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

_{Otangelo
December 30, 2022

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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:
It is logically implied that “human being” is not one thing
According to Aquinas, substances, such as a marble statue, are composed of matter (the marble) and form (the shape of the statue). Likewise, humans are composed of matter (body) and form (soul [which animates the body]). In each case, the reference is associated with one thing, or person. The operative word here is "composite," that is, one thing composed of two elements. A person with a body and soul is not two people.StephenB_{January 8, 2023
January
01
Jan
8
08
2023
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT}

… [A human being] is said to be from soul and body as a third thing constituted from two things neither of which he is, for a [human] is not soul nor is he body.”
“Two things” cannot be understood as one thing. As Aquinas defines it here, a human being cannot be one thing, since it consists of two distinct things. Moreover, it should be clear to anyone that the material body consists of distinct parts, so what are we even talking about?
“In complex substances there are form and matter, as in [humans] there are soul and body…the existence of the compound substance is not of form alone nor of matter alone but of the composed thing itself…”
I'm not sure if I understand what Aquinas is doing here. It is logically implied that “human being” is not one thing — and therefore is not a reference to an ontologically fundamental thing. What a human being really is, or rather what the soul is, seems to be the, more penetrating, logical follow-up question.Origenes_{January 8, 2023
January
01
Jan
8
08
2023
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT}

Origenes:
Aquinas argues that body and soul cannot be one thing.
Does he?
We all agree
Do we?StephenB_{January 7, 2023
January
01
Jan
7
07
2023
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @
There are several arguments given. One interesting one is that if the soul was self-moving of the body, “it will be in the soul’s power to be separated from the body at will and to be reunited to it at will. And this clearly is false”.
Was Aquinas acquainted with NDE’s and other paranormal events that do not seem to support his view? And what if not a deliberate act, but instead a subconscious activity of the person establishes the union between soul and body? As an aside, I hold that the person and the body are two separate things. But in my view, the person/soul does not move the body but rather persuades the body to move. I view the body as an organism that is (mostly) under a person’s control, a relationship somewhat comparable to a rider and his horse.
But body and soul instead are a composite, and are of potency and act and are not, therefore, self-moving.
Aquinas argues that body and soul cannot be one thing. We all agree, I suppose. However, he seems to argue that they are the best next thing—very intertwined. I have to find Aquinas’ specific argument as to why the soul cannot use its actuality to bring its potentiality to act, which seems to be a very coherent concept (see #61). Aquinas must be arguing against Plato at that exact point.Origenes_{January 7, 2023
January
01
Jan
7
07
2023
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

Yes "In created intellectual substances there is composition of act and potentiality". However, Plato taught the the soul is the self-mover of the body, acting like a first mover and thus moving itself. This chapter answers that concern: https://isidore.co/aquinas/ContraGentiles2.htm#53 There are several arguments given. One interesting one is that if the soul was self-moving of the body, "it will be in the soul’s power to be separated from the body at will and to be reunited to it at will." But body and soul instead are a composite, and are of potency and act and are not, therefore, self moving. The intellect is dependent on knowledge obtained from the senses. The potency of the intellect is moved to act by information external to itself (or sense data that is in act). The body is dependent on energy it gets from nutrition in order to move. So, it is not self-moving.Silver Asiatic_{January 7, 2023
January
01
Jan
7
07
2023
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

Act and potency as aspects of one thing. Perhaps the self-relationship, that one sees in organisms and in oneself, can be understood in terms of act and potency. If an organism can be coherently conceived as one thing and if it is a mixture of act and potency, then the act and potency belonging to the organism are aspects of the organism, rather than distinct parts. As a general rule, aspects of a unity influence each other because they are ontologically one — they establish the self-relationship of the organism. Act influencing potency in an organism would imply that it can bring its own potency into act. IOW the organism can move itself.Origenes_{January 7, 2023
January
01
Jan
7
07
2023
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

Stephen B - thanks and you raised good points. As you said, our purpose is to grow and develop in grace and moral virtue and that would be impossible without free will. That is a constant problem for the Darwinian view, since there are no goals and it's deterministic.Silver Asiatic_{January 6, 2023
January
01
Jan
6
06
2023
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic, Thanks for your comment @58. I applaud your successful efforts at illuminating the Thomistic model for those who are unfamiliar with it. Good work! In my latest correspondence @54, I was moved (there's that word again) to confirm your correct understanding that freedom cannot, as has been argued elsewhere, be explained solely in terms of intrapersonal relationships. Subjectivism doesn't work. Hence, I tried to define freedom objectively, place it in its broader context, and explain *why* we have free will.StephenB_{January 6, 2023
January
01
Jan
6
06
2023
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 54. Great reflection on this topic. I find a lot there that I really should meditate on. That's basically our goals in life and what we should be working towards. Thank you!Silver Asiatic_{January 6, 2023
January
01
Jan
6
06
2023
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Origenes @56 Again, very good explanation - thanks.
Perhaps to be pure act, can be understood as having a perfect self-relationship, perfect self-awareness. God has perfect self-awareness, and, more certain than anything else, I have not. According to Aquinas, something can only move itself when it is pure actulity. If he means to say, that an act can only be completely free, completely wise, and from total self-knowledge, when a person has perfect self-awareness, then this makes perfect sense to me.
Yes, I think this is it, exactly. Aquinas' proof is measured against an absolute - and that is God. Only God is pure act, with no mixture of potentiality. This is because of the impossibility of infinite regress and that God must have all power, knowledge, and being - He must be present everywhere. So, nothing can be lacking to God (otherwise that would be an unfulfilled potential, and where would God get whatever would be lacking to Him?). Only a being in pure act can move itself. All other beings are dependent on something else to move it from potential to act. But for humans, we cannot be pure act. We have potentialities. We have partial self-awareness - so, we require something else to move us from potential to act. However, we are partially actualized - and that gives us freedom. So, in that sense, we do move ourselves and do have freedom.
Unlike Aquinas, it is my position that something can move itself, relative to the state of its self-relationship.
I don't think your view is different from that of Aquinas in this case. However, I think it's difficult to reconcile the idea that nothing at all can come between self and self in the thought/decision process. We do not need to have absolute independence here to have free will. The problem would be to say that our freedom is entirely independent of God. That would mean that our self-relationship is outside of God's providence, so God could not possibly intervene in our decision or thought process. But how would we get that independence? It would have to come from somewhere. Also, as above, if there is some place in the universe where God cannot access, then God would not be the fullness of being. God would then be a mixture of potential and act, since it would be possible for God to "go to those places (our inner self) where He is presently excluded". Our self-awareness grows by the help of God. We pray and ask for light and knowledge and this comes from heaven. St. John's gospel says that the Logos is "the light which enlightens every man who comes into the world". So, even atheists receive this inner light (to do with as they can freely choose). Our self-awareness grows, and therefore so does our freedom. But it's partial. The more complete we become in knowledge and love and awareness - the more freedom we have.
An organism has a far more modest self-relationship than we have, so its self-movement is restricted to a confined set of primitive patterns.
Agreed. The organism can move itself, but only to a small degree. It moves itself because of its nature. A squirrel moves the way squirrels do. A bacterium moves the way a bacterial nature moves. There's no real freedom of will there, but there is a kind of freedom within strict limits. Humans move in accord with human, rational nature. That is true free-will, but also with limits. When St. Thomas says that "man moves himself" I think we have to look at that in context with all of his other ideas about pure act and that nothing can move itself from potential to act - only something that is in pure act can be the first mover.Silver Asiatic_{January 6, 2023
January
01
Jan
6
06
2023
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Siver Asiatic @53 //follow-up
But I don’t think that self-movement requires that kind of absolute freedom where there is no other influence but self. In the same way, the human being cannot be pure act, then the human is moving his potential to act.
Perhaps to be pure act can be understood as having a perfect self-relationship; perfect self-awareness. God has the most perfect self-awareness, and, more certain than anything else, I have not. According to Aquinas, something can only move itself when it is pure actuality. If he means to say, that an act can only be completely free, completely wise, and from total self-knowledge, when a person has perfect self-awareness, then this makes perfect sense to me. However, I would say that self-relationship is a gradual thing, rather than something absolute. It is not something that is either 0% or 100%. One is not totally unaware of oneself or totally aware of oneself. Some people are more self-aware than others, and as a general rule, we are all wiser than we once were. Unlike Aquinas, it is my position that something can move itself, relative to the state of its self-relationship. An organism has a far more modest self-relationship than we have, so its self-movement is confined to a limited set of primitive patterns. We, humans, have much more freedom in self-movement and are not confined to primitive behavior, although the behavior of some of us doesn’t seem to illustrate my point.Origenes_{January 6, 2023
January
01
Jan
6
06
2023
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @53
TA: “Free will is the cause of its own motion because by his free will man moves himself for the sake of acting.”
I my view the person is free. I am intrinsically free. I make free decisions because I am a free being/person. I have always understood the term ‘free will’ as referring to the person as a whole, who is free——"man moves himself." In my view, freedom is not something that a person has, but what a person is. Free will then, in my understanding, does not refer to something distinct from the person. Free will is not something by which a person (who is not intrinsically free, who is not free by himself) makes free decisions. It seems to me that you and Aquinas have a fundamentally different concept of what freedom is than I have. In post #52 (and elsewhere) I am trying to explain how man can be a free being, not how he receives a thing that is called “free will.” I do not understand that concept.
I think he is saying that free will enables a man to move himself, so the causal chain goes from man back to the capability, which he did not create in himself, of free will as a cause. So man moves himself by means of something other than himself.
We have to resolve this issue, or we keep talking past each other.Origenes_{January 6, 2023
January
01
Jan
6
06
2023
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

Freedom is the power to love God with your whole heart, mind, and soul and to love your neighbor as yourself. That is the pathway to saving our immortal souls, which is the ultimate purpose of our existence. Purpose and freedom are inextricably tied together; one is meaningless without the other. The point of free will is to exercise and develop the natural moral virtues and summon the heavenly grace that God grants his servants, so that we can realize our ideal of eternal life. Freedom means increasing our capacity to love others as much as we love ourselves. Slavery means loving ourselves so much that we embrace the philosophy of John Paul Sartre --- “My neighbor is hell.” Freedom is limited. We are free to use or misuse our free will, to become a wise man or a fool; but we are not free to choose our moral environment. Accordingly, we are free to decide whether we will become world-class saints, world-class scoundrels, or something in between, but we are not free to avoid making the choice. It is easy to be good with the good and bad with the bad, but it is hard to be good with the bad. Anyone who is trying to do the right thing in our perverse culture knows what that means. The greatest saints in heaven are those who put their faculty of free will to the best possible use, especially when it cost them their lives. Wokeism is the art of putting our faculty of free will to the worst possible use. Our task is to know the difference and act on it.StephenB_{January 5, 2023
January
01
Jan
5
05
2023
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT}

Origenes
And in my understanding when something has a relationship with itself, nothing else can partake in this relationship. Put differently, there is no space between self and self. When I observe myself, when I am self-aware, I must be the only one who is involved in the process. There is no room for anyone else but me. No one but me. And that is where personal freedom is.
Thanks for your good explanation. I see what you're getting at. But I don't think that self-movement requires that kind of absolute freedom where there is no other influence but self. In the same way, the human being cannot be pure act, then the human is moving his potential to act. He does not have complete control, in the same way, his self-awareness is limited, he never has full awareness of self. So, his decisions do belong to him, so he has responsibility - he is self-moved to an extent and is therefore free to an extent. But he also cannot be the sole explanation for his own movement since he did not create the power and capability required - it is a gift to him via his nature which he did not create.
TA: “Free will is the cause of its own motion because by his free will man moves himself for the sake of acting.”
I think he is saying that free will enables a man to move himself, so the causal chain goes from man back to the capability, which he did not create in himself, of free will as a cause. So man moves himself by means of something other than himself. If not then he would be pure act and that is not possible. I think it's sufficient to say that the causal chain of movers does not stop with man, even though he is able to move potentiality to act. His actions and he himself remain contingent and require an explanation from some other cause. He moves himself through powers that he, himself did not create (and he doesn't even fully understand them). Limits on man's free choice (which exist) would have to be explained also. These are potentialities (ignorance, lack of awareness, lack of understanding of purpose) that can be turned into act by greater knowledge, understanding, awareness, etc. In making a free choice, man is 'free enough' to be given ownership of the act, but he is not so absolutely free that no other cause is required. What would be the origin of the capability of an absolutely free act in human beings, for example? If we say that an animal cannot perform free will actions because of a lack of reasoning power, do children, once they reach the age of reason suddenly have absolute freedom, when before they did not? Can any human being be fully conscious of himself, to an absolute degree which would allow for no ignorance of himself? If nothing could intervene between self and self, then how could a man learn how to improve the quality of his decisions and thoughts? How could he gain greater awareness of himself? The act of gaining greater awareness is a movement of potentiality to act, so we couldn't say that the man has complete awareness and then had more complete awareness all by his own self. The greater awareness means greater freedom, but that awareness cannot come from himself. It must come from an external source that moves him from potential to act, thus improving and increasing his freedom. It the same with a child who improves rationality - it's growth and gradual change. So I can't see that we would say that there is no room for anyone else but me in the process of freedom and awareness. Most of what we have is a gift, and nothing we have or do is a pure, complete and perfect thought or act. As we grow and mature, we can become more spiritually free by making better, more conscious decisions. But we always bring dependencies and limits. It is God who brings light to our mind in order for us to see ourselves and to reason correctly. We didn't create the powers we use, and we don't even fully understand them. But it would be necessary to have full ownership of one's freedom (by creating it and giving it to oneself) and full understanding in order to be able to truly move oneself entirely independently without anyone else involved in our process. "In Him we live and move and have our being". That's a paradoxical thought from Christian scripture, but I think it's relevant to the philosophical understanding. We are free, but only within the context of our condition as created (which could mean just beings born in time) beings.Silver Asiatic_{January 5, 2023
January
01
Jan
5
05
2023
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @50
So freedom comes from God – who is the source of being and creator of human nature (and of all created things). God created the capability for humans to make free-will choices and thoughts.
What is “freedom”, Silver Asiatic? What is it that makes a person free? Allow me to share some of my views on this matter. As I see it, a free person is explained by the special relationship with itself. Self-awareness, self-organization, and surely self-movement in many ways ... We do not encounter self-relationships in inanimate objects. They do not seem to care whether they fall apart or not, in fact, there seems to be no one home. However, we see self-relationship in every organism; even a bacterium self-organizes, and moves itself. But, as far as we know, only human beings are self-aware. Only in humans, there is someone who is free. Only humans observe themselves. And in my understanding when something has a relationship with itself, nothing else can partake in this relationship. Put differently, there is no space between self and self. When I observe myself, when I am self-aware, I must be the only one who is involved in the process. There is no room for anyone else but me. No one but me. And that is where personal freedom is.Origenes_{January 5, 2023
January
01
Jan
5
05
2023
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

The fundamental concept of Aquinas’ first mover argument is the idea that when a thing is not fully actual it cannot move itself. A man is not fully actual and therefore cannot move itself. A man cannot move his own body, cannot move his will, or his thoughts. Only God is fully actual, only God can explain any movement. Therefore, the concept of “self-moved free will” of man is in need of an explanation.
TA: “Free will is the cause of its own motion because by his free will man moves himself for the sake of acting.”
Aquinas states that free will implies that man moves himself. But we were told that this is impossible because man is not pure actuality. Aquinas explains:
Nevertheless, it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither is it required for one thing to be the cause of another that it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, moving both natural and voluntary causes.
Aquinas claims that the movement of free will can be explained in the same way as the movement of a billiard ball. It is not required for free will to be the first cause of its own movement, just like it is not required for a billiard ball to be the first cause of its own movement. In both cases, the first cause of movement can be external.
And just as by moving natural causes he does not divert their acts from being natural, so by moving voluntary causes he does not divert their actions from being voluntary; but rather he produces this ability in them: for he operates in each thing according to its own nature. [ST Ia 83.1]”
In both cases, God allows the nature of things to express itself (natural and voluntary respectively). However, “voluntary” (acting of one's own free will) IS self-movement. It cannot be understood any other way. Here, Aquinas assumes what needs to be explained. Assuming that this process leads to man moving himself and having free will, I can think of two possible explanations: 1. God’s influence transforms man into pure actuality, so man can move himself. 2. God’s general movement explains that man moves himself, as a secondary mover. I reject the first explanation as absurd. And I reject the second explanation based on the following comparison: Picture a man sitting in the driver’s seat of a car. God moves the car in some general direction. The man is not fully actual, so he cannot move himself. He is as paralyzed as a mannequin in a store window. When or how does the man start steering the car? God can give him the energy to move his arms and hands. But man cannot use this energy unless he can move himself. God gives him a push. The man, like an inanimate object, bumps into the steering wheel. God lifts up his arms and puts his hands on the steering wheel. The man sits there holding the steering wheel. But he cannot move himself, because he is not purely actual. What it comes down to is this: there is no external explanation for self-movement as required for a free act. Something external can be a necessary condition to a free man, but something external cannot partake in a free act of man. Not even God. A free act of man cannot be viewed as a causal chain extending to the outside. A free rational man is necessarily one thing, that does not allow for any interference/causation from the outside.Origenes_{January 5, 2023
January
01
Jan
5
05
2023
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Origenes
However, our nature is determined by God. Where is “freedom”?
Our nature is created by God who is the source of all being and who is perfectly and absolutely free, not dependent on any other being and not limited by any other being. So, we receive the gift of freedom from God. By definition, contingent beings cannot be absolutely free. They are dependent on something else for their existence. Only God is completely free. So, the freedom that is inherent in rational, human nature is given by God so that humans will be able to make free-will choices and thus experience responsibility, self-giving, justice and love. And that means humans can perform actions that merit reward or punishment. So freedom comes from God - who is the source of being and creator of human nature (and of all created things). God created the capability for humans to make free-will choices and thoughts. That freedom is not unlimited because it is logically impossible for a contingent, created being to act as an absolutely independent being with Divine freedom to think and create. Humans are not gods in that sense. We act with limits that are inbuilt in our nature. But that does not mean we lack freedom within those limits or that our actions and thoughts are forced upon us by a deterministic process.Silver Asiatic_{January 5, 2023
January
01
Jan
5
05
2023
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

SA 48@
Our nature is chosen by God. We have a rational nature. A rational nature, requires free-will. It is, necessarily, not deterministic.
Rationality requires freedom, I agree. However, simply stating that we have a “rational nature”, and therefore must have “free will”, doesn’t get one where one wants to be. It has to be explained, it has to make sense. The question is, does Aquinas offer a context that allows for rational agents? I say he does not.
TA: God alone is the primary cause. Creatures are true causes of their activity and its product, but they are all secondary causes. God wills that secondary causes should act according to their nature, some by necessity, some contingently.
Ori: Aquinas is saying that humans, as secondary causes, are “true causes”, in the sense that the agent makes contingent choices through his nature. But, again, this nature is determined by God. How is this supposed to work?
Yes, how?
Yes, nature determined by God. A free, rational, morally responsible nature.
Freedom must be explained. Aquinas tells us that we make choices according to ‘our’ nature. However, our nature is determined by God. Where is "freedom"? You cannot solve the problem by simply calling it a: “free, rational, morally responsible nature.” Again, it has to make sense.Origenes_{January 5, 2023
January
01
Jan
5
05
2023
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Origenes
Although nature is chosen by God, we are none-the-less responsible for our actions because they spring from our nature, which is chosen contingently by God. Say again?
Our nature is chosen by God. We have a rational nature. A rational nature, requires free-will. It is, necessarily, not deterministic. St. Thomas explains:
Now particular operations are contingent, and therefore in such matters the judgment of reason may follow opposite courses, and is not determinate to one. And forasmuch as man is rational is it necessary that man have a free-will.
Reason is "not determinate to one" end of judgement. There may be opposite results. The fact that God gave man a rational nature, means that man must have free will.
A nature determined by God, I note.
Yes, nature determined by God. A free, rational, morally responsible nature. But you seem to be equating the determination of natures with a determination of the acts or decisions or thoughts. But that's not what St. Thomas is saying.
God’s will in creatures is unfailingly fulfilled. No creature can thwart it. A free creature can hurt himself, but cannot defeat the will of God. For God wills right order; thus he wills retribution due to responsible free conduct. A saint in heaven and a sinner in hell both fulfill this will.
This does not contradict what I said: "To say that God’s will is fulfilled is not to say that God determined the outcome. " It is God's will that man act freely and be responsible for his actions - and thus receive retribution for his responsible free conduct. So, whatever choice a man makes, he is acting in accord with God's will that he make free choices. You are thinking that since God permits man to act freely, then God is forcing man to take every action he takes. But that's a contradiction. God creates humans so they can act freely and be responsible agents. Therefore, when humans act freely and receive reward or punishment for their behavior, they are fulfilling God's will. God's will is always, infallibly fulfilled because humans act freely and are not the product of determinism.
What convinces you that Aquinas gets there?
First, unlike Plato, Aquinas finds the source of all being, including immaterial forms, in the being of God. Secondly, Aquinas rightly rejects moral or intellectual determinism, affirming that humans are created with free will and thus are responsible.
Does his extremely determined universe allow for free rational agents?
I don't see that his universe is extremely determined. Because God is the fullness of being and cannot be ignorant or morally flawed or evil in any way - then God's is present everywhere and His power sustains all of creation. Again, you have equated this as if God is directly responsible for every action of mankind, but that contradicts what St. Thomas has said. God created free, moral agents. No human being can say that God forced him to do and choose everything he did and chose.
Can you have determinism and free will?
Again, St. Thomas affirms that God gave humans a rational nature. He then rightly says that the rational process requires free will, thus determinism cannot be correct.
Does compatibilism work?
No, it does not work and that is not what Aquinas offers.
His approach differs fundamentally from Plato’s.
True - and in a very simple sense. Aquinas has the benefit of Christian revelation to support his understanding, which Plato did not have.Silver Asiatic_{January 5, 2023
January
01
Jan
5
05
2023
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

Sandy @43
God is not the mover of people’s immoral thoughts and actions. You can’t say a car maker is the cause for an accident of a drunk driver.
Aquinas wants God to be the first cause of everything, but the things you bring up here are very inconvenient in this context. Why did you immediately identify the main problem? Why not a little sightseeing first? Anyway, we find Aquinas explaining, explaining, and doing some more explaining on these matters. He must explain that although God is the first cause of everything, although his will rules supreme and although he creates the nature of all creatures, there are still some matters that He is not (somehow) responsible for, but that that in itself is absolutely no reason to think He is not the first cause of and in total control of everything. I take it you get the picture.Origenes_{January 5, 2023
January
01
Jan
5
05
2023
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @42
… humans have a rational nature and are morally responsible for acts which receive either praise or blame. So, God has determined that humans have free will, which is required of rational or morally responsible thoughts.
There are some obvious problems with this. C. Zoller, a Thomist wrote:
. . . moral activity is governed by one’s character; this governance is the command of one’s actions by one’s nature. Although nature is chosen by God, we are none-the-less responsible for our actions because they spring from our nature, which is chosen contingently by God.
Say again?
[God] does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.
A nature determined by God, I note.
I think this is what you do not find convincing. We have it that God operates in humans, according to a nature which permits voluntary acts. So, this prevents determinism. Human acts must be free. But God’s will is to make them free and rational, otherwise they would be deterministic.
What convinces you that Aquinas gets there? Does his extremely determined universe allow for free rational agents? Can you have determinism and free will? Does compatibilism work? His approach differs fundamentally from Plato's.
To say that God’s will is fulfilled is not to say that God determined the outcome.
Sure?
TA: God’s will in creatures is unfailingly fulfilled. No creature can thwart it. A free creature can hurt himself, but cannot defeat the will of God. For God wills right order; thus he wills retribution due to responsible free conduct. A saint in heaven and a sinner in hell both fulfill this will.
Origenes_{January 5, 2023
January
01
Jan
5
05
2023
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @
Ori: Does Plato hold that a person is the (self moved) first cause of his thoughts? Or is it that Plato, like Aquinas, arrives at one single first cause for all things (physical and mental)?
he [Plato] was identifying the soul as that which is self moved, so he is speaking of each soul.
We have identified a crucial distinction between Plato and Aquinas. I am firmly in camp Plato and argue against Aquinas' compatibilism.Origenes_{January 5, 2023
January
01
Jan
5
05
2023
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Sandy at 43, God knows what we will do before we do it. He is with us when we sin and ask for forgiveness. Our goal is holiness. What can be known about God has been revealed by God in His Word, The Holy Bible.relatd_{January 5, 2023
January
01
Jan
5
05
2023
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

God is not the mover of people's immoral thoughts and actions. You can't say a car maker is the cause for an accident of a drunk driver.Sandy_{January 5, 2023
January
01
Jan
5
05
2023
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Hello Origenes - yes, it's been a while and good to see you.
God has determined the agent’s nature, through which the agent makes choices and thinks,
Right. So, humans have a rational nature and are morally responsible for acts which receive either praise or blame. So, God has determined that humans have free will, which is required of rational or morally responsible thoughts. He says:
[God] does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.
I think this is what you do not find convincing. We have it that God operates in humans, according to a nature which permits voluntary acts. So, this prevents determinism. Human acts must be free. But God's will is to make them free and rational, otherwise they would be deterministic.
God has determined the outcome of the agent’s behavior (“God’s will in creatures is unfailingly fulfilled”),
To say that God's will is fulfilled is not to say that God determined the outcome. It is God's will that humans will choose freely, within limits. God does not, and cannot directly will or cause sin. But the fact that people choose sin is a fulfillment of God's will that people can make free, moral choices. That is different from a deterministic model where God is forcing people to do things - including to commit sins against his own sanctity, which is impossible.
God is the first mover of the agent’s thoughts.
God is the first mover by providing the capability and the concept and nature of free-will in a contingent being. But Thomas says that humans are responsible for their actions, and they would not be responsible if God was the direct cause of all their decisions.
Picture the agent sitting in the driver’s seat of a car. God moves the car in some general direction. The idea is that the agent can freely choose how to get to a location determined by God.
I don't think that analogy works. God is not directing people into hell. All of God's movements, by necessity, are towards Himself. The fact that people can and do freely reject His calling is proof that He does not create people for the purpose of eternal guilt and opposition to Himself. But those who freely reject God make use of the freedom they have been given, and thus fulfill the consequence of choice and justice - which is a fulfillment of God's will. It's an important distinction. God is not moving the person to Hell. He is putting the agent in the car, and by the fact that life is a progression from birth to death, He is the first mover. But where the agent ends up is due to the free choice of the agent. Wherever the agent ends up fulfills God's will.
And the idea is also that the general motion originating from God, explains the steering movements of the driver, who cannot move himself. This idea does not make sense to me, as I have argued elsewhere.
Again, it's not "the general motion originating from God" which explains the steering movements, but rather that the steering can move, voluntarily, within a limit (e.g. it cannot go in a 360 circle). God creates the free-will. The agent does not create the car or the capacity for choice, even though the agent is free to drive the car in any direction. If humans acted perfectly rationally and with moral goodness, the car would be steered towards God, the source and origin and end of all good. But humans can be deceived by apparent but false-goods (sin) and freely act for evil motives. God gives this capability for freedom - and that is free will. But the human person is responsible for the choice. It has not be deterministically forced on them by God. As with many things regarding God's nature and attributes, we will find matters which cannot be easily explained. The simple reason for that is because God is transcendent and cannot be fully comprehended by finite minds.Silver Asiatic_{January 5, 2023
January
01
Jan
5
05
2023
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

Q, he was identifying the soul as that which is self moved, so he is speaking of each soul. There is a first cause for the cosmos and we are contingent but self moved agents, but agents we are and Aquinas was speaking in the context of mechanical nature as SB highlighted by citation. KFkairosfocus_{January 5, 2023
January
01
Jan
5
05
2023
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @37
... first causes are generally seen to be self moved; Plato convincingly distinguishes that from chains of physical effects which by implication cannot ultimately be transfinite hence the first mover. That self motion, is where freedom, including freedom to reason, comes from.
Does Plato hold that a person is the (self moved) first cause of his thoughts? Or is it that Plato, like Aquinas, arrives at one single first cause for all things (physical and mental)?Origenes_{January 5, 2023
January
01
Jan
5
05
2023
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic 38@ Hello Silver Asiatic, long time no see. You say that:
The movement of your thoughts cannot be possible without God as their origin. … God is the first, necessary mover of all things.
Indeed, according to Aquinas, God is the first cause of our thoughts just like he is the first cause of all things.
Aquinas: The intellectual operation is performed by the intellect in which it exists, as by a secondary cause; but it proceeds from God as from its first cause. For by Him the power to understand is given to the one who understands. Now God moves the created intellect in both ways. ... He is the First intelligent Being. Therefore since in each order the first is the cause of all that follows, we must conclude that from Him proceeds all intellectual power. ... Therefore God so moves the created intellect, inasmuch as He gives it the intellectual power, whether natural, or superadded … Hence He moves the created intellect ...
Only God is pure actuality, and only pure actuality, can explain movement. A person is not pure actuality and therefore cannot move his own thoughts.
There are secondary powers and movers. But they cannot exist or move without a first mover.
Secondary movers have no movement of their own. They contain and/or transmit the movement of the first mover, depending on circumstances beyond their control. We are talking about a totally deterministic universe.
Your thoughts move themselves within a contingency, within limits of freedom.
Careful, the agent cannot move himself. Aquinas wants God to be the efficient cause of everything. God has determined the agent’s nature, through which the agent makes choices and thinks, God has determined the outcome of the agent’s behavior (“God’s will in creatures is unfailingly fulfilled”), and God is the first mover of the agent's thoughts. Picture the agent sitting in the driver's seat of a car. God moves the car in some general direction. The idea is that the agent can freely choose how to get to a location determined by God. And the idea is also that the general motion originating from God, explains the steering movements of the driver, who cannot move himself. This idea does not make sense to me, as I have argued elsewhere.
They are not first movers since they must be traced to prior contingencies.
Aquinas wants necessary conditions to be part of the causal chain between an agent and his thoughts. As I have argued this is an incoherent attempt. Elsewhere I wrote: “… arguably without my parents, I would not exist, yet it is incoherent to claim that they are therefore the first cause of every thought I have.”Origenes_{January 5, 2023
January
01
Jan
5
05
2023
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

A first cause is different from a secondary cause. A wrist watch "moves itself". But it does not give itself the capacity and power to move. Nor do we do so with our thoughts. We need not say that God directly moves every molecule in the universe even though He is the cause of their existence. There are secondary powers and movers. But they cannot exist or move without a first mover. Your thoughts move themselves within a contingency, within limits of freedom. They do not move themselves absolutely. They are not first movers since they must be traced to prior contingencies. The movement of your thoughts cannot be possible without God as their origin. They are free and self moving to an extent but not absolutely. That is why St Thomas says they are both self moving and yet that God is the first, necessary mover of all things.Silver Asiatic_{January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

O [attn SB]: context is key as language is inherently ambiguous. SB has highlighted that Aquinas was speaking to a context. Also, first causes are generally seen to be self moved; Plato convincingly distinguishes that from chains of physical effects which by implication cannot ultimately be transfinite hence the first mover. That self motion, is where freedom, including freedom to reason, comes from. Thus, the implicit distinction that we are free lies behind argument and lends to SB's point. KFkairosfocus_{January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply