Is Christianity and Belief in God RATIONAL?

[PaulSacramento]

Logical proof? By all means; what logical proof do you have?

How do you distinguish between two things?

[Kenny]

So Aquinas leaves open the possibility that some things other than God could be eternal?

It's not that he left it as a possibility (as in probability) because he believed it. It's that he thought it could not be proven logically (quite rightly) so he never bothered with it, particularly when it is rather irrelevant to his 5 ways.

If something other than God existed eternally and could be considered an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover, etc. etc. you're telling me that would be irrelevant to his 5 ways?

So, the thing is that the uncaused cause and unmoved mover is just PART of the argument.
Aquinas knew that you can't prove an absolute negative ( other than a logical contradiction), so he didn't say that.
However, while he leaves opne the possibility of something else being eternal, he address that issue of that when he moves into the realm of actuality and potentiality in the unmoved mover/unchanged changer argument and there, quite logically and easily, he makes it clear that you can only have ONE unmoved mover ( or more correctly one unactualized actualizer - Pure ACT- Pure Omnipotence).

How does he show this?

[Kenny]

Logical proof? By all means; what logical proof do you have?

How do you distinguish between two things?

By use of my 5 senses.

[Byblos]

So Aquinas leaves open the possibility that some things other than God could be eternal?

It's not that he left it as a possibility (as in probability) because he believed it. It's that he thought it could not be proven logically (quite rightly) so he never bothered with it, particularly when it is rather irrelevant to his 5 ways.

If something other than God existed eternally and could be considered an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover, etc. etc. you're telling me that would be irrelevant to his 5 ways?

So, the thing is that the uncaused cause and unmoved mover is just PART of the argument.
Aquinas knew that you can't prove an absolute negative ( other than a logical contradiction), so he didn't say that.
However, while he leaves opne the possibility of something else being eternal, he address that issue of that when he moves into the realm of actuality and potentiality in the unmoved mover/unchanged changer argument and there, quite logically and easily, he makes it clear that you can only have ONE unmoved mover ( or more correctly one unactualized actualizer - Pure ACT- Pure Omnipotence).

How does he show this?

The first step is to define what change is. This analysis is a great start. The conclusion is such that for any change to occur (any potential to be actualized) it must be put in act by something already in act. But if that something that is already in act is itself a mixture of potentiality and actuality, it too must be put in act by something else that's already in act. This series (essentially order causal series, not accidental or temporal) cannot go on forever since then no change will occur. Therefore, the conclusion of the argument from motion is that an unmoved mover is required for any change to occur (any reduction of potential to act).

This conclusion of course doesn't say anything just yet about the uniqueness of such unmoved mover. All it says is that it must be pure act with no potentiality whatsoever.

Logical proof? By all means; what logical proof do you have?

How do you distinguish between two things?

By use of my 5 senses.

Good. So let's have a little sensory experiment. If I were to tell you I know of identical twins who, not only are identical biologically, but also can never be seen apart. Not that if one is visible, the other is hidden; it is that it is not possible to see them separately. In other words, they occupy the same spacetime from one moment to the next for all time. What would your five senses conclude about the identical twins?

[Kenny]

It's not that he left it as a possibility (as in probability) because he believed it. It's that he thought it could not be proven logically (quite rightly) so he never bothered with it, particularly when it is rather irrelevant to his 5 ways.

If something other than God existed eternally and could be considered an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover, etc. etc. you're telling me that would be irrelevant to his 5 ways?

So, the thing is that the uncaused cause and unmoved mover is just PART of the argument.
Aquinas knew that you can't prove an absolute negative ( other than a logical contradiction), so he didn't say that.
However, while he leaves opne the possibility of something else being eternal, he address that issue of that when he moves into the realm of actuality and potentiality in the unmoved mover/unchanged changer argument and there, quite logically and easily, he makes it clear that you can only have ONE unmoved mover ( or more correctly one unactualized actualizer - Pure ACT- Pure Omnipotence).

How does he show this?

The first step is to define what change is. This analysis is a great start. The conclusion is such that for any change to occur (any potential to be actualized) it must be put in act by something already in act. But if that something that is already in act is itself a mixture of potentiality and actuality, it too must be put in act by something else that's already in act. This series (essentially order causal series, not accidental or temporal) cannot go on forever since then no change will occur. Therefore, the conclusion of the argument from motion is that an unmoved mover is required for any change to occur (any reduction of potential to act).

This conclusion of course doesn't say anything just yet about the uniqueness of such unmoved mover. All it says is that it must be pure act with no potentiality whatsoever.

Again; why is it only possible for only one thing to be pure act?

Logical proof? By all means; what logical proof do you have?

How do you distinguish between two things?

By use of my 5 senses.

Good. So let's have a little sensory experiment. If I were to tell you I know of identical twins who, not only are identical biologically, but also can never be seen apart. Not that if one is visible, the other is hidden; it is that it is not possible to see them separately. In other words, they occupy the same spacetime from one moment to the next for all time. What would your five senses conclude about the identical twins?

That you were lying; because what you are describing sounds impossible.

[PaulSacramento]

Again; why is it only possible for only one thing to be pure act?

Perfect question.

For something to be pure Act it means it has NO potentiality, or no potential left to be actualized.
That means it isn't "missing" anything, it must be ALL powerful, Everywhere and ALL knowing ( able to act on everything, anywhere that can be acted on).
With me so far?
Now, if there was another thing of pure ACT how would you distinguish between them?

[Kenny]

Again; why is it only possible for only one thing to be pure act?

Perfect question.

For something to be pure Act it means it has NO potentiality, or no potential left to be actualized.
That means it isn't "missing" anything, it must be ALL powerful, Everywhere and ALL knowing ( able to act on everything, anywhere that can be acted on).
With me so far?
Now, if there was another thing of pure ACT how would you distinguish between them?

I think I see where you're getting at; so a single pure act would have to be capable of all possible acts, to include occupy the same time space; and if there were multiple pure acts, they would all have to be capable of all acts to include occupying the same time space which would make them indistinguishable from each other. Is this correct? Or am I misunderstanding you.

[PaulSacramento]

Again; why is it only possible for only one thing to be pure act?

Perfect question.

For something to be pure Act it means it has NO potentiality, or no potential left to be actualized.
That means it isn't "missing" anything, it must be ALL powerful, Everywhere and ALL knowing ( able to act on everything, anywhere that can be acted on).
With me so far?
Now, if there was another thing of pure ACT how would you distinguish between them?

I think I see where you're getting at; so a single pure act would have to be capable of all possible acts, to include occupy the same time space; and if there were multiple pure acts, they would all have to be capable of all acts to include occupying the same time space which would make them indistinguishable from each other. Is this correct? Or am I misunderstanding you.

Pretty much.
To distinguish one thing from another there has to be a difference and that means that one thing must have or lack something that the other has and if that is the case then that thing can't be a ting of pure ACT.
In short, there can only be ONE thing that is pure ACT because another thing would have to be Lacking something ( it can't have something more since as thing of pure ACT lacks nothing) to make it distinguishable.

[Byblos]

Again; why is it only possible for only one thing to be pure act?

Perfect question.

For something to be pure Act it means it has NO potentiality, or no potential left to be actualized.
That means it isn't "missing" anything, it must be ALL powerful, Everywhere and ALL knowing ( able to act on everything, anywhere that can be acted on).
With me so far?
Now, if there was another thing of pure ACT how would you distinguish between them?

I think I see where you're getting at; so a single pure act would have to be capable of all possible acts, to include occupy the same time space; and if there were multiple pure acts, they would all have to be capable of all acts to include occupying the same time space which would make them indistinguishable from each other. Is this correct? Or am I misunderstanding you.

Pretty much.
To distinguish one thing from another there has to be a difference and that means that one thing must have or lack something that the other has and if that is the case then that thing can't be a ting of pure ACT.
In short, there can only be ONE thing that is pure ACT because another thing would have to be Lacking something ( it can't have something more since as thing of pure ACT lacks nothing) to make it distinguishable.

And if they are indistinguishable in every respect (as in the example of my identical twins) then by definition they are not two, but in fact one and the same.

[Kenny]

Again; why is it only possible for only one thing to be pure act?

Perfect question.

For something to be pure Act it means it has NO potentiality, or no potential left to be actualized.
That means it isn't "missing" anything, it must be ALL powerful, Everywhere and ALL knowing ( able to act on everything, anywhere that can be acted on).
With me so far?
Now, if there was another thing of pure ACT how would you distinguish between them?

I think I see where you're getting at; so a single pure act would have to be capable of all possible acts, to include occupy the same time space; and if there were multiple pure acts, they would all have to be capable of all acts to include occupying the same time space which would make them indistinguishable from each other. Is this correct? Or am I misunderstanding you.

Pretty much.
To distinguish one thing from another there has to be a difference and that means that one thing must have or lack something that the other has and if that is the case then that thing can't be a ting of pure ACT.
In short, there can only be ONE thing that is pure ACT because another thing would have to be Lacking something ( it can't have something more since as thing of pure ACT lacks nothing) to make it distinguishable.

And if they are indistinguishable in every respect (as in the example of my identical twins) then by definition they are not two, but in fact one and the same.

I can understand your point that if there is a single first cause, he needs to be capable of all possible acts, but if we assume multiple first causes, none of them need to be capable of all possible acts so long as all possible acts are covered by at least one of the multiples uncaused causes; right?

[PaulSacramento]

Again; why is it only possible for only one thing to be pure act?

Perfect question.

For something to be pure Act it means it has NO potentiality, or no potential left to be actualized.
That means it isn't "missing" anything, it must be ALL powerful, Everywhere and ALL knowing ( able to act on everything, anywhere that can be acted on).
With me so far?
Now, if there was another thing of pure ACT how would you distinguish between them?

I think I see where you're getting at; so a single pure act would have to be capable of all possible acts, to include occupy the same time space; and if there were multiple pure acts, they would all have to be capable of all acts to include occupying the same time space which would make them indistinguishable from each other. Is this correct? Or am I misunderstanding you.

Pretty much.
To distinguish one thing from another there has to be a difference and that means that one thing must have or lack something that the other has and if that is the case then that thing can't be a ting of pure ACT.
In short, there can only be ONE thing that is pure ACT because another thing would have to be Lacking something ( it can't have something more since as thing of pure ACT lacks nothing) to make it distinguishable.

And if they are indistinguishable in every respect (as in the example of my identical twins) then by definition they are not two, but in fact one and the same.

I can understand your point that if there is a single first cause, he needs to be capable of all possible acts, but if we assume multiple first causes, none of them need to be capable of all possible acts so long as all possible acts are covered by at least one of the multiples uncaused causes; right?

How would you distinguish multiple first causes ( I mean, even the term multiple FIRST causes seems illogical)?
Since the first caused MUST be uncaused and that would make it pure ACT, we are back to the issue above, which is you can't have more than one thing that is pure ACT.
If, as you say, "all possible acts are covered by at least one of the multiple uncaused causes", that would mean that, this PARTICULAR uncaused cause MUSt be pure ACT, which means only THAT ONE is Pure ACT and as such, only THAT ONE is uncaused since only something that is pure ACT can be uncaused ( Eternal, ALL powerful, ALL knowing, ALL present)

[Kenny]

Again; why is it only possible for only one thing to be pure act?

Perfect question.

For something to be pure Act it means it has NO potentiality, or no potential left to be actualized.
That means it isn't "missing" anything, it must be ALL powerful, Everywhere and ALL knowing ( able to act on everything, anywhere that can be acted on).
With me so far?
Now, if there was another thing of pure ACT how would you distinguish between them?

I think I see where you're getting at; so a single pure act would have to be capable of all possible acts, to include occupy the same time space; and if there were multiple pure acts, they would all have to be capable of all acts to include occupying the same time space which would make them indistinguishable from each other. Is this correct? Or am I misunderstanding you.

Pretty much.
To distinguish one thing from another there has to be a difference and that means that one thing must have or lack something that the other has and if that is the case then that thing can't be a ting of pure ACT.
In short, there can only be ONE thing that is pure ACT because another thing would have to be Lacking something ( it can't have something more since as thing of pure ACT lacks nothing) to make it distinguishable.

And if they are indistinguishable in every respect (as in the example of my identical twins) then by definition they are not two, but in fact one and the same.

I can understand your point that if there is a single first cause, he needs to be capable of all possible acts, but if we assume multiple first causes, none of them need to be capable of all possible acts so long as all possible acts are covered by at least one of the multiples uncaused causes; right?

How would you distinguish multiple first causes ( I mean, even the term multiple FIRST causes seems illogical)?
Since the first caused MUST be uncaused and that would make it pure ACT, we are back to the issue above, which is you can't have more than one thing that is pure ACT.
If, as you say, "all possible acts are covered by at least one of the multiple uncaused causes", that would mean that, this PARTICULAR uncaused cause MUSt be pure ACT, which means only THAT ONE is Pure ACT and as such, only THAT ONE is uncaused since only something that is pure ACT can be uncaused ( Eternal, ALL powerful, ALL knowing, ALL present)

Consider cells, material, and energy. If those have always existed, that would make them all first causes and clearly distinguishable from each other.

[Philip]

Ken: Consider cells, material, and energy. If those have always existed, that would make them all first causes and clearly distinguishable from each other.

Yes, but cells couldn't configure themselves into astonishing machines, and these elements couldn't orchestrate themselves into mind-blowing coordination and interactivities on a massive scale. Again, mere existence of basic things can't explain the Big Bang or what exists. It can't explain the Big Bang's CONTROLLED explosion of precision and instantly assembled building blocks. It's like that comparison of an explosion in a junk yard assembling a 747 jet!

[Byblos]

Consider cells, material, and energy. If those have always existed, that would make them all first causes and clearly distinguishable from each other.

Matter, energy, and any possible combination of the two are still mixtures of potentiality and actuality. Matter can be arranged one way or another. Energy can fluctuate in countless ways and that regardless of the possibility of them being eternal. The fact is, if they have the potential to be arranged one way or another then they depend on something else to bring about that potential. You can't escape it, for any potential to be actualized the chain must initiate with a pure act and that pure act must be unique. That's what reason dictates. To deny that you must deny change. Of course that is your prerogative but I wouldn't recommend it as a world view.

[PaulSacramento]

Consider cells, material, and energy. If those have always existed, that would make them all first causes and clearly distinguishable from each other.

Yeah, you don't get the first cause/first mover argument at all, do you?
I thought we were making progress...
"IF"...if my grandmother had balls she'd be my grandfather...If...

Look, Cells, material and energy, all of them are NOT pure ACT, are they?
Name me ONE thing that you think is pure Actuality, something that is, factually, unmoving/unchanging/uncaused ( and no, you can't say the universe because we know it is changing ie: expanding).