Atheist response to big bang.

[Kenny]

Mallz:"
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other

Ken
I misspoke. I meant to say, where does it say God is immobile, that he does not move?


Mallz:
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

Ken
Is English Aquinas first language? Because in English, motion is to not be still. What you seem to be describing sounds like “Change”. A picture can hang on a wall and go from potential change to actual change after the sun hits it enough times causing it to fade, but that is not movement; that is just change.

Mallz
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?

Ken
Potential means it is currently still but may move if interrupted by an outside moving force. Actual means it is moving. For God to be the unmoved mover, means God causes things to move but he himself was never interrupted by an outside force; he moved on his own.

Mallz
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)

Ken
For the sake of this conversation, if you wish to define motion/movement as the same as change, I am willing to accept that. Of course that would mean the dead guy lying in the coffin is moving because his body is decomposing which is a change, the picture hanging on the wall hit by sunlight is moving when it fades; but rather than quibble over semantics, let’s assume movement = change.


Ken

[Mallz]

You are starting to get it!

Is English Aquinas first language?

Nope, its Latin

Because in English, motion is to not be still.

Whenever you want to understand what someone is talking about, you have to use the terms the way they define them. And the meaning of words change throughout time. You understand what I am saying right now because we share the same understanding of the meaning of the words by how we were taught in this time and society. As I warned at the beginning 'I say you won't understand it at first, because anyone who isn't familiar with the terms used and their meaning wont.'

A picture can hang on a wall and go from potential change to actual change after the sun hits it enough times causing it to fade, but that is not movement; that is just change.

I'm glad you said this, it means you are starting to understand what Aquinas is talking about. However, to make your sentence true, it would have to be changed to: 'A picture can hang on a wall and its potentiality be reduced to another actuality by the sun hitting it enough times and that new actuality is a faded picture'.
Motion is this type of change how Aquinas defines. The picture has the potential to fade, it is at first in all actuality a clear picture. Then reduced by the efficient cause of the sun shinning on it over a period of time, to a new actuality: as a faded picture, which it had the potential to become.

Potential means it is currently still but may move if interrupted by an outside moving force. Actual means it is moving.

Nope, this is not what Aquinas is saying. And I have to point out again that Aquinas is the authority of what he is saying. Not you, not me. So when you say 'For the sake of this conversation, if you wish to define motion/movement as the same as change, I am willing to accept that' it makes me think you still are not being intellectually honest or serious about studying metaphysics. Again it is not how I define motion. It is not how you choose to define motion. It is how Aquinas defines motion. To put your own meanings behind his words is to create your own argument, not the one Aquinas is proposing. And then to refute it is to create a straw man.

Of course that would mean the dead guy lying in the coffin is moving because his body is decomposing which is a change, the picture hanging on the wall hit by sunlight is moving when it fades

Exactly right.

but rather than quibble over semantics, let’s assume movement = change.

On the contrary, understanding the lexical semantics of what is being said is necessary to discern meaning. We don't get to assume meanings to words, there is no truth in that. To understand language, you have to understand the terms used. We so far have yet to make progress on the 1st way of Aquinas, because of a misunderstanding of what words mean which changes what is being said.

Potential means it is currently still but may move if interrupted by an outside moving force. Actual means it is moving'

Potential has nothing to do with 'staying still', but more to do with what it is capable of becoming.
Actual is not motion; it is the exact opposite, non-motion. That decomposing body is actually a corpse and has the potential to become decomposed goo. And by an efficient cause (something outside of itself effecting an actual state), it will then move to a different actuality. Actuality is a state of existence.

[Kenny]

Mallz
Nope, this is not what Aquinas is saying. And I have to point out again that Aquinas is the authority of what he is saying. Not you, not me. So when you say 'For the sake of this conversation, if you wish to define motion/movement as the same as change, I am willing to accept that' it makes me think you still are not being intellectually honest or serious about studying metaphysics. Again it is not how I define motion. It is not how you choose to define motion. It is how Aquinas defines motion. To put your own meanings behind his words is to create your own argument, not the one Aquinas is proposing.

Ken
So how does Aquinas define motion?

Mallz
Potential has nothing to do with 'staying still', but more to do with what it is capable of becoming.
Actual is not motion; it is the exact opposite, non-motion. That decomposing body is actually a corpse and has the potential to become decomposed goo. And by an efficient cause (something outside of itself effecting an actual state), it will then move to a different actuality. Actuality is a state of existence.

Ken
When I defined potential as “staying still” and actual as “motion” I was speaking in the context of our conversation which was movement vs non movement. Speaking in that context, do you still disagree with how I defined the words?

Ken

[Mallz]

I'm confused on how you have drawn the conclusion that '..potential as “staying still” and actual as “motion”..' from our context in the conversation of movement vs non movement. I disagree with your conclusion, yes. But the clarity of the subject matter might be a failing on my part.

Could you explain to me how you have drawn this conclusion based off our conversation?

And thank you for the way you responded in your last post, it shows me sincerity coming from you

[Kenny]

I'm confused on how you have drawn the conclusion that '..potential as “staying still” and actual as “motion”..' from our context in the conversation of movement vs non movement. I disagree with your conclusion, yes. But the clarity of the subject matter might be a failing on my part.

Could you explain to me how you have drawn this conclusion based off our conversation?

And thank you for the way you responded in your last post, it shows me sincerity coming from you

The subject at hand is movement vs non movement/ the unmoved mover. I defined potential as something that has the potential to move which means it is not currently moving. I defined actual as the opposite; something that is currently/actually moving. Of course I describe these terms as adjectives because that is the only way I know them to be used.
Obviously I missed the mark on this one so perhaps you can define the words in the context of the conversation at hand; movement vs non movement.

Ken

[Byblos]

I'm confused on how you have drawn the conclusion that '..potential as “staying still” and actual as “motion”..' from our context in the conversation of movement vs non movement. I disagree with your conclusion, yes. But the clarity of the subject matter might be a failing on my part.

Could you explain to me how you have drawn this conclusion based off our conversation?

And thank you for the way you responded in your last post, it shows me sincerity coming from you

The subject at hand is movement vs non movement/ the unmoved mover. I defined potential as something that has the potential to move which means it is not currently moving. I defined actual as the opposite; something that is currently/actually moving. Of course I describe these terms as adjectives because that is the only way I know them to be used.
Obviously I missed the mark on this one so perhaps you can define the words in the context of the conversation at hand; movement vs non movement.

Ken

Kenny, the difference between how you're defining motion and how Aquinas actually defined it and meant to use it in the first way is the difference between an accidentally ordered series (your definition) and an essentially ordered series (Aquinas'). Unless and until you understand Aquinas' version you'd be arguing a straw man.

P.S. Accidentally ordered series is a father begetting a son. The father doesn't have to continue existing for the son to exist. An essentially ordered series is here and now. An extension cord, no matter how long (even if you postulate an infinite length, which is absurd but I will grant you the postulate), necessarily MUST terminate in an outlet somewhere, otherwise there'd no electricity and no power. Here and now, that's Aquinas' meaning of motion.

[Kenny]

I'm confused on how you have drawn the conclusion that '..potential as “staying still” and actual as “motion”..' from our context in the conversation of movement vs non movement. I disagree with your conclusion, yes. But the clarity of the subject matter might be a failing on my part.

Could you explain to me how you have drawn this conclusion based off our conversation?

And thank you for the way you responded in your last post, it shows me sincerity coming from you

The subject at hand is movement vs non movement/ the unmoved mover. I defined potential as something that has the potential to move which means it is not currently moving. I defined actual as the opposite; something that is currently/actually moving. Of course I describe these terms as adjectives because that is the only way I know them to be used.
Obviously I missed the mark on this one so perhaps you can define the words in the context of the conversation at hand; movement vs non movement.

Ken

Kenny, the difference between how you're defining motion and how Aquinas actually defined it and meant to use it in the first way is the difference between an accidentally ordered series (your definition) and an essentially ordered series (Aquinas'). Unless and until you understand Aquinas' version you'd be arguing a straw man.

P.S. Accidentally ordered series is a father begetting a son. The father doesn't have to continue existing for the son to exist. An essentially ordered series is here and now. An extension cord, no matter how long (even if you postulate an infinite length, which is absurd but I will grant you the postulate), necessarily MUST terminate in an outlet somewhere, otherwise there'd no electricity and no power. Here and now, that's Aquinas' meaning of motion.

So accidental is like an object in outter space where as if it is struck by a moving object, it will move eternally until directed by something else; and essentially is like said object here on Earth where a constant source of power is required for it to remain in motion. Is that correct?

K

[Byblos]

So accidental is like an object in outter space where as if it is struck by a moving object, it will move eternally until directed by something else; and essentially i like said object here on Earth where a constant source of power is required for it to remain in motion. Is that correct?

Correct. An accidentally ordered series can, theoretically, extend infinitely into the past. It is meaningless to speak of an essentially ordered series extending into the past because it is here and now.

[Kenny]

So accidental is like an object in outter space where as if it is struck by a moving object, it will move eternally until directed by something else; and essentially i like said object here on Earth where a constant source of power is required for it to remain in motion. Is that correct?

Correct. An accidentally ordered series can, theoretically, extend infinitely into the past. It is meaningless to speak of an essentially ordered series extending into the past because it is here and now.

What I said did not dispute that. I said "potential" means it can move if interrupted by an outside force; "actual" means it is currently moving.

Ken

[Byblos]

So accidental is like an object in outter space where as if it is struck by a moving object, it will move eternally until directed by something else; and essentially i like said object here on Earth where a constant source of power is required for it to remain in motion. Is that correct?

Correct. An accidentally ordered series can, theoretically, extend infinitely into the past. It is meaningless to speak of an essentially ordered series extending into the past because it is here and now.

What I said did not dispute that. I said "potential" means it can move if interrupted by an outside force; "actual" means it is currently moving.

Ken

I don't know what you're getting at but Aquinas uses act and potency in a very precise way. He in fact produced volumes in defense of his argument and his conclusion is that what is moved must be moved by another but the (essential) series cannot go forever. Therefore an unmoved mover is necessary. So no, "actual" as in pure act with no potential does not mean it is moving. It is contradictory to what Aquinas is saying.

[Kenny]

So accidental is like an object in outter space where as if it is struck by a moving object, it will move eternally until directed by something else; and essentially i like said object here on Earth where a constant source of power is required for it to remain in motion. Is that correct?

Correct. An accidentally ordered series can, theoretically, extend infinitely into the past. It is meaningless to speak of an essentially ordered series extending into the past because it is here and now.

What I said did not dispute that. I said "potential" means it can move if interrupted by an outside force; "actual" means it is currently moving.

Ken

I don't know what you're getting at but Aquinas uses act and potency in a very precise way. He in fact produced volumes in defense of his argument and his conclusion is that what is moved must be moved by another

That's what I said! When I said "may be moved if interupted by an outside moving source" that is the same as moved by another!

but the (essential) series cannot go forever. Therefore an unmoved mover is necessary.

Again, that's what I said! I said; "God causes things to move, but he himself was never interupted by an outside source, he moves on his own.

So no, "actual" as in pure act with no potential does not mean it is moving. It is contradictory to what Aquinas is saying.

I did not address that question; but it sounds like we agree more than we disagree; yes? If not; how would Aquinas define the terms "actual" and "potiential" in the context of movement vs non movement

Ken

[Byblos]

Again, that's what I said! I said; "God causes things to move, but he himself was never interupted by an outside source, he moves on his own.

The underlined is where you are going wrong. Nowhere does Aquinas say God 'moves' on his own. Pure actuality entails the reduction of potential to actual but does not entail self-reduction from potential to actual simply because that's a contradiction in terms. It is pure actuality which contains no potential to be reduced, ergo no movement of any kind. It is in fact why from reason we can surmise one of God's attributes being changelessness (the anti-movement, lol).

So no, "actual" as in pure act with no potential does not mean it is moving. It is contradictory to what Aquinas is saying.

I did not address that question; but it sounds like we agree more than we disagree; yes? .

For the most part, yes, until we get to God himself having 'movement', that's where you're diverging.

If not; how would Aquinas define the terms "actual" and "potiential" in the context of movement vs non movement.

Even this is but a summary. I would strongly suggest you get one of 2 books (preferably both). The Last Superstition or Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide, both books by the same author Edward Feser.

[Kenny]

Again, that's what I said! I said; "God causes things to move, but he himself was never interupted by an outside source, he moves on his own.

The underlined is where you are going wrong. Nowhere does Aquinas say God 'moves' on his own. Pure actuality entails the reduction of potential to actual but does not entail self-reduction from potential to actual simply because that's a contradiction in terms. It is pure actuality which contains no potential to be reduced, ergo no movement of any kind. It is in fact why from reason we can surmise one of God's attributes being changelessness (the anti-movement, lol).

So no, "actual" as in pure act with no potential does not mean it is moving. It is contradictory to what Aquinas is saying.

I did not address that question; but it sounds like we agree more than we disagree; yes? .

For the most part, yes, until we get to God himself having 'movement', that's where you're diverging.

If not; how would Aquinas define the terms "actual" and "potiential" in the context of movement vs non movement.

Even this is but a summary. I would strongly suggest you get one of 2 books (preferably both). The Last Superstition or Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide, both books by the same author Edward Feser.

Okay I think I got it. God does not move, but he causes things to move. Is that correct? If so, how does this metaphysically prove the existence of God?

Ken

[Byblos]

Okay I think I got it. God does not move, but he causes things to move. Is that correct? If so, how does this metaphysically prove the existence of God?

Because without an unmoved prime mover nothing moves (remember, essentially ordered series).

P.S. One of the reasons Aquinas did not argue for change in time is precisely because he believed that the universe cannot be shown to have had a beginning from reason alone. So his argument works even if the universe (or time) is eternal (though he did not believe it to be).

[Jac3510]

Okay I think I got it. God does not move, but he causes things to move. Is that correct? If so, how does this metaphysically prove the existence of God?

Because without an unmoved prime mover nothing moves (remember, essentially ordered series).

Right, and more strictly, what it actually shows is that the First Mover (that must exist by necessity; no atheist can logically deny that--what they could argue, at least were it not for this argument, is that there are many boring and trivial first movers, like you or me) is Pure Act; that is, the argument proves that the First Mover has absolutely no potentiality in it whatsoever. Therefore, whatever the atheist posits as a first mover, we can ask, "does this so-called first mover have any potentiality." If so, it is not the actual first mover. But any first mover that is Pure Act can be called nothing less than God.

Once again, carry on.