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

Thomas Aquinas on Free Will:
“Free will is the cause of its own motion, because by his free will man moves himself for the sake of acting. 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. 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]”
A closer look:
Free will is the cause of its own motion, because by his free will man moves himself for the sake of acting.
Got it. “Man moves himself”, so I am a self-mover. This implies that my thoughts (and writings) originate in me. IOW I am the first cause of my thoughts.
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.
Wait a minute. First Thomas says “man moves himself” and next he says ‘God is the first cause of the (voluntary) movement of man.’ The latter does not make sense, because: If God is the first cause of my thoughts (writings), and he is a sufficient cause of my thoughts, then I am not in control of my thoughts, and therefore, I am not rational. If God is not a sufficient cause of my thoughts, but I am, then I move myself and I am the first cause of my thoughts.Origenes_{January 1, 2023
January
01
Jan
1
01
2023
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

StephenB@ 4
Your thoughts, which are immaterial, cannot be detected by the senses and do not, therefore, count as “things” whose movement can be observed or traced. What can be observed are the products of your thinking.
You offer my writing on this forum as an example of a product of my thinking. A clear and good example. My claim is that I move myself when I write my posts.
Thus, the paragraph that you just wrote is explained by your prior capacity to write it, which was given to you by the first mover (God), who moved you from a state of non-existence to what you now are now (an intelligent agent, who can think his own thoughts and act on them).
When I think my own thoughts and act on them and write this paragraph, do I move myself (according to Aquinas)? Are you saying that (according to Aquinas) God created me and gave me the capacity to move myself?
The existence of a first mover, therefore, is a necessary condition for a rational universe.
If we assume a fully deterministic universe, then the existence of a first mover is necessary to avoid the absurdity of an infinite regress of causes. True. However, as I have argued, the universe cannot be fully deterministic, because I, as a rational being, do not fit such a universe. I must be able to move myself.Origenes_{January 1, 2023
January
01
Jan
1
01
2023
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

Origenes:
Some of you won’t like it, but here follows some criticism on Aquinas’ first way.
Let’s examine it.
Given that I am rational, it cannot be the case that God moves all things, my thoughts included. “God moves all things”, and “Nothing can move itself except for God” cannot be true.
Your thoughts, which are immaterial, cannot be detected by the senses and do not, therefore, count as “things” whose movement can be observed or traced. What can be observed are the products of your thinking.
God does not do my thinking — I do.
Yes, of course. Still, I think you misunderstand the principle of sufficient reason, which states that everything that exists or moves must have a rational explanation. You cannot be the cause (origin, explanation) for your capacity to think. It was God, the first mover, who, from nothing, created you as an responsible, intelligent agent capable of forming your own thoughts. So it is (was) with Ted Bundy. Thus, the paragraph that you just wrote is explained by your prior capacity to write it, which was given to you by the first mover (God), who moved you from a state of non-existence to what you now are now (an intelligent agent, who can think his own thoughts and act on them). The existence of a first mover, therefore, is a necessary condition for a rational universe.StephenB_{January 1, 2023
January
01
Jan
1
01
2023
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

@2
Was Aquinas including thoughts when considering “things” in motion?
I don't believe so. Aristotle, at any rate, considered thoughts to be act of the intellect. The intellect is pure form, with no matter and hence no potential or potency. Only things with a material dimension to them exhibit motion or movement. I don't know if that's exactly what Aquinas would say, but it's what Aristotle would say, and Aquinas takes over a lot from Aristotle. For that reason, I do not think that Aquinas's cosmological argument undermines freedom of the will. All he would need to say is that the intellectual power of the soul is immaterial, and that's enough to exempt it from the causal chain that originates in God.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Was Aquinas including thoughts when considering "things" in motion?AnimatedDust_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

The First Way: Argument from Motion 1.) Our senses prove that some things are in motion. 2.) Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion. 3.) Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion. 4.) Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another). 5.) Therefore nothing can move itself. 6.) Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else. 7.) The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum. 8.) Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Some of you won’t like it, but here follows some criticism on Aquinas' first way. It is a solid argument against hard determinism. It clearly shows that the idea that everything is determined by a prior cause does not make sense. Aquinas concludes that there must be at least one exception, the ‘first mover’ — God. Surely a ‘first-mover’ is all you need to explain the concept of a fully blind deterministic universe, but that concept does not fit reality. I, as a rational being, need to be in control of my thoughts. Given that I am rational, it cannot be the case that God moves all things, my thoughts included. “God moves all things”, and “Nothing can move itself except for God” cannot be true. I must be able to move myself also. I do not fit a blind causal chain that originates with God. God does not do my thinking — I do. And God certainly did not commit Ted Bundy’s crimes — Ted Bundy moved himself.Origenes_{December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply