Introduction
I have decided to introduce the proofs with a discussion on preliminary notions and then later move to the proofs. I will begin with some definitions taken from the Thomistic tradition of Thomas Aquinas.
Preliminary Definitions
Be - the act to be, which implies a nature. Be is the actualization of all acts and is the fundamental perfection of all creatures. For example, the be of an apple is the act of the apple, which implies the nature of apple. The be of an apple means the actualization of the nature of apple, whereby the nature of apple-ness is in act in this particular, concrete, apple.
Analogy – more unlike than like.
Proper – what is necessary according to the specific difference to divide logically into genus and species. Or in a creature, it is a necessary accident, such as quantity as an accident of a body. In God, what is proper is the divine life He has which is not in common with creatures.
Substance – what bes in self. For example – a block of marble, a man, a tree, a rock, etc.
Accident – what bes in other. For example – the accidens of quality, quantity, posture, where, when and so on that reside in the block of marble, or the colour of a red apple.
Subject – that is which something resides (Water is the subject of the bucket), or that which stands under something – (primary matter under substantial form).
Form – principle of determinacy. For example, the soul id the form of the body, heat is a form of fire. The form is the act of a substance, which can be either a substantial form, or an accidental form.
Substantial form (SF) – first principle of determinacy of a body. For example, apple-ness is the sf of an apple. The rational soul is the SF of man.
Accidental form (AF) – secondary principle of determinacy in a body. For example, red is an AF of an apple. Heat is an AF of fire.
Matter – principle of indeterminacy, or that which is can be, or that which can receive a form. For example, apple-ness can receive the act, to be, whereby what can be an apple, is actualized, to be an apple in the concrete. The apple is firstly in potency to be an apple, then brought from potency to act, to be an apple. Matter is what can be, and as such, matter is the principle of limit of a body and of change.
Primary matter (PM) – first principle of indeterminacy. PM is the fundamental can be, whereby a form is required to inform PM to have can be change to does be. For example, PM can be a man, dog, or a cat. When PM is brought to act by a form, what can be a man, dog, or a cat, does be a man, dog, or a cat, whereby the man, dog, or a cat are substantial forms educed out of PM.
Principle – that wherefrom something proceeds in whatever manner. For example, a point is the principle of a line, or rationality proceeds from the fundamental principle of reason as the principle of non contradiction.
Order – disposition according to before and after relatively to some principle. For example, the natural order is an inclination towards a natural end according to a natural principle. Such as a man as a natural thing has an inclination to eat and sleep, as natural acts done for natural ends. Or again, for example, For example, the supernatural order is an inclination towards a supernatural end according to a supernatural principle, such as grace as a supernatural principle directs man to a supernatural end, as the Trinity.
Essence – is that whereby something is that which it is or that according to which a thing is. For example, a tree has a vegetative nature, a car has an artificial nature, and man has the nature of rational animal.
Final cause – the cause in the order of intention as the end of the action intended. For example intend to build a house to make money. The final cause can only be known by intellect, as it is knowledge of an end. The final cause is required to move the efficient cause to achieve the end determined by the agent.
Efficient cause – the making cause. This cause is determined in its action by the final cause as intended by the final cause. The efficient cause is the carpenter building the house.
Formal cause – the determining cause inside a thing that determines the material cause. The formal cause is caused by both the final and efficient causes. The carpenter acts to place the form of house into the timber, bricks and mortar.
Material cause – the determined cause inside a thing that is determine by the final, efficient and formal causes. The carpenter uses the timber, bricks and mortar (the matter) in his building.
Movement - The act of the existent in potency as it is in potency or the act of what is being actualised, as it is being actualised.
Cause - (Philosophical definition used in the proofs): That which influences or tends to influence the be of some thing which is dependent for its be. (Natural science definition): The observed conditions necessary for the apparition of a fact, that is the conditions which when observed, a fact can be predicted.
Perfection: fullness of be. For example, a glass has water, whereby the water is a perfection of a glass.
Contingent: That which can have itself otherwise. Or that which is indifferent to be or not be. For example, a tree is not necessary to exist, and therefore is contingent.
Ontological Contingent (used in the proofs):That which is contingent by contingency of the very thing itself; that is something is ontologically contingent when the very thing itself might be otherwise.
Does God need to be demonstrated to Exist?
Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called "a priori," and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration "a posteriori"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.
Is the existence of God demonstrable?
Demonstration is twofold. One which is through cause, and is called demonstration wherefore; and this is through what is prior simply. The other is through effect, and is called demonstration that, and this is through what is prior to us, for when some effect is more manifest to us than is its cause, we proceed through the effect to knowledge of the cause. But from whatsoever effect it can be demonstrated that the proper cause of it is (so long as its effects are known to us ); because since effects depend on cause, given the effect, it musts needs be that the cause pre-exist. Therefore, that God is, according as it is not self-evident to us, is demonstrable through effects known to us.
Principle of A posteriori Demonstration.
A posteriori demonstration is valid according to the principle of causality, since effects depend on cause, given the effect, the cause must pre-exist. This principle is wrongly understood by positivists (most scientists are positivists) who understand it according to the order of phenomena only. Taken in this manner it means ‘every phenomenon supposes an antecedent phenomenon’ which reduces the principle of causality to mere generalisation from experiences, whereby the principle would not be an absolutely necessary law of contingent being, known to us because the nature of contingent being is known to us (men) through knowledge of the intellect.
The principle of efficient causality is to be understood according as – every contingent being, if it is, has an efficient cause. This principle is valid in the ontological order, having ontological value according to being. This principle also transcends the sensible world whereby the principle has a twofold value from -
1. Mens intellects knowing natures. Thereby men can know that a contingent being is that which can be and can be not, therefore not from itself does it be, therefore, if it does be, it has from another that it does be, which is to know that the principle of efficient causation has ontological value. Accordingly, in the order of being, a cause (B) produces an effect (A, the contingent being) and then in the order of knowledge, because the nature of A is known to require a cause, then we know with absolute certitude that this cause exists even though the cause cannot be observed nor is observable.
2. The formal object of the intellect is being, therefore the principle of efficient causality in the ontological order is immediately known to us as self-evident. Nevertheless, the principle is also demonstrated indirectly as follows. A being either has not be or has be, and then: either has be from itself, (that is without an efficient cause), or has be from another (has an efficient cause). But that an existing contingent being: have not be, is self contradictory (as it would be existing and not existing). Or have be from self, is self contradictory as it would then be both contingent and not contingent. Therefore the principle that an existing contingent being has be from another is from an efficient cause is true.
The manner of Causation used in the demonstration
From whatsoever effect it can be demonstrated that the proper cause of it is. The proper cause is that case without which that thing cannot be had, but given which that thing must be had, so that it is the cause whereupon that thing depends necessarily and immediately so that the proper effect (in the order of efficient causality) is the extrinsic property to its proper cause. There are five propositions where the first two are taken from the very notion of proper cause and the following three pertain to the application of this notion.
1. The proper cause is the cause ‘per se’ or necessarily and not accidentally required. Therefore when a man generates man, cause per se is assigned. But when John generates man, the notion of John is only accidental to the act.
2. The proper cause is primarily or immediately required by its proper effect. The act of generation is by a man immediately and not his father or grandfather. Hence the cause is a primary, per se, proper cause of the generation. Likewise a carpenter building is the immediate per se proper cause of the building being built and not the teacher of the carpenter.
3. Of a most particular or singular effect, the proper cause is a most particular or singular cause. John is the proper cause of the generation of this particular man and not of man. Therefore if man is being generated it cannot be argued that John is generating, but if John’s son is being generated then John is generating. Likewise if a building is being built by John, then John is building. (this one principle disproves evolution, but this is another matter for another time).
4. Of a most universal effect the proper cause is a most universal cause. Among all effects, the most universal is ‘be’ itself. Therefore it must be the proper effect of a first and most universal cause of ‘be’.
5. Just as the become of something has its proper cause, so also the be of an effect has its proper cause. As every effect depends on its cause according as it is the cause of it, since the influence of the cause is the whole reason of be of the effect. Therefore, when the influence of the cause ceases, at once the effect ceases in that order in which it is the effect thereof; so that if the effect be only as regards become, the effect of such cause, then, when the influence of the cause ceases, at once the become of the effect ceases.
Whereas if the effect is as regards be, the effect of such cause, then when the influence of the cause ceases, at once the be of the effect ceases. Therefore, while the effect remains in that order in which it is the effect of some cause, it must be that the influencing cause remains. Now leaving aside the intrinsic material and formal causes and also final cause and considering only the efficient cause on a thing, the dependence of a thing on an efficient cause is not only as regards be but also as regards become when this dependence proceeds from the formal reason of the effect. Therefore, dependent also as regards be upon the efficient cause from whose influence they become are
1. Actions which can be either transitive or immanent. Thus thinking depends upon a thinker, seeing depends upon the seer, toucher on the toucher and so on.
2. Every created as it is required to be conserved in be by God as will be shown below.
From the above five properties it is evident that from whatsoever effect it can be demonstrated that the proper cause of it is (and not only was). Accordingly, the cause being posited, the effect is posited and conversely the cause being removed, the effect is removed.
Application of this theory.
If there are in the world proper effects of God, understood as supreme cause, then from them the existence of God can be demonstrated ‘a posteriori’ according to an absolutely necessary metaphysical demonstration. The effects must be universal effects as most universal effects are the proper effects of the most universal cause. These proper effects of God as shown below are -
1. Movement as it is movement is the proper effect of a first immovable movent, which, since movement is given, must exist.
2. Caused causality as it is caused causality is the proper effect of a first uncaused cause, which, since caused causality is given, must exist.
3. Contingent being as it is contingent being is the proper effect of a first necessary being causing the very be of contingent beings, which, since contingent being is given, must exist.
4. That which is perfected by limited perfection, as it is in a manner perfect, is the proper effect of first most perfect, which since things limitedly perfect exist, must exist.
5. Teleological order as it is teleological order, is the proper effect of a supreme intelligent orderer, who, since teleological order is given, must exist.
Conditions of this Demonstration
The demonstration of Gods existence is taken not according to a series of past causes, which are subordinated per accidens, but according to a series of causes now existing among which there is subordination per se. These demonstrations have ontological value as will be demonstrated below according to the following order 1. Subordination of Causes per se and 2. Metaphysical value of principles.
Demonstration that God is, is taken according to causes influencing now, and therefore existing now; so that, if there is a series of such causes, then each subsequent cause is subordinate per se to the preceding cause. For to demonstrate that God is requires the demonstration of a prime and universal cause which is causing now. This cannot be demonstrated according to a series of causes per accidens, such as a series of men generating, say grandfather, father, generating son. The generation of the son does not necessitate that grandfather exist now. Whereas a series subordinate per se requires all causes to cause now. For example the rock (A) is moved by the hand (B), which is moved by the arm (C), which is moved by the cerebral motor centre (D), which is moved by the will (E) and so on. According to this method E moves D moves C moves B to move A. So in this series if there is a first cause it is a cause acting now. A according to the principle of limited regress there is a first cause acting now.
Principle of Limited Regress
Principle of Limited regress states – in causes per se subordinated there can be no unlimited regress. OR causes per se subordinated have limited regress.
Which is demonstrated indirectly by the following.
Efficient causes per se subordinated are intermediary causes, so that if the series of them were to regress to infinity, then there would be no prime cause, but all would be intermediary. But intermediary causes per se subordinated have themselves only as conveyors to the ultimate effect of the causal influence which they receive from a preceding cause. Therefore if the series of efficient causes per se subordinated were to regress unto infinity, that is, if all the efficient causes were intermediary, so that there were no prime or unsubordinated cause, then there would be no causal influence that which they would convey to the ultimate effect: accordingly the ultimate effect would not be caused and the intermediary causes would not be causes at all, which is self contradictory.
Or in another way.
Potency - a lack but can have or a can do
Act – does do or perfection
Movement – transition from a potency (a lack but can have) to act (does have)
Movent – a moved mover
A moved movent (i.e. a movent per se subordinated) has not from itself the reason of its move (the reason why it move another); but rather, according to what it has from itself it is not sufficient for move, but is insufficient or deficient. But, a whole series of moved-movents is just as deficient or insufficient for ‘move’ as is any single member of the series. For howsoever how far back the series be carried, so far back is carried the insufficiency or deficiency, so that a sufficiency or sufficient reason is not obtained. Therefore if the series be carried back to infinity, then the insufficiency or deficiency is carried back to infinity so that a sufficient reason is (not only not obtained, but is) excluded.
Therefore the whole series, even though infinite, is insufficient for ‘move’, and is deficient in regard to reason of ‘move’. But without a sufficiency for ‘move’, there is no move; for nothing is without a reason of be. Therefore, an infinite series of moved movents contains no ‘move’. But a series of moved movents containing no ‘move’ is self contradictory and therefore impossible. An example of movement per se is the prime mover moves the will which moves the motor centre of the brain, moves the nerves, then the arm then the and then the staff and then the stone.
Infinite Regression of accidental causes.
Causes per accidens may regress to infinity as past causes, according to the example of men generating. A man generating a son does not necessitate the grandfather or the first man be existing now. But even with this example there is still a prime cause, which has priority of perfection and causality over the world as the world, if it always existed, is only a contingent being and therefore requires for its existence the causation of a prime cause.
Metaphysical Value of principles.
The principles of efficient causation per se subordinated and limited regress have both an ontological and transcendent value.
The ontological value of the principles is not according to sensible phenomena but being per se understandable and sensible per accidens. It therefore does not have merely phenomenological value but ontological value for knowing being existing beneath phenomena. The primary notions are the notions of being, substance, truth, good, end and causality. Causality is therefore not something sensible ‘per se’, but rather sensible per accidens and intelligible ‘per se’. For example a man is seen to speak and is then understood to be living, as a thing sensed is then immediately understood to be living. Thereby intellect alone reads into, or understands what’s under the sensed phenomena according to efficient and final causality. For efficient causality is the production of being known by intellect which apprehends an object which is real being and not by sight whose object is coloured, nor by touch whose object is roughness and so on for the other senses.
So too substance (say a block of marble) is not something sensible per se, but when the senses apprehend the exterior phenomena which are the accidentals of shape, colour, weight, the intellect apprehends these as incomplete qualities according to themselves, which require completion ontologically, through which the phenomena are only determinations, thus substance is understood per se and sensed per accidens. Thus the sense knowledges are concerned with exterior sensible qualities whereas intellective knowledge penetrates right to the essence of a thing, as the object of the intellect is ‘what something is’. This power of the intellect to know essences is denied by empiricism, positivism, conceptualism, subjectivism and nominalism. But once this power is admitted then the intellect knows natures or ‘being’.
Once the nature or power of the intellect to know natures is admitted, then the notion of causation is then also known even by those who deny it in theory. As causation is nothing other than to give sufficient reason of be for a thing, causation is required to satisfy the principle of sufficient reason. This principle is proven as follows -
The principle of sufficient reason is proven as it is a version of the principle of identity.
Reason of be is "that whereby a thing is"
But "that whereby a thing is" is "that without which the thing is not".
For if "that whereby a thing is" is not "that without which the thing is not", then the same is together:
That without which a thing is; and that whereby it is.
Which is contradictory.
Therefore reason of be is "that without which a thing is not".
But if a thing is without "that without which it is not", then contradiction is had, because then the same thing together:
Is without something;
And is not without the same.
Therefore if a thing is without a reason of be, then contradiction is had.
The principle is proven. Therefore according to the notions of causation and sufficient reason it is not possible that something become without a cause.
More to come. Please bump post.
JM
I have decided to introduce the proofs with a discussion on preliminary notions and then later move to the proofs. I will begin with some definitions taken from the Thomistic tradition of Thomas Aquinas.
Preliminary Definitions
Be - the act to be, which implies a nature. Be is the actualization of all acts and is the fundamental perfection of all creatures. For example, the be of an apple is the act of the apple, which implies the nature of apple. The be of an apple means the actualization of the nature of apple, whereby the nature of apple-ness is in act in this particular, concrete, apple.
Analogy – more unlike than like.
Proper – what is necessary according to the specific difference to divide logically into genus and species. Or in a creature, it is a necessary accident, such as quantity as an accident of a body. In God, what is proper is the divine life He has which is not in common with creatures.
Substance – what bes in self. For example – a block of marble, a man, a tree, a rock, etc.
Accident – what bes in other. For example – the accidens of quality, quantity, posture, where, when and so on that reside in the block of marble, or the colour of a red apple.
Subject – that is which something resides (Water is the subject of the bucket), or that which stands under something – (primary matter under substantial form).
Form – principle of determinacy. For example, the soul id the form of the body, heat is a form of fire. The form is the act of a substance, which can be either a substantial form, or an accidental form.
Substantial form (SF) – first principle of determinacy of a body. For example, apple-ness is the sf of an apple. The rational soul is the SF of man.
Accidental form (AF) – secondary principle of determinacy in a body. For example, red is an AF of an apple. Heat is an AF of fire.
Matter – principle of indeterminacy, or that which is can be, or that which can receive a form. For example, apple-ness can receive the act, to be, whereby what can be an apple, is actualized, to be an apple in the concrete. The apple is firstly in potency to be an apple, then brought from potency to act, to be an apple. Matter is what can be, and as such, matter is the principle of limit of a body and of change.
Primary matter (PM) – first principle of indeterminacy. PM is the fundamental can be, whereby a form is required to inform PM to have can be change to does be. For example, PM can be a man, dog, or a cat. When PM is brought to act by a form, what can be a man, dog, or a cat, does be a man, dog, or a cat, whereby the man, dog, or a cat are substantial forms educed out of PM.
Principle – that wherefrom something proceeds in whatever manner. For example, a point is the principle of a line, or rationality proceeds from the fundamental principle of reason as the principle of non contradiction.
Order – disposition according to before and after relatively to some principle. For example, the natural order is an inclination towards a natural end according to a natural principle. Such as a man as a natural thing has an inclination to eat and sleep, as natural acts done for natural ends. Or again, for example, For example, the supernatural order is an inclination towards a supernatural end according to a supernatural principle, such as grace as a supernatural principle directs man to a supernatural end, as the Trinity.
Essence – is that whereby something is that which it is or that according to which a thing is. For example, a tree has a vegetative nature, a car has an artificial nature, and man has the nature of rational animal.
Final cause – the cause in the order of intention as the end of the action intended. For example intend to build a house to make money. The final cause can only be known by intellect, as it is knowledge of an end. The final cause is required to move the efficient cause to achieve the end determined by the agent.
Efficient cause – the making cause. This cause is determined in its action by the final cause as intended by the final cause. The efficient cause is the carpenter building the house.
Formal cause – the determining cause inside a thing that determines the material cause. The formal cause is caused by both the final and efficient causes. The carpenter acts to place the form of house into the timber, bricks and mortar.
Material cause – the determined cause inside a thing that is determine by the final, efficient and formal causes. The carpenter uses the timber, bricks and mortar (the matter) in his building.
Movement - The act of the existent in potency as it is in potency or the act of what is being actualised, as it is being actualised.
Cause - (Philosophical definition used in the proofs): That which influences or tends to influence the be of some thing which is dependent for its be. (Natural science definition): The observed conditions necessary for the apparition of a fact, that is the conditions which when observed, a fact can be predicted.
Perfection: fullness of be. For example, a glass has water, whereby the water is a perfection of a glass.
Contingent: That which can have itself otherwise. Or that which is indifferent to be or not be. For example, a tree is not necessary to exist, and therefore is contingent.
Ontological Contingent (used in the proofs):That which is contingent by contingency of the very thing itself; that is something is ontologically contingent when the very thing itself might be otherwise.
Does God need to be demonstrated to Exist?
Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called "a priori," and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration "a posteriori"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.
Is the existence of God demonstrable?
Demonstration is twofold. One which is through cause, and is called demonstration wherefore; and this is through what is prior simply. The other is through effect, and is called demonstration that, and this is through what is prior to us, for when some effect is more manifest to us than is its cause, we proceed through the effect to knowledge of the cause. But from whatsoever effect it can be demonstrated that the proper cause of it is (so long as its effects are known to us ); because since effects depend on cause, given the effect, it musts needs be that the cause pre-exist. Therefore, that God is, according as it is not self-evident to us, is demonstrable through effects known to us.
Principle of A posteriori Demonstration.
A posteriori demonstration is valid according to the principle of causality, since effects depend on cause, given the effect, the cause must pre-exist. This principle is wrongly understood by positivists (most scientists are positivists) who understand it according to the order of phenomena only. Taken in this manner it means ‘every phenomenon supposes an antecedent phenomenon’ which reduces the principle of causality to mere generalisation from experiences, whereby the principle would not be an absolutely necessary law of contingent being, known to us because the nature of contingent being is known to us (men) through knowledge of the intellect.
The principle of efficient causality is to be understood according as – every contingent being, if it is, has an efficient cause. This principle is valid in the ontological order, having ontological value according to being. This principle also transcends the sensible world whereby the principle has a twofold value from -
1. Mens intellects knowing natures. Thereby men can know that a contingent being is that which can be and can be not, therefore not from itself does it be, therefore, if it does be, it has from another that it does be, which is to know that the principle of efficient causation has ontological value. Accordingly, in the order of being, a cause (B) produces an effect (A, the contingent being) and then in the order of knowledge, because the nature of A is known to require a cause, then we know with absolute certitude that this cause exists even though the cause cannot be observed nor is observable.
2. The formal object of the intellect is being, therefore the principle of efficient causality in the ontological order is immediately known to us as self-evident. Nevertheless, the principle is also demonstrated indirectly as follows. A being either has not be or has be, and then: either has be from itself, (that is without an efficient cause), or has be from another (has an efficient cause). But that an existing contingent being: have not be, is self contradictory (as it would be existing and not existing). Or have be from self, is self contradictory as it would then be both contingent and not contingent. Therefore the principle that an existing contingent being has be from another is from an efficient cause is true.
The manner of Causation used in the demonstration
From whatsoever effect it can be demonstrated that the proper cause of it is. The proper cause is that case without which that thing cannot be had, but given which that thing must be had, so that it is the cause whereupon that thing depends necessarily and immediately so that the proper effect (in the order of efficient causality) is the extrinsic property to its proper cause. There are five propositions where the first two are taken from the very notion of proper cause and the following three pertain to the application of this notion.
1. The proper cause is the cause ‘per se’ or necessarily and not accidentally required. Therefore when a man generates man, cause per se is assigned. But when John generates man, the notion of John is only accidental to the act.
2. The proper cause is primarily or immediately required by its proper effect. The act of generation is by a man immediately and not his father or grandfather. Hence the cause is a primary, per se, proper cause of the generation. Likewise a carpenter building is the immediate per se proper cause of the building being built and not the teacher of the carpenter.
3. Of a most particular or singular effect, the proper cause is a most particular or singular cause. John is the proper cause of the generation of this particular man and not of man. Therefore if man is being generated it cannot be argued that John is generating, but if John’s son is being generated then John is generating. Likewise if a building is being built by John, then John is building. (this one principle disproves evolution, but this is another matter for another time).
4. Of a most universal effect the proper cause is a most universal cause. Among all effects, the most universal is ‘be’ itself. Therefore it must be the proper effect of a first and most universal cause of ‘be’.
5. Just as the become of something has its proper cause, so also the be of an effect has its proper cause. As every effect depends on its cause according as it is the cause of it, since the influence of the cause is the whole reason of be of the effect. Therefore, when the influence of the cause ceases, at once the effect ceases in that order in which it is the effect thereof; so that if the effect be only as regards become, the effect of such cause, then, when the influence of the cause ceases, at once the become of the effect ceases.
Whereas if the effect is as regards be, the effect of such cause, then when the influence of the cause ceases, at once the be of the effect ceases. Therefore, while the effect remains in that order in which it is the effect of some cause, it must be that the influencing cause remains. Now leaving aside the intrinsic material and formal causes and also final cause and considering only the efficient cause on a thing, the dependence of a thing on an efficient cause is not only as regards be but also as regards become when this dependence proceeds from the formal reason of the effect. Therefore, dependent also as regards be upon the efficient cause from whose influence they become are
1. Actions which can be either transitive or immanent. Thus thinking depends upon a thinker, seeing depends upon the seer, toucher on the toucher and so on.
2. Every created as it is required to be conserved in be by God as will be shown below.
From the above five properties it is evident that from whatsoever effect it can be demonstrated that the proper cause of it is (and not only was). Accordingly, the cause being posited, the effect is posited and conversely the cause being removed, the effect is removed.
Application of this theory.
If there are in the world proper effects of God, understood as supreme cause, then from them the existence of God can be demonstrated ‘a posteriori’ according to an absolutely necessary metaphysical demonstration. The effects must be universal effects as most universal effects are the proper effects of the most universal cause. These proper effects of God as shown below are -
1. Movement as it is movement is the proper effect of a first immovable movent, which, since movement is given, must exist.
2. Caused causality as it is caused causality is the proper effect of a first uncaused cause, which, since caused causality is given, must exist.
3. Contingent being as it is contingent being is the proper effect of a first necessary being causing the very be of contingent beings, which, since contingent being is given, must exist.
4. That which is perfected by limited perfection, as it is in a manner perfect, is the proper effect of first most perfect, which since things limitedly perfect exist, must exist.
5. Teleological order as it is teleological order, is the proper effect of a supreme intelligent orderer, who, since teleological order is given, must exist.
Conditions of this Demonstration
The demonstration of Gods existence is taken not according to a series of past causes, which are subordinated per accidens, but according to a series of causes now existing among which there is subordination per se. These demonstrations have ontological value as will be demonstrated below according to the following order 1. Subordination of Causes per se and 2. Metaphysical value of principles.
Demonstration that God is, is taken according to causes influencing now, and therefore existing now; so that, if there is a series of such causes, then each subsequent cause is subordinate per se to the preceding cause. For to demonstrate that God is requires the demonstration of a prime and universal cause which is causing now. This cannot be demonstrated according to a series of causes per accidens, such as a series of men generating, say grandfather, father, generating son. The generation of the son does not necessitate that grandfather exist now. Whereas a series subordinate per se requires all causes to cause now. For example the rock (A) is moved by the hand (B), which is moved by the arm (C), which is moved by the cerebral motor centre (D), which is moved by the will (E) and so on. According to this method E moves D moves C moves B to move A. So in this series if there is a first cause it is a cause acting now. A according to the principle of limited regress there is a first cause acting now.
Principle of Limited Regress
Principle of Limited regress states – in causes per se subordinated there can be no unlimited regress. OR causes per se subordinated have limited regress.
Which is demonstrated indirectly by the following.
Efficient causes per se subordinated are intermediary causes, so that if the series of them were to regress to infinity, then there would be no prime cause, but all would be intermediary. But intermediary causes per se subordinated have themselves only as conveyors to the ultimate effect of the causal influence which they receive from a preceding cause. Therefore if the series of efficient causes per se subordinated were to regress unto infinity, that is, if all the efficient causes were intermediary, so that there were no prime or unsubordinated cause, then there would be no causal influence that which they would convey to the ultimate effect: accordingly the ultimate effect would not be caused and the intermediary causes would not be causes at all, which is self contradictory.
Or in another way.
Potency - a lack but can have or a can do
Act – does do or perfection
Movement – transition from a potency (a lack but can have) to act (does have)
Movent – a moved mover
A moved movent (i.e. a movent per se subordinated) has not from itself the reason of its move (the reason why it move another); but rather, according to what it has from itself it is not sufficient for move, but is insufficient or deficient. But, a whole series of moved-movents is just as deficient or insufficient for ‘move’ as is any single member of the series. For howsoever how far back the series be carried, so far back is carried the insufficiency or deficiency, so that a sufficiency or sufficient reason is not obtained. Therefore if the series be carried back to infinity, then the insufficiency or deficiency is carried back to infinity so that a sufficient reason is (not only not obtained, but is) excluded.
Therefore the whole series, even though infinite, is insufficient for ‘move’, and is deficient in regard to reason of ‘move’. But without a sufficiency for ‘move’, there is no move; for nothing is without a reason of be. Therefore, an infinite series of moved movents contains no ‘move’. But a series of moved movents containing no ‘move’ is self contradictory and therefore impossible. An example of movement per se is the prime mover moves the will which moves the motor centre of the brain, moves the nerves, then the arm then the and then the staff and then the stone.
Infinite Regression of accidental causes.
Causes per accidens may regress to infinity as past causes, according to the example of men generating. A man generating a son does not necessitate the grandfather or the first man be existing now. But even with this example there is still a prime cause, which has priority of perfection and causality over the world as the world, if it always existed, is only a contingent being and therefore requires for its existence the causation of a prime cause.
Metaphysical Value of principles.
The principles of efficient causation per se subordinated and limited regress have both an ontological and transcendent value.
The ontological value of the principles is not according to sensible phenomena but being per se understandable and sensible per accidens. It therefore does not have merely phenomenological value but ontological value for knowing being existing beneath phenomena. The primary notions are the notions of being, substance, truth, good, end and causality. Causality is therefore not something sensible ‘per se’, but rather sensible per accidens and intelligible ‘per se’. For example a man is seen to speak and is then understood to be living, as a thing sensed is then immediately understood to be living. Thereby intellect alone reads into, or understands what’s under the sensed phenomena according to efficient and final causality. For efficient causality is the production of being known by intellect which apprehends an object which is real being and not by sight whose object is coloured, nor by touch whose object is roughness and so on for the other senses.
So too substance (say a block of marble) is not something sensible per se, but when the senses apprehend the exterior phenomena which are the accidentals of shape, colour, weight, the intellect apprehends these as incomplete qualities according to themselves, which require completion ontologically, through which the phenomena are only determinations, thus substance is understood per se and sensed per accidens. Thus the sense knowledges are concerned with exterior sensible qualities whereas intellective knowledge penetrates right to the essence of a thing, as the object of the intellect is ‘what something is’. This power of the intellect to know essences is denied by empiricism, positivism, conceptualism, subjectivism and nominalism. But once this power is admitted then the intellect knows natures or ‘being’.
Once the nature or power of the intellect to know natures is admitted, then the notion of causation is then also known even by those who deny it in theory. As causation is nothing other than to give sufficient reason of be for a thing, causation is required to satisfy the principle of sufficient reason. This principle is proven as follows -
The principle of sufficient reason is proven as it is a version of the principle of identity.
Reason of be is "that whereby a thing is"
But "that whereby a thing is" is "that without which the thing is not".
For if "that whereby a thing is" is not "that without which the thing is not", then the same is together:
That without which a thing is; and that whereby it is.
Which is contradictory.
Therefore reason of be is "that without which a thing is not".
But if a thing is without "that without which it is not", then contradiction is had, because then the same thing together:
Is without something;
And is not without the same.
Therefore if a thing is without a reason of be, then contradiction is had.
The principle is proven. Therefore according to the notions of causation and sufficient reason it is not possible that something become without a cause.
More to come. Please bump post.
JM
Comment