Audie: First Cause discussion (moved from Shroud thread)

[Jac3510]

Continued from here, so as not to derail the Shroud thread.

Im aware of the assertion about "first cause" but I dont see anything there but assertion and artibrary definition.

It is not arbitrary. It is necessary from the logic that gets us to the FC in the first place. We've invited you many times to consider it . . . can you concede that it seems arbitrary to you precisely because you haven't worked your way through the logic yet?

(I did say, "cause itself to move" btw)

The First Cause (or, if we aren't going to mix our language here, the Prime Mover) does not move at all, much less does it move itself. That, by the way, is an essential part of the argument--explicitly stated in the second premise: "that which is moved is moved by another."

[Audie]

I seem to be able to trundle about on my own.

And how the heck would you or anyone know that a theoretical god does or can do?

Anyway, if you or someone would like to post a summary of the aristotle / aquinas argument, I'd appreciate seeing it.

[PaulSacramento]

I seem to be able to trundle about on my own.

And how the heck would you or anyone know that a theoretical god does or can do?

Anyway, if you or someone would like to post a summary of the aristotle / aquinas argument, I'd appreciate seeing it.

The whole point of "theorizing" about God is to come to the conclusion that IF a being that IS God exists, what is "He"?
The unmoved mover or First Cause arguments are very good in the logical reasoning department in that regard.

How can anyone know what God can or does?
We can't know FULLY because we are limited by our intellect and ability to reason BUT the argument goes that we can know sufficiently based on our ability to reason and our intellect.

[Byblos]

And how the heck would you or anyone know that a theoretical god does or can do?

As it turns out, a lot (and from reason alone). But baby steps, before we can say what we do or don't know about God, we must first show He indeed exists.

Anyway, if you or someone would like to post a summary of the aristotle / aquinas argument, I'd appreciate seeing it.

Sure (see below). A word of caution though, there are literally hundreds of books dedicated to Aquinas' arguments for God. The arguments themselves (as part of his Summa Theologica) were developed over several years and go into great, great detail in not only laying the logical groundwork for the arguments but also in answering common objections.

The argument from motion:
1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4. 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).
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Yet another word of caution (so as to not waste your time arguing against something Aquinas did not intend), there are two types of motion commonly known as accidentally ordered series (i.e. temporal) and essentially ordered series (i.e. dependency, motion in the here and now). Aquinas is referring to the latter (particularly poignant in 7), not the former.

Here's a link with a summary of Aquinas' five ways.

Edit: The first link I posted didn't work for some reason (in case someone clicked on it already).

[Jac3510]

Good summary, Byblos. I would only slightly change (3) in your rendering like so:

• 3. Only that which is in act can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

Rather than

• 3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

I know you are aware of the reasons for that clarification.

fdit:

You might consider the following rephrasing:

• 1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
  2. Things move when their potentiality is actualized.
  3. Only that which is already in act can actualize any given potentiality

The rest follows pretty easily, I think.

I would also point out to Audie that "motion" here means "change" and not merely "movement from one place to another" as it is commonly used today.

[Byblos]

Thanks Jac.

So here it is again a bit more refined to avoid confusion:

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. Things move when their potentiality is actualized.
3. Only that which is already in act can actualize any given potentiality
4. 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).
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.