Aquinas, Ockham, and Descartes about God. A free adaptation of their main arguments

_{Otangelo

December 30, 2022

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Video made with Artificial Intelligence.

Descartes:
By ‘God’, I understand, a substance which is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and which created both myself and everything else […] that exists.
“I could not possibly be of such a nature as I am, and yet have in my mind the idea of a God, if God did not in reality exist.” I have concluded the evident existence of God, and that my existence depends entirely on God in all the moments of my life, that I do not think that the human spirit may know anything with greater evidence and certitude.

Thomas Aquinas’ Unmoved Mover

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3170-aquinas-first-mover-five-ways-argument

The cosmological argument for God’s existence

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1333-kalaam-the-cosmological-argument-for-gods-existence

The universe cannot be past eternal

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1333-kalaam-the-kalaam-cosmological-argument#5124

The cause of the universe must be personal

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1333-kalaam-the-cosmological-argument-for-gods-existence#5326

Nothing is the thing that stones think of

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2817-nothing-is-the-thing-that-stones-think-of

The philosophical cosmological argument of God’s existence https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1333-kalaam-the-cosmological-argument-for-gods-existence#545552

Syllogistic – Arguments of God’s existence based on positive evidence https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2895-syllogistic-arguments-of-gods-existence-based-on-positive-evidence

Comments

Origenes:
“I think, therefore I am”, does not mean: ‘I think myself into existence’ or ‘I exist because I am thinker’ or something similar.
No one ever said that it does. You appear not to understand what you are reading.
Instead (at least that is my understanding of Descartes) it means: 1.) I do something. 2.) from nothing nothing comes. Therefore, 3.) I exist.
No. It has nothing to do with "doing." It means this: "I think, therefore, I exist" --- (because I would have to exist in order to be able to think).StephenB_{January 22, 2023
January
01
Jan
22
22
2023
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic@
I explained this in post 116. Having an awareness of something is different than observing it.
My argument fully depends on the idea that awareness presupposes observation. That idea is non-negotiable. If you do not share this view, then we have nothing further to discuss.
I am aware that there is someone in the next room because I hear things and draw an inference.
Illustrating my point. Do you agree that being aware of someone in the next room is not possible without noticing/hearing anything? I am using the term 'observation' in the most general sense possible. - - - - - I see that you argue that awareness does not require or presuppose observation. I want to thank you for this discussion. Have a good day sir.Origenes_{January 21, 2023
January
01
Jan
21
21
2023
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

1.) The moved thing, that cannot move itself, is neither responsible nor in control of its movement. 2.) According Aquinas, man is moved thing that cannot move itself. Therefore, from 1.) and 2.) 3.) Under Aquinas, man is neither responsible nor in control of his movement. 4.) A free man cannot be conceived as having neither responsibility nor control over his movements. Therefore, from 3.) and 4.) 5.) Aquinas's concept does not allow for a free man.Origenes_{January 21, 2023
January
01
Jan
21
21
2023
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

StephenB
Consequently, he believes, absurdly, that a self can literally observe its way into existence,
Once we have that as a premise, then nothing that follows can make any real sense. Aside from the absurdity of a non-existent person taking the action to create itself, where would this non-being get the power to create anything? Why create just one self and not a hundred selves? And why would this non-being be limited to creating selves? Why not create entire universes? Regarding Descartes, we know what existence is because we have external references and we can contrast what "I am" means with "I am not" - since we see some things that exist and others that do not. If thinking was the means for our existence, we would never know what existence is.Silver Asiatic_{January 21, 2023
January
01
Jan
21
21
2023
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Origenes
I don’t understand your concept. The higher self does not observe itself, you say. The higher self, you say is an “observer” who is “viewing the lower self.” Where in this concept is self-awareness?
I explained this in post 116. Having an awareness of something is different than observing it. I am aware that there is someone in the next room because I hear things and draw an inference. I have not observed the person. Where is the "person-in-the-room-awareness" that I claim to have? It's in the logical inference. The higher self does not observe itself. It's impossible to do that. If it was possible, then we'd have the infinite regress that I explained in post 116 that I'm not sure if you read, but I'm sure you didn't address. The higher self infers that it exists because it can observe a lower self. The higher self cannot observe itself. To observe something you have to stand outside of it. We can observe our body because our power of observation can stand outside of the body. But we cannot observe our higher self (where the power of interpretation resides). The concept of higher self means it is a level higher and therefore capable of observing what is lower and distinct from it (the lower self and other existing things). But to observe itself, the higher self would need a higher-higher self. It would need a perspective higher than itself - but again because of the way God created human nature, that is not possible. We cannot just multiply higher selves to keep observing the observers. It stops with our one higher self. We do not observe that self but just know that it exists. We can observe some processes of our higher self (like our decision making or rational process) but we can't observe the self itself for what it is, since the observer and the observed cannot be the same entity. But you have stated already that, for example, the creator and the created can be the same person. So, on that basis, why not have the observer and the observed as the same? But to repeat - if I could observe my highest self observing, why couldn't I observe that I was observing my highest self observing? Why couldn't I then observe that I was observing that I was observing my highest self observing. That's an infinite regress which does not exist - but it would exist if we could observe our higher self. There would be these additional selves, capable of getting outside of it all to observe all the observers.Silver Asiatic_{January 21, 2023
January
01
Jan
21
21
2023
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

“I think, therefore I am”, does not mean: ‘I think myself into existence’ or ‘I exist because I am thinker’ or something similar. Instead (at least that is my understanding of Descartes) it means: 1.) I do something. 2.) from nothing nothing comes. Therefore, 3.) I exist. Commentary: Premise 1.) is undeniably true every waking moment. I simply cannot do nothing. At the very least I am just aware of myself, which is of course also doing something. So, when I am awake, I am always doing something. I can't help it. Note that when I doubt my existence I would also do something. Premise 1.) can even be replaced by: 1.) I doubt my existence. .. and it would still be a valid argument. Premise 2.) No comment. Premise 3.) Can it be that I do not exist? Can it be that I am nothing? No, that cannot be because from nothing nothing comes and the established fact is that I do something. So, I must exist. My existence is the only explanation for the brute fact that I do something. There cannot be any doubt in my mind about that. The fact that I exist is the most certain knowledge that I have. And it is continually fueled by everything that I do. Thx Descartes!Origenes_{January 20, 2023
January
01
Jan
20
20
2023
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

As I discovered in a previous discussion with him, Origenes accepts Descartes’ account of self as expressed in the famous phrase, “I think, therefore I am.” That formulation, though it is one-sided, psychological, and subjective, is reasonable, but only insofar as it recognizes its reverse metaphysical counterpart: “I am, therefore, I can think.” In this context, the psychological component moves backwards, first observing the effect and then drawing conclusions about the cause; the metaphysical component moves forward, first acknowledging the cause and then identifying its effect. Origenes honors Descartes’ subjective meditation on self-awareness as if it reflected the whole truth, and ignores the objective component which describes the (outside-of-self) causal conditions necessary for explaining how a self can begin to exist. In keeping with this hyper-subjective philosophy, Origenes analyzes everything involving the person, including its existence, as coming from -- and ending with – self. Consequently, he believes, absurdly, that a self can literally observe its way into existence, As Aristotle pointed out, “a little error in the beginning leads to a great one in the end.” Aquinas said the same thing. Our heroes can make or break us.StephenB_{January 20, 2023
January
01
Jan
20
20
2023
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

You interpreted that as meaning my foot is my lower self and I am my higher self, when I explained clearly “my right foot stepped on my left foot”. A part of me did something to another part. My higher self observed that I have a lower self, and in that process realizes that I have a higher self which observes. But the higher self does not observe itself. I explained that also as an infinite regress.
I don't understand your concept. The higher self does not observe itself, you say. The higher self, you say is an "observer" who is "viewing the lower self." Where in this concept is self-awareness? If the higher self does not observe itself, then, it follows that it cannot have awareness of itself. Right? Here, the higher self is as self-aware as a camera is. And in this concept, the lower self also does not observe himself. So, I see no self-awareness anywhere. I see a higher self "camera" and a non-observing lower self doing things. What am I missing?Origenes_{January 20, 2023
January
01
Jan
20
20
2023
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Origenes
I take it that you are saying that the “I” is the higher self and the foot is the lower self.
No, I wasn't drawing that analogy. I explained it. You have reduced what I said to "the foot". I said:
We don’t say there are two persons, but my right foot stepped on my left foot. A part of me did something to another part of me.
You interpreted that as meaning my foot is my lower self and I am my higher self, when I explained clearly "my right foot stepped on my left foot". A part of me did something to another part. My higher self observed that I have a lower self, and in that process realizes that I have a higher self which observes. But the higher self does not observe itself. I explained that also as an infinite regress. You skipped over my explanation and strangely clipped out one segment that you misinterpreted and then went back to your talk-track as if I didn't say anything else. So, on this particular exchange we made zero progress. You have a very deep commitment to your views, but I don't think they hold up as an alternative to Thomistic realism. That prevents an infinite regress. “I am aware of myself. I am aware of being aware of myself. I am aware of being aware of being aware of myself …” That process would go on to infinity. But instead, we have just two. “I am aware of myself”. We don’t have a higher view. So we could think that “our true self” or our “observing self” does not have a self that observes it.Silver Asiatic_{January 20, 2023
January
01
Jan
20
20
2023
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Do you accept the idea that we have an animal nature and a rational nature combined in one person?
You are introducing a fundamental concept. The concept of one thing (person) that has multiple aspects. In this concept, aspects are not distinct things, but, rather ‘poles’ of one thing. So, here you propose that the person is one thing that has a rational pole and animal pole; a rational aspect and animal aspect.
That would be the basis for the idea that we “teach ourself” to do something. Some might call it our higher self (our better self) and our lower self. Then that would work as the higher self (observer) viewing the lower self. They’re both the same person but they are only parts of the person, not the whole. I think of examples like “I stepped on my foot”. So “I hurt myself”.
I take it that you are saying that the “I” is the higher self and the foot is the lower self. In your example, “I” is a person, and “my foot” is not. “>> I << stepped on my foot”. It is the self-aware “I” in your example that I would like to focus on. At issue is: How does it become self-aware? My claim is that the self-aware “I” who observes his foot, must also observe itself. No self-observance no self-awareness. Do you agree? This self-aware “I” must observe itself, otherwise, it could not be a self-aware “I”. The “I” does not become self-aware by looking at its foot. Insofar as the self is conscious of the non-self, the self is not conscious of itself. It must (also) look at itself. And it is exactly this part of the story, this self-relation, I would like to discuss.Origenes_{January 20, 2023
January
01
Jan
20
20
2023
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT}

Origenes, It's interesting and yes you're making sense even though I don't agree with how you're viewing it.
The point I am trying to make is: enigmatically, the observer and the observed must be the same thing when it comes to self-awareness.
Yes that seems right but I don't see how that translates to the observer creates the observed. Do you accept the idea that we have an animal nature and a rational nature combined in one person? That would be the basis for the idea that we "teach ourself" to do something. Some might call it our higher self (our better self) and our lower self. Then that would work as the higher self (observer) viewing the lower self. They're both the same person but they are only parts of the person, not the whole. I think of examples like "I stepped on my foot". So "I hurt myself". We don't say there are two persons, but my right foot stepped on my left foot. A part of me did something to another part of me. That prevents an infinite regress. "I am aware of myself. I am aware of being aware of myself. I am aware of being aware of being aware of myself ..." That process would go on to infinity. But instead, we have just two. "I am aware of myself". We don't have a higher view. So we could think that "our true self" or our "observing self" does not have a self that observes it. When you point out that if there were two parties in the self-to-self relationship, then we would think we were observing a different person rather than ourself. But we do experience that very thing quite often "why would I do such a thing"? We act as if there's a self that understands and a self that does things we don't understand - like it's a different person. "He got so angry I didn't even think it was him -- but that's not his true self". We can hear something like that and understand what is meant. "I do the things I do not want to do". We understand that as meaning that "our better self" wants the good thing but our "animal nature" craves whatever it can get. Some would say "the man of the flesh vs the man of the spirit" - so there can be a conflict with these two aspects of self. The fact that we do not have control over ourself in this way is also evidence that we did not create ourself. Why would we have an internal conflict if we are the creators of ourselves and we could create whatever we wanted?Silver Asiatic_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @ You are obviously a very intelligent person, so if you do not understand me, it means that I am at fault.
Until we sort out what you mean here we really can’t go through and analyze how “self has a relationship with self”. A relationship requires two parties.
When you reach inside and observe your inner self. You are observing you. Silver Asiatic is observing Silver Asiatic(SA). SA is being aware of himself. Note that you are also aware of your self-awareness. If it were "two parties", if it were SA observing another person, then SA would be aware of another person and not of himself — no self-awareness. And if it is another person observing SA, then another person would be aware of SA, but SA would not be aware of SA — no self-awareness. The point I am trying to make is: enigmatically, the observer and the observed must be the same thing when it comes to self-awareness. And that's why I often say that self-awareness is a relationship between self and self. Am I making any sense here?Origenes_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Origenes
Again, before my self-aware existence, I do not exist as a person.
That's not a standard view on what a person is. For example, we will say that a child is a person. The child may not be self-aware. Personhood is a very valuable thing and human rights are tied to it. To say that "since that human entity is not self-aware it is therefore a non-person" can have troubling consequences. Personhood is tied to human identity and therefore to the possession of human nature. That's the classic understanding anyway. Personhood is given by God. Interestingly, the concept of person was refined by Christian theology in analysis of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (three divine persons in one God).
I maintain that coming into existence as a self-aware being is not a gradual process. There is no gradual process between non-self and self.
We can have a partial awareness and more complete awareness. Plus, we can lose self-awareness maybe even entirely after we had it. Would that mean that a person would cease to be a person in those cases? My view is that personhood is not something that a person can give to himself. Just as life itself is not something that the person creates for himself - but it's a gift. Human nature is also a gift, and with it rational self-awareness. It comes from the author and creator of life, not from the creatures.Silver Asiatic_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Origenes
1. I am a self-aware person. 2. Self-relation between self and self is real. 3. There is no self without self-relation. 4. Self-relation has causal power. 5. Self-relation can only be observed by the self. 6. There is no observance of self-relation outside of self. 7. No other thing can insert itself between self and self. 8. What cannot be observed and manipulated from the outside, cannot be explained from the outside. 9. There is no explanation of self-relation outside of self.
I could go through this list but as it stands it comes from your view that "a person creates himself" and I can't get past that. We started by talking about the argument from First Mover and that argument is about the Origin of things. In the statements you make above, you do not reference where these entities come from. That requires some definitions. When you speak of "self and self" are those two entities? Most importantly, where did they (or it) come from? You have said that yourself created yourself. Are those two beings or one? Yourself existed, then yourself created something you're calling yourself. But it can't be created it if already exists. Until we sort out what you mean here we really can't go through and analyze how "self has a relationship with self". A relationship requires two parties. A common view is that there's a higher self and lower self. So, we "teach our self" that way.Silver Asiatic_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Origenes
Before self-awareness there is no person who can recognize himself. And there is also no person to be recognized.
Before the person existed, there was no person who could create himself. But this is what you've rejected.Silver Asiatic_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @ I would like you to comment on the following. I have compiled some of my claims in a list, somewhat in the form of an argument. Please tell me what you reject and what you do not. 1. I am a self-aware person. 2. Self-relation between self and self is real. 3. There is no self without self-relation. 4. Self-relation has causal power. 5. Self-relation can only be observed by the self. 6. There is no observance of self-relation outside of self. 7. No other thing can insert itself between self and self. 8. What cannot be observed and manipulated from the outside, cannot be explained from the outside. 9. There is no explanation of self-relation outside of self.Origenes_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @
Ok, I think I see what you’re saying. At a certain point in time, the person becomes aware of himself, and at that moment the self comes into existence by the fact that the person gained self-awareness.
Indeed. Self-awareness brings the self into existence.
One issue you might look at is whether you actually created yourself by your self-awareness, or did you discover yourself.
There is no one who can discover and nothing to discover because there is no self before self-awareness. Put differently, before the (extremely) special relation between self and self, there was no self.
In other words, did you become self-aware of a self that was already existing, but you had not recognized it yet?
Before self-awareness there is no person who can recognize himself. And there is also no person to be recognized.
You might say, “if I wasn’t self-aware, then the self did not exist”.
That’s exactly what I am saying.
But I think there is information from external sources that help.
How can a non-existent person be helped? Again, before my self-aware existence, I do not exist as a person.
People can tell you things about yourself that you didn’t know.
Here you are assuming my existence as a self-aware person. However, we were talking about a state before self-aware existence.
This would be evidence that your self has an existence outside of your own self-awareness. Other people can observe you and see things about you that you couldn’t know otherwise.
Interesting point. I agree that once self-awareness has been established, IOW the person has come into existence, there is a gradual learning process ahead where the person learns things about himself and the world. Being aware of something does not imply an understanding of something. I maintain that coming into existence as a self-aware being is not a gradual process. There is no gradual process between non-self and self.Origenes_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

Origenes
From an internal view, the person is self-aware. The person is aware of being self-aware. And the person knows that he is the cause. Deep down the person knows that he is the cause of his own self-awareness. He knows that he is the one doing it.
Ok, I think I see what you're saying. At a certain point in time, the person becomes aware of himself, and at that moment the self comes into existence by the fact that the person gained self-awareness. One issue you might look at is whether you actually created yourself by your self-awareness, or did you discover yourself. In other words, did you become self-aware of a self that was already existing, but you had not recognized it yet? You might say, "if I wasn't self-aware, then the self did not exist". But I think there is information from external sources that help. People can tell you things about yourself that you didn't know. This would be evidence that your self has an existence outside of your own self-awareness. Other people can observe you and see things about you that you couldn't know otherwise. At any rate, this discussion is not just about your view of self, but it's about your entire worldview and cosmology. I think a lot of that has to be worked out in a more coherent way. It's not readily evident how it could be possible for you to create yourself. How and why you made yourself be what you are is just one question. Why did you give yourself the characteristics you chose to have? Why not make yourself smarter, better, more innovative? What limited you in creating yourself? Did you have one chance to make yourself and then after that you can't re-do it? Who created that rule? You could make yourself but could you make any other conscious beings? Why not? I think there are a lot of difficult questions that come up in your view and at this moment, I cannot see how you could sort them out in a way that aligns with our common sense view of reality.Silver Asiatic_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @ Thank you for your difficult questions.
Ori: the only true cause of the spiritual self-aware person, is the person himself.
The options one would have is: 1. This person did not exist. Then this person caused himself to exist. 2. This person always existed. Then this person caused himself to exist. 3. There was no person. Then some existing being caused this person to exist. #3 is the classical formulation. You have adopted either #1 or #2.
I agree. In my view, there are two distinct perspectives on the coming into existence of the person: 1.) From an external view, in a spiritual world, witnesses see the person coming into existence. They cannot identify the cause, all they can identify are certain necessary conditions. That is, the witnesses notice that persons only come into existence when certain conditions are met. However, the witnesses also notice that these conditions do not explain a person coming into existence because they know that the exact same conditions are present in many other places without any result. They also note that correlation is not causation. 2.) From an internal view, the person is self-aware. The person is aware of being self-aware. And the person knows that he is the cause. Deep down the person knows that he is the cause of his own self-awareness. He knows that he is the one doing it. What is the ‘correct’ perspective? In my story, only the second perspective reveals the cause. The external and internal perspectives are placeholders for the two contexts that I offered in #105.
Ori: No one else but me can give me self-awareness. the only true cause of the spiritual self-aware person is the person himself.
I believe you are saying that you created yourself. You caused yourself to exist. In doing this, you conferred on yourself the power of self-awareness and therefore freedom.
Yes. I claim that, by observing myself, I cause my self-awareness, I cause myself as a self-aware being, and I sustain myself as a self-aware being.Origenes_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

Origenes
No one else but me can give me self-awareness. the only true cause of the spiritual self-aware person, is the person himself
I believe you are saying that you created yourself. You caused yourself to exist. In doing this, you conferred on yourself the power of self-awareness and therefore freedom.Silver Asiatic_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Origenes That was a very helpful response. I understand now why we disagree.
the only true cause of the spiritual self-aware person, is the person himself
That statement requires more explanation. The cause of the person is the person himself. You have proposed something to explain it:
not everything can be caused by something prior to it. Some thing(s) must cause (move) themselves.
But this does not answer the problem of how a thing can cause itself. We are talking about the origin of things - and thus existence or being. Once we have being of any kind, we have also non-being. That's how we know we have a being, because it is different from non-being. The options one would have is: 1. This person did not exist. Then this person caused himself to exist. 2. This person always existed. Then this person caused himself to exist. 3. There was no person. Then some existing being caused this person to exist. #3 is the classical formulation. You have adopted either #1 or #2. That at one time there was no person - but the non-person caused itself to exist? Again, causality by its nature requires a prior state. It doesn't have to be bound by time (God can create things to exist outside of a time framework) but prior-in-being. Something has to exist first, then it causes something else. Rejecting that, you could propose that things just come into existence on their own from nothing. But even that doesn't work because nothing has no causal powers. Nothing can come from nothing. Nothing has no properties, powers or materials from which anything else can emerge. So the question is: How can a person create himself? If he did not exist, where did he get the powers, capabilities or existence itself to create anything?Silver Asiatic_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @
So, for a human to cause himself to exist would mean the human would have to exist first, and then be the cause of its own existence. This is irrational.
As you know, I do not agree. I have argued in posts #74, #78, #86, and #90 that the only true cause of the spiritual self-aware person, is the person himself, by way of self-relationship. For clarity, the body is excluded from my claim.
One might argue that human souls are eternal and are non-created. But we’d need some philosophical evidence for that.
For many years, I have thought about consciousness. And at one point I came to the firm conclusion that there cannot possibly be an explanation for consciousness that starts with a non-conscious thing. IOWs there cannot possibly be a causal chain of events that starts with a non-conscious thing leading up to a self-aware being. Confronted with this problem I realized that the only way forward was to look for another context. IOWs if consciousness cannot be understood in the traditional space-time causal context, then another context must be found. The other context that I found is ‘unity’. And in the context of unity, I was able to explain conscious self-awareness. In several posts I mentioned ‘aspects’ of unity, and stressed the fact that they are not distinct parts. In #86 I outline some general rules WRT ‘internal causality’; there is much more that can be said about it. How “irrational” is my change-of-context move? A few notes in its defense: Not everything can be a part, where there are parts, there are wholes. Arguably wholes cannot be understood in the same context as parts. Perhaps organisms are (semi-)wholes and because of this, they will never be explained in the traditional cause-effect context that science tries to force them in. Sometimes we do apply the wrong context when we try to understand something; the failure of the naturalistic/materialistic context for life may very well be a case in point. More generally, not everything can be caused by something prior to it. Some thing(s) must cause (move) themselves. Not everything can be grounded by something else. Some things must ground themselves. And why is it exactly that we think that we understand something when a prior cause is identified? Does a multiverse make the universe more understandable? Or do we merely shift the problem out of sight? I am asking because do we understand something when its cause is beyond our view? I say we do not. That’s not the complete picture of something. That cannot be true understanding. Is it not our only chance at real understanding that we see something in its entirety? That our view encompasses a thing completely——no vague undefined cause running off the side of the screen? If so, then that something must be a whole, a unity. Only a unity/whole can be viewed (and understood) in its entirety.
Ori: Where is freedom in Aquinas’ concept?
Freedom is a potential that was made actual by a first mover. It was possible (potential) for beings to have freedom. To make that potency actual, a first mover, fully actual, would be required.
"Freedom" is undefined here. Is it the potential of self-relation you are talking about? I’am sorry, but there is that word again, but, frankly, in my understanding, there is no way around it. Without self-observance and self-control, there can be no self-awareness, self-movement, and no free person.
Ori: My thoughts are determined by me; a mental process.
You think and believe they are but you don’t know that.
Yes, I do know that. If I do not determine my thoughts, if I do not control my thoughts, then I am not rational. That’s not an option. I also know that my thoughts are not material processes, because if they are then they are the result of laws and nature and circumstances long before I was born, both of which I do not control. That would entail that I am not in control of my thoughts and that I am not rational. Again, that’s not an option.
On that basis alone (that you do not fully know the nature, cause, extent or powers of your own thoughs/freedoms). it is enough to know that you cannot be the cause of your own freedom. You require a first mover to cause the freedom that you think you have. You can’t create your own freedom. It was given to you – your potency was made actual by something actual, not yourself.
I do not agree. As I have argued, only by self-observance does the self-aware being come into existence. No one else but me can give me self-awareness. I must be self-aware of myself. I must observe myself to be self-aware. No one else can help me with this.
Nothing can actualize itself from potency. Nothing can create its own freedom.
Again, I argue that the opposite is true. My self-awareness is between myself and myself. Nothing external can help me with that. If I do not observe myself, I cannot be aware of myself. So, only I can be constitutive of my self-awareness. My self-awareness cannot be constituted by anyone but me. If I am not aware of myself, but someone else is, then my state of non-self-awareness remains unchanged.Origenes_{January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

Origenes
The question is: is God a sufficient cause, and do we have, therefore, total determinism?
This is two questions and it's different from what Aquinas is arguing in the First Mover. The first: Is God a sufficient cause? There are other arguments that look at that question first. The simplest way is to ask the negative: "If God was not sufficient, what is He lacking and why is He lacking that?" In other words, what other powers or causal entities would exist outside of God? Where did those powers come from and why didn't God ever have access to them? Getting into that is a very long conversation, but basically if there is anything lacking in God, we have to explain why God does not have that particular thing and in the course of infinite time He was never able to acquire it. This is the whole question of "why must God be one and not many gods"? St. Thomas gives three reasons why God is one (and therefore must have all sufficiency, all powers and be the source of all being):
First from His simplicity. For it is manifest that the reason why any singular thing is "this particular thing" is because it cannot be communicated to many: since that whereby Socrates is a man, can be communicated to many; whereas, what makes him this particular man, is only communicable to one. Therefore, if Socrates were a man by what makes him to be this particular man, as there cannot be many Socrates, so there could not in that way be many men. Now this belongs to God alone; for God Himself is His own nature, as was shown above (I:3:3). Therefore, in the very same way God is God, and He is this God. Impossible is it therefore that many Gods should exist. Secondly, this is proved from the infinity of His perfection. For it was shown above (I:4:2) that God comprehends in Himself the whole perfection of being. If then many gods existed, they would necessarily differ from each other. Something therefore would belong to one which did not belong to another. And if this were a privation, one of them would not be absolutely perfect; but if a perfection, one of them would be without it. So it is impossible for many gods to exist. Hence also the ancient philosophers, constrained as it were by truth, when they asserted an infinite principle, asserted likewise that there was only one such principle. Thirdly, this is shown from the unity of the world. For all things that exist are seen to be ordered to each other since some serve others. But things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same order, unless they are ordered thereto by one. For many are reduced into one order by one better than by many: because one is the per se cause of one, and many are only the accidental cause of one, inasmuch as they are in some way one. Since therefore what is first is most perfect, and is so per se and not accidentally, it must be that the first which reduces all into one order should be only one. And this one is God. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1011.htm
Aquinas gives the reference above but I'll just summarize: Why God must be all perfection of being. As above, since God is not a created being, then all existence is in Him. He is existence itself. He does not receive existence from anything else. So, he must contain in himself the fullness, and therefore the perfection of all being. No possible being/existence could be lacking in God because if it wasn't in God, then it couldn't possibly exist. All being/existence is God, comes from God and therefore must be in absolute perfection (lacking nothing good) in God. So there is nothing that can exist which creates its own existence or moves itself from potency (the possibility of existence) to actuality (actually existing). One of the qualities that God created in human beings is the power of free will. We observe that we have freedom (in some ways) and we know we did not create it ourselves. So, there must be a first mover that created our human nature that includes freedom. As said many times before however, human freedom is not absolute. It is free within limits. It is a gift given, not something we created. We don't even understand what it is - we just have access to use this gift and are required to use it wisely and responsibly because we will be held accountable for what free choices we make. ' Being held accountable is evidence that we do not have absolute freedom to do whatever we want. There are consequences of our choices - so we didn't create our own moral law and we are not the source of our own consequences or recompense for actions either good or bad.Silver Asiatic_{January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Origenes I said: "Humans cannot bring themselves into existence – so they require a first mover. But even after that, it doesn’t mean that humans must be equivalent to billiard balls." You asked: Why not? The answer is because to be an existing being requires the change (movement) from potency to act. No human being brought themselves into existence because to come into existence is an effect, and all effects follow from their causes. So, for a human to cause himself to exist would mean the human would have to exist first, and then be the cause of its own existence. This is irrational. So again, no human causes it's own existence. Thus, it requires something actual (the first mover) to move from potency (the human could exist) to act (the human actually exists). God can create either ex nihilo or by using existing substances. Only God can create immaterial human natures and it is defined Christian dogma that God directly creates the human soul from nothing pre-existing material. The human immaterial soul is not the product of material entities. One might argue that human souls are eternal and are non-created. But we'd need some philosophical evidence for that. For souls to be co-eternal with God there would have to be some kind of infinite relationship and that is impossible for reasons of infinite regress and because human souls are distinct and therefore had to have some boundaries (where would they come from?). The universe has the potency to have free, intelligent beings living in it. Only a first mover could change that potency (potential humans) to act (real humans living). Humans themselves cannot create themselves, and therefore they did not create their own powers of freedom.
Where is freedom in Aquinas’ concept?
Freedom is a potential that was made actual by a first mover. It was possible (potential) for beings to have freedom. To make that potency actual, a first mover, fully actual, would be required.
My thoughts are determined by me; a mental process.
You think and believe they are but you don't know that. On that basis alone (that you do not fully know the nature, cause, extent or powers of your own thoughs/freedoms). it is enough to know that you cannot be the cause of your own freedom. You require a first mover to cause the freedom that you think you have. You can't create your own freedom. It was given to you - your potency was made actual by something actual, not yourself. The argument from a first mover says nothing about how God created free will. Like other arguments for the existence of God, it just looks at infinite regresses. To argue about whether our individual thoughts are free or not is not relevant to the First Mover argument. Again,
in accord with Aquinas’ 5th premise: nothing can move itself
Nothing can actualize itself from potency. Nothing can create its own freedom. No human can create a rational human nature. It requires a first mover to change the potential for rational free thought, into a being that actually has rational free thought. But to exist and have this power means that you are dependent on something other than yourself. You cannot be the first mover of yourself since you would have to exist in a state of potency (which is non-actual) and then create yourself with the power of freedom. Whatever power of freedom you have is entirely dependent on your origin - which did not come from yourself.Silver Asiatic_{January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic@
Humans cannot bring themselves into existence – so they require a first mover. But even after that, it doesn’t mean that humans must be equivalent to billiard balls.
Why not? Where is freedom in Aquinas' concept?
How God interacts with subatomic particles or with immaterial entities is not what this argument is about.
I agree it is not about the 'how'. Anyone who would suggest that it is should hang his head in shame.
The change from potency to act is not necessarily deterministic in the materialist sense.
I agree. Thankfully, no one has made such a claim. Obviously, determinism can be of a mental and/or a materialistic variety.
How does one immaterial being determine the movements of another immaterial being?
We don’t know. And it is irrelevant to our discussion.
The argument is not about the physics, but about the metaphysics. It seems that you’re conflating the two and insisting that God must physically determine the movement of everything.
God is the first cause, and it is entirely irrelevant to our discussion how he operates as a first cause (mental, physical, or otherwise). The question is: is God a sufficient cause, and do we have, therefore, total determinism? The question is not: is God a physical or a mental cause? The latter question is irrelevant to determinism. As I said, determinism comes in several forms.
This is not about the mechanisms required for things to move around physically. The move from potential to act is not a materialistic, deterministic event.
No one has made that claim. My thoughts are determined by me; a mental process. Given that mental causation is real, to be determined does not require a physical process.Origenes_{January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

**removed**Origenes_{January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

that is in accord with Aquinas’ 5th premise: nothing can move itself.
Translating this, Aquinas is talking about the change from potency to act. So, "Nothing that is in potency can actualize itself." It requires something that is in act to make that change. This is not about the mechanisms required for things to move around physically. The move from potential to act is not a materialistic, deterministic event.Silver Asiatic_{January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Origenes
How is a secondary cause anything over and beyond a moved billiard ball?
I think you're assuming that we fully understand how and why a billiard ball moves and that it is entirely deterministic. But we don't understand that. We don't even know if physical "laws" will act tomorrow as they do today. The argument from motion says that if things change from potency to act then they cannot move themselves this way since the change from potency to act requires something actual. Humans cannot bring themselves into existence - so they require a first mover. But even after that, it doesn't mean that humans must be equivalent to billiard balls. How God interacts with subatomic particles or with immaterial entities is not what this argument is about. We observe that humans have potentials - to move, grow, change. These potentials have to be actualized by a first mover. The change from potency to act is not necessarily deterministic in the materialist sense. How does one immaterial being determine the movements of another immaterial being? The argument is not about the physics, but about the metaphysics. It seems that you're conflating the two and insisting that God must physically determine the movement of everything.Silver Asiatic_{January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

I should say the difference between "a prior cause" and secondary. There is only one first cause.Silver Asiatic_{January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @96
Ori: “Ants themselves cause effects”? How so?
It’s the difference between the first cause and secondary causes. I wrote the software code. I’m the first cause. You used the software to produce effects from what I caused.
Please elaborate. How is a secondary cause anything over and beyond a moved billiard ball?Origenes_{January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply