A closer look at the first way

[Candide West]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II

Candide

Now that IF in the above is the point I'm questioning here. At the moment I've never seen a linking argument to get from "a prime mover or movers existed" to "it should be regarded as a person".

The link was suggested in post #6. Isaac Newton also saw the link.

Just been back and re-read it and there is nothing of the sort in that post. Perhaps you meant a different one?

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by Candide West

I don't think I've made a re-statement of Aquinas. All I've done is asked a common question regarding the last line of the "first way".

Candide:

Your "restatement" is implied in your premise. That's all I'm saying.

Because the word "God" has vast piles of connotations (often different ones to different people) if the word God had only one meaning and that meaning was "whatever it was that happened first" then I would of course not object.

Minor, non-substantial differences in God's determinants do not equal "vast piles of connotations." C'mon.

Unfortunately however the word "God" does have all those extra connotations, so it is obviously much clearer to miss off the last line of Aquinas's proof and simply say that a Prime Mover (PM) existed. That is the point which Aquinas has essentially taken the argument to. I'm happy to work from there.

Except that Aquinas was the antithesis of a pagan philosopher. Interesting that he used pagan philosophy in his proofs.

Indeed, and I think PM is a useful term for what Aquinas's first way demonstrates to exist.

And, that's merely a two-word contraction. You really have a reticence to the use of the word "God," for some reason. But that being so, does not obliterate that I/we can call Him "God." Yours seems to be a false dilemma.

I'm curious to see if anyone here can take the argument any further than that.

But, that's really unnecessary.

Ok, I'm ok with all that except for you having inserted "God" into this again. The last part of your paragraph should have been

As I said above, that is an unnecessary, false dilemma. It does not argue against "God" at all, only that you dislike the appellation.

"You see, PM did not “just happen.” PM is and always was; it is not a first "happening." Nor can PM be subordinated."

Otherwise I agree with you, by definition the PM is whatever happened first, that's the starting point here. I'm entirely happy with that.

Perhaps it you altered your words, "whatever happened first," we could move a little closer on this. Perhaps you could use, "whatever existed (or, "was," or, "was around") first." Or, perhaps "that which is infinitely happening," since you seem to like that word.

Ok, so you agree with me then that all the "first way" shows is "something happened first". I have no issue with that conclusion.

No I definitely do not. "Happened" is a catenated verb, i.e., a verb that is normally followed by another verb with the to infinitive. You've used it stand-alone. Yet there is a presumed ensuing verb with the to infinitive in front of it. By leaving off the ensuing verbal infinitive, you are covertly changing the meaning of the statement. Now, what to infinitive verb could one place directly after the word "happened," I wonder?

By "personal being" I mean an entity that might refer to itself as "I" something that knows that it exists.*

Interesting. So you believe that God, or the "PM," is nothing more than just some brute-fact, natural phenomenon? You think that God, or your "PM," has no "thought" or "will?" You think that materiality is self-subsistent? Hmmm. Well, I suppose that you could think that, but, I can't figure out why. Except that it might just be the logical and ultimate expression of absolute deism. That, Candide, begs many questions.

God bless,
jd

[Charlemagne II]

Candide

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

How would you define "person"? Someone with intelligence and will power?

[TS Aquinas]

Originally Posted by Candide West

Ok, please demonstrate. Show me how you get from our current point of "one or more prime movers existed" to "The prime mover was a personal being".

(incidentally by personal being I mean something sentient, something that is aware that it is.)

First way disproves multiple movers, don't know where that came from. And it would be "is" personal, not "was" because the first way never speaks of temporality, argument works either way, as a before and after, only concerned with "here and now."

And define "sentient" so we can avoid misunderstandings. Also, do you want me to demonstrate it strictly with the first way, can be done, or may I employ the fifth way?

[Candide West]

Originally Posted by JDaniel

Candide:

Your "restatement" is implied in your premise. That's all I'm saying.

??? Not sure what you're saying, seems beside the point anyway, let's move on.

Minor, non-substantial differences in God's determinants do not equal "vast piles of connotations." C'mon.

Ok, for clarity I am using the term connotations to mean something like "additional meanings". And of course the term God has huge piles of connotations.

Even if we just look at the catholic use of the term (obviously a tiny subset) then implied meanings include - omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, personal and creator - and that's just for a starter. All of those are in addition to the Prime Mover which is demonstrated by the first way. So yes, clearly the term "God" DOES have huge piles of additional connotations.*

Except that Aquinas was the antithesis of a pagan philosopher. Interesting that he used pagan philosophy in his proofs.

If you say so.

And, that's merely a two-word contraction. You really have a reticence to the use of the word "God," for some reason. But that being so, does not obliterate that I/we can call Him "God." Yours seems to be a false dilemma.

Yes, it's a two word contraction which adequately represents what the first way demonstrates. Hence a sensible term to use. I've already explained why I don't want to just rename the PM as "God" - because of all the additional connotations that word carries.*

But, that's really unnecessary.

Ok, so atheists and theists alike can agree that the first way shows the existence of a PM. In other words we can all agree "something happened first". Fair enough, but this seems rather irrelevant to theology.*

As I said above, that is an unnecessary, false dilemma. It does not argue against "God" at all, only that you dislike the appellation.

Because the appellation is inappropriate. I could equally well replace the last word in Aquinas's proof with "Fairies" and claim that I have proven fairies exist. Clearly that would be incorrect, and for the same reason that it is incorrect to do this with the word "God".

Perhaps it you altered your words, "whatever happened first," we could move a little closer on this. Perhaps you could use, "whatever existed (or, "was," or, "was around") first." Or, perhaps "that which is infinitely happening," since you seem to like that word. *

You seem to be trying bend the term to reach your objective of "God" obviously though the further you go from "something happened first" the less accurate your terminology becomes.*

No I definitely do not. "Happened" is a catenated verb, i.e., a verb that is normally followed by another verb with the to infinitive. You've used it stand-alone. Yet there is a presumed ensuing verb with the to infinitive in front of it. By leaving off the ensuing verbal infinitive, you are covertly changing the meaning of the statement. Now, what to infinitive verb could one place directly after the word "happened," I wonder?

There is no need for an infinitive there. It's perfectly acceptable to say (for example) "something happened".

Interesting. So you believe that God, or the "PM," is nothing more than just some brute-fact, natural phenomenon? You think that God, or your "PM," has no "thought" or "will?"*

??? Why do you say that? I don't particularly believe anything about the PM. As far as I can tell Aquinas's first way tells us nothing whatsoever about WHAT happened first, only that something did happen first.*

My question here is to see if anyone can take the first way any further than Aquinas did (ie beyond "something happened first").*

You think that materiality is self-subsistent?*

? Sorry you've lost me there. No idea what you mean.*

Hmmm. Well, I suppose that you could think that, but, I can't figure out why. Except that it might just be the logical and ultimate expression of absolute deism. That, Candide, begs many questions.

Ok, but it's nothing to do with my question. So let's set that to one side for now hey?*

[Charlemagne II]

Candide

My question here is to see if anyone can take the first way any further than Aquinas did (ie beyond "something happened first").*

Isaac Newton did. But it appears you don't give a fig for Newton. Post # 6.

[Candide West]

Charlemagne II
Re: A closer look at the first way
Candide

How would you define "person"? Someone with intelligence and will power?

I've said this several times, by the word "personal" I simply mean an entity which might refer to itself as "I". This seems like a simple use of the term to make it as open as possible.*

[Candide West]

Originally Posted by TS Aquinas

First way disproves multiple movers, don't know where that came from.*

Not that I've ever heard. It disproves multiple first movers in a sequence, but since you are talking about a timeless existence anyway there seems to be no reason why you couldn't have multiple, timeless Prime Movers.

And it would be "is" personal, not "was" because the first way never speaks of temporality, argument works either way, as a before and after, only concerned with "here and now."

I remain to be convinced on this one, we can take that as the next point to be demonstrated if you like. But let's focus on the "personal" bit for now.*

And define "sentient" so we can avoid misunderstandings.*

I mean an entity which is aware of its own existence. In other words something which might call itself "I".*

Also, do you want me to demonstrate it strictly with the first way, can be done, or may I employ the fifth way?

You can use whatever means you like. But you must (as with any philosophical discussion) support any assertions you make. Its worth noting that if you start to call upon others of Aquinas's "ways" then you'll also need to support that they refer to a single entity. In other words you'd need to support logically that the "greatest conceivable being" MUST be the Prime Mover, and not just assert that this is so. That is quite a prodigious challenge if you choose to follow that route, but as I said I'm happy for you to use whatever method to proceed that you prefer.*

[Candide West]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II

Candide

My question here is to see if anyone can take the first way any further than Aquinas did (ie beyond "something happened first").*

Isaac Newton did. But it appears you don't give a fig for Newton. Post # 6.

No he didn't, he just stated his religious belief. Fair enough, that was his belief, clearly I (and many other people) do not share it. None of this has anything to do with whether Aquinas's first way can take you any further than "something happened first".

[Charlemagne II]

Candide

No he didn't, he just stated his religious belief. Fair enough, that was his belief, clearly I (and many other people) do not share it.

Not really. Newton didn't make this statement as a result of reading the bible or hearing a sermon or thinking about fairies in the sky. He made it after studying the laws of the universe, which helped him to conclude that the laws appeared to be designed by a Being of great power and intellect (because, after all, it took a being of great intellect ... Newton himself ... to understand them).

If intellect is not at least part of the definition of a personal God, what is it a definition of? An impersonal God? A Thing?

I'll ask you again. What would be in your mind the definition of a personal God, if such a being could exist? Because if all you are going to say is "That's just your belief" then about all anyone can say in return is, "Well, that just your belief too, for which you have no proof whatever that there is no God, personal or otherwise."

I thought at one point you had conceded the possibility of a Prime Mover. The only way you can describe the Prime Mover other than as a Prime Mover, is to judge the actions of the things this Prime Mover has produced. If the Prime Mover has produced thinking and feeling beings, are those thinking and feeling beings in possession of traits denied to the Prime Mover, traits the Prime Mover could not have intended to exist in creation because the Prime Mover has no power of self-consciousness?

Again, you could not say it has no such power unless you had proof of same. Which you obviously don't. So why do you need to decry the personhood of God when all of Creation groans to reflect that it is made in the image and likeness of the Prime Mover?

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

[Perplexity]

1) Change occurs
2) Nothing can change itself
3) Whatever causes change must itself be either changing or be an unchanged changer
4) An infinite series of changers is impossible
5) Therefore there must exist an unchanged changer (a being of pure actuality)

(5) cannot be deduced from the premises. i.e., it's invalid.

Here's an oddity: If nothing can change itself, and there is no infinite series of changers, then how could the unchanged changer perform its first action? No changer could have caused it to, and it could not have caused itself to. So, its first action must have been entirely random. i.e., irrational.

[Candide West]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II

Candide

Not really. Newton didn't make this statement as a result of reading the bible or hearing a sermon or thinking about fairies in the sky. He made it after studying the laws of the universe, which helped him to conclude that the laws appeared to be designed by a Being of great power and intellect (because, after all, it took a being of great intellect ... Newton himself ... to understand them).

Right, that was a common religious belief at the time. It was also a common religious belief that the only way that life could have reached its current state was divine creation ex nihilo. We now know about evolution, so few people now believe in a divine being zapping everything into existence.*

Again, this is wildly off topic, if you really want to talk about Isaac Newtons religious beliefs then please start a thread to do so. I'm not going to respond to any further points about his beliefs, I'm on this thread to discuss Aquinas's first way.*

If intellect is not at least part of the definition of a personal God, what is it a definition of? An impersonal God? A Thing?

I've already provided you with an explanation of the term "personal" perhaps if you could tell me which part you are finding difficult to understand then I'll be able to help you.

I'll ask you again. What would be in your mind the definition of a personal God, if such a being could exist? Because if all you are going to say is "That's just your belief" then about all anyone can say in return is, "Well, that just your belief too, for which you have no proof whatever that there is no God, personal or otherwise."

I have no idea what you are talking about here I'm afraid. I've asked the OP if he / she can get from the point where Aquinas's first way leaves off - "something happened first" - to get to the point of. "that something should be regarded as a personal being". Nothing in the above paragraph has anything to do with this question, or as far as I can tell anything else on this thread.*

I thought at one point you had conceded the possibility of a Prime Mover. The only way you can describe the Prime Mover other than as a Prime Mover, is to judge the actions of the things this Prime Mover has produced. If the Prime Mover has produced thinking and feeling beings, are those thinking and feeling beings in possession of traits denied to the Prime Mover, traits the Prime Mover could not have intended to exist in creation because the Prime Mover has no power of self-consciousness?

I am starting from the assumption of a Prime Mover for the sake of argument (in other words the point which Aquinas's first way leaves off) I feel I've been very clear on this point. Everything else here is off topic.

Again, you could not say it has no such power unless you had proof of same. Which you obviously don't. So why do you need to decry the personhood of God when all of Creation groans to reflect that it is made in the image and likeness of the Prime Mover?

And again off topic.

[Charlemagne II]

Candide

We now know about evolution, so few people now believe in a divine being zapping everything into existence.

This is wildly off topic.

I guess you don't want to define a personal being as you would expect a personal being to be ... that is, in possession of intellect.

Aquinas' fifth argument goes on to make that point. I only cited Newton because he agreed with the reasonability of Aquinas seeing God as designer of the universe.

Evolution is not an explanation of anything except a process. It does not explain why the process exists. Nor can any atheist explain why the process exists. But philosophy and theology can.

Case closed.

[Candide West]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II

Candide

This is wildly off topic.

Exactly the point I keep making, why not keep to topic eh?

I guess you don't want to define a personal being as you would expect a personal being to be ... that is, in possession of intellect.*

Again, if you are having a hard time understanding the term "personal" then please tell me which bit you are struggling with and I'll endeavour to explain. Otherwise please keep to topic.

Aquinas' fifth argument goes on to make that point. I only cited Newton because he agreed with the reasonability of Aquinas seeing God as designer of the universe.

Off topic again.

Evolution is not an explanation of anything except a process. It does not explain why the process exists. Nor can any atheist explain why the process exists. But philosophy and theology can.

Case closed.

And again off topic.*

[Charlemagne II]

Candide

Again, if you are having a hard time understanding the term "personal" then please tell me which bit you are struggling with and I'll endeavour to explain. Otherwise please keep to topic.

O.K. Bye-bye!