline to someone at work, but thought it unwise. As it is a layout, not an explanation. I challenge you to actually study what is being said, instead of assuming its meaning. But this is a good first step, now we can get our boots muddy!

As Jac mentioned, I think it would be good to start with the first. And after we have conversed to satisfaction about it, we can move on to the others...

The first one; “argument from motion” #8 contradicts #6. Six says everything in motion is moved by something else. Number 8 says (paraphrasing) God is in motion and was not moved by something else. You can’t have it both ways; either everything moving requires a mover which includes God (according to #6) or God is not in motion. Of course if you are going to make an exception for God as the one this law does not apply to, (which #6 did not do) then an exception can be made for other stuff; nature, universe, or whatever a wild imagination can conjure.

God is not the 'exception' as you say, but the producer (being pure actuality and not potentiality). If it helps, stop thinking of God as a bearded man and forget about divine revelation. This is another topic. Simply put, God is everything and everything we can not fathom in which everything is moved by and unmoving itself.
First lets talk about motion. Motion is change from one actuality (state of being), restricted by it's potentiality (inherent ability to change restricted by its essence), to another actuality (another state of being, different than the first, but does not change the essence of the being, preferably). This change occurs by an efficient cause, which is the agent of the movement.
As an example, a blue rubber ball is in essence a ball (what do you think of when I say ball? spherical) and in being, rubber and round and bouncy and blue (how this particular ball appears to be). Now there are many different potentialities that guide how this ball can change. We can paint it green to alter its being, or melt it changing its essence and altering its being. By melting it, you are changing its essence and it is no longer a ball (A deviation from what it is supposed to be, governed by its essence and being). By painting it, you are altering its being, but is in essence, still a ball.
Now, how does this movement occur? Efficient cause (the painting or melting). Something has to trigger the movement from one actuality to another actuality. My typing, right now, happens because my fingers are hitting the keyboard, which happens because my muscles are being told to relax and contract through chemical processes in our neurons which is guided by my brain which responds to my mind (multiple processes guided by the original efficient cause: my desire to type). By being a human, I have the potential to be an efficient cause to other actualities (I can paint a ball green), and to actualize an independent actuality from myself (I can birth a son, who is his own actuality).
But what about for myself? What causes my actuality to move in potentiality to another actuality. In other words, what causes me to change? Environment, people, education, trauma, etc. etc. you get the point? Even by determining yourself to change, you have to have the potential, and the actualization for it to happen. (lets say I'm really fat, I can't change it by my own will. But I can change by actualizing my potential to be skinny through the efficient cause of starving myself).
So what Aquinas is showing us, is that since nothing can be both actuality and potentiality at the same time, such as a ball can not be a ball and melted, and cannot be fully blue and fully green, and I can't be fat and skinny, there has to be an actuality that produced all the actualities in existence. This has to be pure actuality with the capability for efficient cause. This pure actuality and first efficient cause, is the unmoved mover, what we call God.

*edited for clarification

[Kenny]

These are my objections to St Thomas Aquinas claims. So where am I going wrong?

You didn't comprehend what was being said. I was going to show that same outline to someone at work, but thought it unwise. As it is a layout, not an explanation. I challenge you to actually study what is being said, instead of assuming its meaning. But this is a good first step, now we can get our boots muddy!

As Jac mentioned, I think it would be good to start with the first. And after we have conversed to satisfaction about it, we can move on to the others...

The first one; “argument from motion” #8 contradicts #6. Six says everything in motion is moved by something else. Number 8 says (paraphrasing) God is in motion and was not moved by something else. You can’t have it both ways; either everything moving requires a mover which includes God (according to #6) or God is not in motion. Of course if you are going to make an exception for God as the one this law does not apply to, (which #6 did not do) then an exception can be made for other stuff; nature, universe, or whatever a wild imagination can conjure.

God is not the 'exception' as you say, but the producer (being pure actuality and not potentiality). If it helps, stop thinking of God as a bearded man and forget about divine revelation. This is another topic. Simply put, God is everything and everything we can not fathom in which everything is moved by and unmoving itself.
First lets talk about motion. Motion is change from one actuality (state of being), restricted by it's potentiality (inherent ability to change restricted by its essence), to another actuality (another state of being, different than the first, but does not change the essence of the being, preferably). This change occurs by an efficient cause, which is the agent of the movement.
As an example, a blue rubber ball is in essence a ball (what do you think of when I say ball? spherical) and in being, rubber and round and bouncy and blue (how this particular ball appears to be). Now there are many different potentialities that guide how this ball can change. We can paint it green to alter its being, or melt it changing its essence and altering its being. By melting it, you are changing its essence and it is no longer a ball (A deviation from what it is supposed to be, governed by its essence and being). By painting it, you are altering its being, but is in essence, still a ball.
Now, how does this movement occur? Efficient cause (the painting or melting). Something has to trigger the movement from one actuality to another actuality. My typing, right now, happens because my fingers are hitting the keyboard, which happens because my muscles are being told to relax and contract through chemical processes in our neurons which is guided by my brain which responds to my mind (multiple processes guided by the original efficient cause: my desire to type). By being a human, I have the potential to be an efficient cause to other actualities (I can paint a ball green), and to actualize an independent actuality from myself (I can birth a son, who is his own actuality).
But what about for myself? What causes my actuality to move in potentiality to another actuality. In other words, what causes me to change? Environment, people, education, trauma, etc. etc. you get the point? Even by determining yourself to change, you have to have the potential, and the actualization for it to happen. (lets say I'm really fat, I can't change it by my own will. But I can change by actualizing my potential to be skinny through the efficient cause of starving myself).
So what Aquinas is showing us, is that since nothing can be both actuality and potentiality at the same time, such as a ball can not be a ball and melted, and cannot be fully blue and fully green, and I can't be fat and skinny, there has to be an actuality that produced all the actualities in existence. This has to be pure actuality with the capability for efficient cause. This pure actuality and first efficient cause, is the unmoved mover, what we call God.

*edited for clarification

If God is the unmoved mover, IOW if God is not in motion, doesn't that contridict number 3? Number 3 says "Only an actual motion can convert a potiental motion into an actual motion"

Ken

[Mallz]

Only an actual motion can convert a potiental motion into an actual motion

God is pure actuality... motion is different from actuality

[Kenny]

Only an actual motion can convert a potiental motion into an actual motion

God is pure actuality... motion is different from actuality

Aquinas is using "actual" as an adjective; you are using it as a noun. Aquinas is claiming God is in motion. Do you disagree with this claim?

Ken

[Mallz]

NO, he is not. Aquinas is saying

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

What does
put in motion by no other
Mean?

[Kenny]

NO, he is not. Aquinas is saying

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

What does
put in motion by no other
Mean?

I'm talking about the 3rd claim of his "argument from motion"; not his 8th claim.

K

[Mallz]

I'm in a work stretch right now (12 hour night shifts) so I haven't been as active on this thread as I'd like. But let me post now to re-direct where our conversation needs to go.

I'm talking about the 3rd claim of his "argument from motion"; not his 8th claim.

Ahh, I see the problem now. This is why an outline and paraphrase of Aquinas shouldn't have been used for discussion to begin with.

Aquinas is using "actual" as an adjective; you are using it as a noun. Aquinas is claiming God is in motion. Do you disagree with this claim?

Let's actually use the words of Aquinas then, OK?

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

If you still think Aquinas is saying God is in motion, then make your argument based off of his words. Let me know and we'll continue from there.

[Kenny]

I'm in a work stretch right now (12 hour night shifts) so I haven't been as active on this thread as I'd like. But let me post now to re-direct where our conversation needs to go.

I'm talking about the 3rd claim of his "argument from motion"; not his 8th claim.

Ahh, I see the problem now. This is why an outline and paraphrase of Aquinas shouldn't have been used for discussion to begin with.

Aquinas is using "actual" as an adjective; you are using it as a noun. Aquinas is claiming God is in motion. Do you disagree with this claim?

Let's actually use the words of Aquinas then, OK?

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

If you still think Aquinas is saying God is in motion, then make your argument based off of his words. Let me know and we'll continue from there.

In that summary, he does not discount the claim that God is capable of movement.

Ken
PS Doesn't Exodus 33:22-23 suggest that God moved?

[Mallz]

In that summary, he does not make the claim that God is in motion. He is actually stating God is not in motion, the unmoving mover. God can put things into motion. In other words, the pure actuality can actualize potentialities.

You are still not using the the term 'motion' as Aquinas defines. It is much more than locomotion.

And BTW, I'm not sure why you are quoting scripture, because we are talking metaphysics on the 1st way of Aquinas.
Exodus 33:22-23; that is describing Gods presence. And it is using figurative language. For example, God doesn't have an actual hand like you and I do. Regardless, it has no place in this discussion for two reasons. First, it is not talking about motion as Aquinas defines, and second, that verse is coming from a divine revelation. And we are discussing metaphysics, right?

If you have found a hole in the reasoning of the first way by the words of Aquinas, then let me know, and we'll continue from there. If not, then we can continue on.

[Kenny]

In that summary, he does not make the claim that God is in motion. He is actually stating God is not in motion, the unmoving mover. God can put things into motion. In other words, the pure actuality can actualize potentialities.

Where did he say God is the Unmoved mover? Where does he say God is immobile? I am not seeing this.

Ken

[Mallz]

Where did he say God is the Unmoved mover?

"Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other;"
He states it at the end. And explains it throughout the paragraph. Motion, defined by Aquinas is "nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality".
I don't know if you are fully comprehending the term motion still. Tell me in your own words what 'the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality' means?

Where does he say God is immobile?

He moves everything, but is Himself unmoveable, again see the first quote by Aquinas above. Mobility in the sense of locomotion is not the right way to think of motion. Motion encompasses much more than locomotion. Motion is change. But again, explain to me in your own words the quote above so I can better understand where you are coming from (the quote how Aquinas defines motion).