Aquinas 5 ways.

[Anonymous No.20159021]

Please help me understand the 5 ways from Aquinas, the first 2 are pretty ''easy'' to grasp, but i am having a problem with number 3 and 4.

1. Argument from Motion – POTENTIALITY AND ACTUALITY.
- Some things are in motion.

- Nothing can move/change itself – the motion of one thing (A) is dependent on an ‘’outside’’ mover (B) – in philosophical terms, the potential to be ‘’moved/changed’’ is actualized by another - B changes A.

- But the thing ‘’B’’ that is moving/changing the first thing ‘’A’’, must itself be moved/changed by another thing ‘’C’’ – C changes B, which changes A.

- The series repeats itself until we get to what Aristotle called the ‘’Unmoved mover’’ a.k.a. something that doesn’t move and has no potentiality and what Aquinas called ‘’Actus Purus’’ - PURE ACTUALITY.

- The chain of causes is ordered ESSENTIALLY – which means every member of the chain is dependent on the previous member at this very moment.

EXAMPLE:
Stone <(moved by) < stick <(moved by) < hand <(moved by) < Muscles <(moved by) < Neutrons in brain <(moved by) < ‘’Fundamental’’ forces <(moved by) < ...???... <(moved by) < ‘’Unmoved mover’’.

[Anonymous No.20159023]

2. Argument from Efficient Causes.
- Things exist.

- The things existence is not a part of its property/essence. A Unicorn can have its properties/essences known, but it doesn’t exist.

- Therefore the things existence (A) is being imparted/caused by something else (B) - Water exists because its existence is imparted by water molecules.

- But the thing (B) which imparts the existence of the first thing (A), has its existence also imparted/caused by something else here and now (C) - Water exists because of water molecules, which in turn exist because of oxygen and hydrogen atoms, which in turn exist because of atomic forces…

- The series repeats itself until we get to something which has existence as part of its essence – a thing, which Aquinas called ‘’Ipsum Ese Subsistens’’/‘’subsistent existence itself’’ – something which is existence itself is not subject to change and therefore has no potentiality which again brings us to PURE ACTUALITY.

- The chain of causes is ordered ESSENTINALY – which means every member of the chain is dependent on the previous member at this very moment.

EXAMPLE:
Water <(exists because of) < Water molecules < (exist because of) < Oxygen/Hydrogen atoms <(exist because of) < Atomic forces <(exist because of) < Fundamental universal constants <(exist because of) < ...???... <(exist because of) < ‘’Subsistent existence itself’’.


3. Argument from Contingency. Why is there something rather than nothing?
- Every thing is a contingent being.

- Which means that the thing could not be existing, and its existence is dependent on factors beyond itself - Ice cubes existence is dependent on an Air-cooling machine.

- But the same factors are also dependent on something beyond itself: Air cooling machine is dependent on Electricity.

- Therefore the existence of ‘’Totality of reality (universe?)’’ can only be explained by contingent factors.

- Even if the Totality of reality is eternal (weak necessary being), its existence would still be dependent on something outside of it. (The existence of any material thing is distinct from its essence, we would need in any case to appeal to something outside it in order to explain how its essence and existence come together so as to make it real.)

- Thus, the totality of reality is dependent on something, which we call a ‘’(STRONGLY) necessary’’ being, something which could not, not exist A.K.A. God. (Y H W H – I AM WHO AM)

[Anonymous No.20159027]

4. Argument from Degrees of Being.

- There are gradations in being: Particulars>lower form>higher form>highest form.

- The gradation of ‘’being’’ in a thing is based on its resemblance to the maximum: A particular horse is graded on its being based on how it resembles a concept of an ideal horse.

- The ideals (transcendentals) (truth/beauty/justice) also have a gradation of ‘’being’’: Something is ‘’best’’/’’nobles’’/’’truest’’.

- There is something, which is a cause of all ‘’being’’, and that is something we all call God.


5. Teleological argument / argument from final causes:
- Natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

- Most natural things lack intelligence.

- What lacks intelligence (A) achieves its final cause by some natural thing outside of it (B) - An electron is orbiting a nucleus because it is a final cause of Atomic forces.

- But that thing (B) also has its final cause achieved by something outside of it (C) – Atomic forces exist, because they are a final cause of fundamental universal constants.

- The series repeats itself until we get to something which is not a final cause of anything and is itself the first cause of the entire reality.

- Therefore, an Intelligent Being exists which directs all natural things to their end. This is God

EXAMPLE:
Day and night cycle <(Is a final cause of) < Rotation of the sun < (Is a final cause of) < Gravity <( Is a final cause of) < Fundamental universal constants <( Is a final cause of) < ...???... <( Is a final cause of) < First cause.

[Anonymous No.20159160]

>>20159021
Aristotle's unmoved mover was based on different rationale. I can quote the chapters from Metaphysics if you'd like to see how. It relies on circular motion.

[Anonymous No.20159172]

>>20159021
God is the alpha and omega simple stuff, anon<img class="xae" data-xae width="28" height="19" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/3d8675e9_peepoWTF.png">

[Anonymous No.20159183]

>>20159023
>- The series repeats itself until we get to something which has existence as part of its essence
This is also refuted by Aristotle, because substratum is neither essence nor existence nor substance. There is no logical reason to think things cannot be divided indefinitely, in fact it is logically necessary for things existing in space that they be divisible.

[Anonymous No.20159209]

What exactly are you having trouble understanding?

[Anonymous No.20159221]

>>20159183
>There is no logical reason to think things cannot be divided indefinitely
You're going the wrong way. Of course being can be divided infinitely going down from God, but going up the series converges to a point. It's like saying you can run down the digits of Pi forever, but at any point if you stop and start counting backwards you'll inevitably end up at 3. The series is only infinite in one direction, in the other it's always finite. Being can come from God in an infinite chain, but if you trace it back then it must always terminate in God.

[Anonymous No.20159227]

>>20159221
That's not what that argument was suggesting. It was attempting to assert that the essence of matter is existence, which is absurd.

[Anonymous No.20159240]

>>20159227
No it asserts that Gods essence is existence. The chain must terminate in God precisely because there is only one thing that has existence as its essence and that's God, all other things are seperated into essence and existence meaning they're contingent on something beyond themselves to exist. Matter is necessarily contingent on something outside itself to exist, it's existence is contingent which means it's essence cannot be the same as its existence

[Anonymous No.20159242]

>>20159240
>No it asserts that Gods essence is existence.
That is again not what the argument is suggesting. Try actually reading Aristotle for once, I'm done here.

[Anonymous No.20159253]

>>20159242
>get mogged
>rage quits
many such cases<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="31" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/9ecd704b_PepoThink.png">

[Anonymous No.20159262]

>Existence never can belong to the essence of a thing

Aristotle

[Anonymous No.20159269]

>>20159242
>That is again not what the argument is suggesting
In Aquinas own words:
>Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

You're wrong bucko, you're right to dip out before you get embarrassed too badly.

[Anonymous No.20159270]

>Unmoved mover
the state of western metaphysics

[Anonymous No.20159280]

>>20159262
Aristotle didn't recognize a distinction between essence and existence. That was an innovation of St Thomas.

[Anonymous No.20159294]

>motion
void
>existence
void
>essence
void
>contingency
void
>being
void
>non-being
void
>form
void
>matter
void
>angels
void
>god
void
>void
void

[Anonymous No.20159365]

>>20159209

What i dont know is, are my understandings of the third and fourth way correct.

[Anonymous No.20159371]

>>20159365
It looks fine to me if those are your explanations in your own words.

[Anonymous No.20159397]

>nothing is without x
>therefore something is without x
christer logic

[Anonymous No.20159676]

The best argument against cosmological argument is that
>God creates universe
>Therefore his action must have an intention
>And that intention must have an intention in itself
The Cosmological argument collapses unto itself and becomes an infinite regress.
You might argue that God is timeless and therefore is not bound by such rules. But if that's the case then why aren't other things not exempted by such rules which means they can be caused by themselves and not need any causer.

[Anonymous No.20159699]

Daily reminder that teleology is literally just the survivorship bias + an argument from ignorance

[Anonymous No.20159760]

>>20159021
>bohr model
>the fifth way is just completely and categorically wrong

[Anonymous No.20159834]

>>20159760
the picture is just meant as a representation, i could use any pic i wanted.

Please tell me how to articulate the fifth way - thats why i made this thread.

[Anonymous No.20160131]

>>20159294
based

[Anonymous No.20160257]

>>20159365
3:
We have phenomena and those phenomena seem to exist and interact within monads. The monads that I have discovered are substance, quality, entity, action, state, place, context, and hypothetical. Things are 'of' these 8 bands/brands of being but definitions become more complex the more is encapsulated within the phenomena. Physically things act through inherited relations or through qualitative interactions.
4:
There are gradations but also monads that these gradations exist within. Monads are somewhere between states and fields.

[Anonymous No.20160488]

>>20159676
>>20159397
>>20159270
God is the first of everything, the last of everything, and within everything. The proofs of life as we currently exist are based on a singularity (Unmoving), that from the singularity something set everything in motion (Unmoved Mover sets things in motion), everything that exists forever and/or until the end is of the singularity (Essence). How is this so complicated?

[Anonymous No.20160546]

>>20159834
not him but cuz of Heisenberg uncertanty principle we cannot, in principle, predict trajectory of electron never. we can only calculate probability of electron being in small volume dV. Therefore,

>The fact, that elecrton is moving around a set path, which can be known and predicted (to some degree)

is categorically false.

[Anonymous No.20160634]

>>20160488
>Unmoved Mover
So then what created the Unmoved Mover? You yourself said that everything has a creator, so what created the Jewish volcano demon?

[Anonymous No.20160747]

>>20160488
>God is the first of everything, the last of everything, and within everything
So now that that's your premise, that God exists, from that you are going to prove God exists? Bravo little Tommy