Thomistic Approach for the Existence of God

[Quiddity]

The first thing we can establish is that there is motion in the universe. Motion is another word for change or from the state of potentiality to actuality. For example, our thoughts change. No one can deny change. But whatever is in motion is moved by another since nothing can move itself. To deny this is to say that a potentiality can actualize itself, a nonbeing into a being, meaning a greater can come from a less. That is absurd since nonbeing cannot produce being since nothing can't produce something.

Therefore motion can only be moved by another or a potentiality can only be actualized by an act. If every motion is moved by another, can there be an infinite number of movers? According to Thomas, an infinite series of movers accidentally subordinated to one another in time is possible. This is because God could have made an eternal universe. However, an eternal universe must have a reason for its existence just as an eternal footprint needs a foot.

However, motion exists now. Since it exists now, we must explain its existence. However, an infinite number of movers does not explain the series of motion. Only when I arrive at an Unmoved Mover am I to give a full explanation of motion. The Unmoved First Mover, therefore, is not the first in order of time, but in the order of rational sufficiency.

But some may ask, “Who moved the First Mover?” The answer is simply that the Unmoved First Mover alone answers the true idea of a mover. A secondary mover, insofar as it is a secondary, is not a mover at all. For example, if I see a mover, but found that that this is moved by something else, what happened to the mover? It has become actually a motion. It makes no difference how often I go back to each mover, but until I arrive at a First Mover, the idea of motion will be unexplained.

Therefore in order to explain motion in the universe, there must be an Unmoved First Mover. Since changing beings consists of act and potency, and the First Mover is unchanged, then the First Mover must be Pure Act. There cannot be more than one Pure Act because they would coincide.

Thoughts?

 

[Scott1]

Thoughts?

I love it! S.T.A. rocks :jam:

 

[Fatmop]

our thoughts change. No one can deny change.

Would you say our thoughts are 'in motion?' That isn't very scientific or logical.

an eternal universe must have a reason for its existence just as an eternal footprint needs a foot.

Not at all. This is a terrible analogy. The universe needs no reason; we ascribe purpose and reason to things that we see, but those purposes and reasons do not exist outside the confines of our minds. To imply a correlation between a universe and a footprint is to assume that the universe has 'inherent' reason to exist, something not all of us agree on as an axiom. The only people who agree that the universe exists for a reason are those who believe they already know the reason - the theists.

Therefore in order to explain motion in the universe, there must be an Unmoved First Mover.

Newtonian physics disagrees. Strongly.

The references to an 'unmoved first mover' are the very same as references to a 'first cause.' This argument has taken place many times before.

 

[Angama]

Hard to argue with this one. But that could be because I'm still learning...lol.

AA

 

[Fatmop]

Hard to argue with this one. But that could be because I'm still learning...lol.

It shouldn't take you long. Think about the underlying premise to the article - there must be a God, so now let's explain everything in terms of that God. Once you realize that most theistic arguments are based on the premise that God exists, you can determine where their logical inconsistencies arise.

 

[Quiddity]

Would you say our thoughts are 'in motion?' That isn't very scientific or logical.

Let me repeat it: Motion is another word for change
Things change, what kind of scientific data do you need to show you this? It's pretty simple really.

Not at all. This is a terrible analogy. The universe needs no reason; we ascribe purpose and reason to things that we see, but those purposes and reasons do not exist outside the confines of our minds. To imply a correlation between a universe and a footprint is to assume that the universe has 'inherent' reason to exist, something not all of us agree on as an axiom. The only people who agree that the universe exists for a reason are those who believe they already know the reason - the theists.

Yup. You don't believe there is a reason, but I do. But neither of us can prove it thru the natural sciences. Your assurance is much to high for something that can't be disproven. Leave that to the theist..

Newtonian physics disagrees. Strongly.

Do share...

The references to an 'unmoved first mover' are the very same as references to a 'first cause.' This argument has taken place many times before.

Similar but not exactly the same.

~Victor

 

[Fatmop]

Let me repeat it: Motion is another word for change
Things change, what kind of scientific data do you need to show you this? It's pretty simple really.

Motion is a specific type of change - change in position. Not all change is a change in position, especially not changes of mind - what position can you attribute to the mind?
You are confusing the two words. Seeing as the 'thoughts' sentence doesn't actually apply to the rest of the dissertation, I'll let it go.

Your assurance is much to high for something that can't be disproven. Leave that to the theist..

My assurance comes from a psychological perspective. There's always the possibility that I am wrong and there IS purpose to the universe, but once again, no proof for such purpose exists.

Do share...

Newtonian physics (and actually all physics) explains motion as the result of force. If Newtonian physics can not 'explain motion in the universe,' as you say, then there is no reason for its existence - but physics explains motion in the universe quite well. Physics explains why planets revolve around the sun, why bodies fall to Earth, why the water level in your bathtub rises when you get in, and a lot more - and it does it based on observation and testing, not specious reasoning from an "Unmoved mover."

Similar but not exactly the same.

Why is it different?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

However, an infinite number of movers does not explain the series of motion.

Why is that, Victor?

 

[Ceridwen018]

But whatever is in motion is moved by another since nothing can move itself.

Mmm...we don't know that. "Quarks" are still a new topic in the already new field of quantum mechanics. Things like spontaneous movement and popping into and out of existence are right up quarks' alley.

That is absurd since nonbeing cannot produce being since nothing can't produce something.

Depends on how you would define "nothing" of course, which would then require that you provide evidence of "nothing's" ever having existed.

However, an eternal universe must have a reason for its existence just as an eternal footprint needs a foot.

I don't agree that it must have a "reason", however it is possible that something could have caused the universe to form. It's not necessary, but it is possible.

However, an infinite number of movers does not explain the series of motion.

I would like to second JS's question.

Only when I arrive at an Unmoved Mover am I to give a full explanation of motion. The Unmoved First Mover, therefore, is not the first in order of time, but in the order of rational sufficiency.

Wait a minute--didn't you just spend a whole paragraph explaining how "nothing can move itself"? That would mean that an "unmoved mover" would be impossible and nonexistent.

Therefore in order to explain motion in the universe, there must be an Unmoved First Mover.

Assuming that non-motion has ever existed, yes, this would most likely be true.

Since changing beings consists of act and potency, and the First Mover is unchanged,

Not at all. This first mover would be the very definition of "act" and "potency". It's moving after all, is it not? How would the first mover not be changed in its sudden movement?

the First Mover must be Pure Act. There cannot be more than one Pure Act because they would coincide.

So. Even if they "coincided" that wouldn't necessarily stop the motion. In fact, if there ever was some sort of "initial motion" it is just as accurate to postulate that it could have come from multiple different sources versus only one.

 

[Scott1]

**holding pom-poms**

Good luck Victor!

 

[Quiddity]

It shouldn't take you long. Think about the underlying premise to the article - there must be a God, so now let's explain everything in terms of that God. Once you realize that most theistic arguments are based on the premise that God exists, you can determine where their logical inconsistencies arise.

Fatmop, you seem to have kryptonite that makes you invinsible to this. How do you do it? :149:

~Victor

 

[gnomon]

The first thing we can establish is that there is motion in the universe. Motion is another word for change or from the state of potentiality to actuality. For example, our thoughts change. No one can deny change. But whatever is in motion is moved by another since nothing can move itself. To deny this is to say that a potentiality can actualize itself, a nonbeing into a being, meaning a greater can come from a less. That is absurd since nonbeing cannot produce being since nothing can't produce something.

This argument can be applied to the concept of the divine itself.

Therefore motion can only be moved by another or a potentiality can only be actualized by an act. If every motion is moved by another, can there be an infinite number of movers? According to Thomas, an infinite series of movers accidentally subordinated to one another in time is possible. This is because God could have made an eternal universe. However, an eternal universe must have a reason for its existence just as an eternal footprint needs a foot.

A footprint only holds meaning to that which can recognize a footprint for what it is. A footprint is also recognized relative to an external frame of reference namely in that substance which the foot displace. Observations on the universe as a whole do not fall withing the same realm. We are on the inside looking out and have yet to achieve the ability to observe the whole from any reference other than our planet and most often our own minds. Reasons are too often projected from our own imagination irregardless of the true nature of the reality. Truly, nothing has a reason beyond causation except to satisfy our own intellect.

However, motion exists now. Since it exists now, we must explain its existence. However, an infinite number of movers does not explain the series of motion. Only when I arrive at an Unmoved Mover am I to give a full explanation of motion. The Unmoved First Mover, therefore, is not the first in order of time, but in the order of rational sufficiency.

But some may ask, “Who moved the First Mover?” The answer is simply that the Unmoved First Mover alone answers the true idea of a mover. A secondary mover, insofar as it is a secondary, is not a mover at all. For example, if I see a mover, but found that that this is moved by something else, what happened to the mover? It has become actually a motion. It makes no difference how often I go back to each mover, but until I arrive at a First Mover, the idea of motion will be unexplained.

Therefore in order to explain motion in the universe, there must be an Unmoved First Mover. Since changing beings consists of act and potency, and the First Mover is unchanged, then the First Mover must be Pure Act. There cannot be more than one Pure Act because they would coincide.

But does this necessarily imply a conscious act?

 

[Fatmop]

Fatmop, you seem to have kryptonite that makes you invinsible to this. How do you do it? :149:

~Victor

By not making long, illogical posts?

A footprint only holds meaning to that which can recognize a footprint for what it is. A footprint is also recognized relative to an external frame of reference namely in that substance which the foot displace. Observations on the universe as a whole do not fall withing the same realm. We are on the inside looking out and have yet to achieve the ability to observe the whole from any reference other than our planet and most often our own minds. Reasons are too often projected from our own imagination irregardless of the true nature of the reality. Truly, nothing has a reason beyond causation except to satisfy our own intellect.

Totally agree. Frubal'd.

 

[Quiddity]

Motion is a specific type of change - change in position. Not all change is a change in position, especially not changes of mind - what position can you attribute to the mind?
You are confusing the two words. Seeing as the 'thoughts' sentence doesn't actually apply to the rest of the dissertation, I'll let it go

.

Especially not changes of mind? People are constantly changing their positions because of some outside influence. You lost me here.

My assurance comes from a psychological perspective. There's always the possibility that I am wrong and there IS purpose to the universe, but once again, no proof for such purpose exists.

Through the natural sciences, agreed. Through giving reasons one can in fact prove God, we will have to disagree on this.

Newtonian physics (and actually all physics) explains motion as the result of force. If Newtonian physics can not 'explain motion in the universe,' as you say, then there is no reason for its existence - but physics explains motion in the universe quite well. Physics explains why planets revolve around the sun, why bodies fall to Earth, why the water level in your bathtub rises when you get in, and a lot more - and it does it based on observation and testing, not specious reasoning from an "Unmoved mover."

I think you misunderstood here. The argument didn’t say that physics can’t understand motion. What it does say is that motion requires force. Force requires something or someone to initiate it. If you follow all forces to its source you find God.

Why is it different?

This one is dealing with motion/change the other is dealing with causes.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Why is that, Victor?

As an analogy you can see the infinite number of movers as polytheism. From an objective sense it is simply many forces.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Ceridwen and gnomon, not ignoring you but let's see where this convo goes from here.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

By not making long, illogical posts?

That's what I get for trying. Oh well..such are your tactics.

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

However, an infinite number of movers does not explain the series of motion.

Why is that, Victor?

As an analogy you can see the infinite number of movers as polytheism. From an objective sense it is simply many forces.

That was not helpful, Victor. First Cause arguments presume a First Effect - not to mention a primitive concept of time.

 

[Yerda]

Thoughts?

Yes please.

Given that a body might just as naturally be in motion as at rest (according to my embarrassingly weak physics education) and that the idea of absolute motion has been dead for some time, does this prime mover 'way' make any sense?

(By the way, I am quite fond of St. Tommy, his arguments at least attempted to rely upon and explain natural, observable phenomena).

 

[michel]

Mmm...we don't know that. "Quarks" are still a new topic in the already new field of quantum mechanics. Things like spontaneous movement and popping into and out of existence are right up quarks' alley.


Depends on how you would define "nothing" of course, which would then require that you provide evidence of "nothing's" ever having existed.


I don't agree that it must have a "reason", however it is possible that something could have caused the universe to form. It's not necessary, but it is possible.


I would like to second JS's question.


Wait a minute--didn't you just spend a whole paragraph explaining how "nothing can move itself"? That would mean that an "unmoved mover" would be impossible and nonexistent.


Assuming that non-motion has ever existed, yes, this would most likely be true.


Not at all. This first mover would be the very definition of "act" and "potency". It's moving after all, is it not? How would the first mover not be changed in its sudden movement?


So. Even if they "coincided" that wouldn't necessarily stop the motion. In fact, if there ever was some sort of "initial motion" it is just as accurate to postulate that it could have come from multiple different sources versus only one.

Oh ghosh! Ceridwen's at it again, with her quantum physics.......*time to hide under the table*