Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Proofs for the Existence of God

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Proofs for the Existence of God

    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
    Last edited by JohnMartin; 06-18-2016, 09:57 PM.

  • #2
    Terribly long and convoluted, and need spell check.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #3
      Why doesn't existence need proof of its existence? And any entity contingent on existence is no God.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • #4
        Preliminary Comments Regarding Thomas’ Five Ways for God.

        The proofs are based on the notion of proper causation as explained above. Proper cause as necessarily required by the effect and differs from an accidental cause. Proper cause as primarily and immediately required, differs from every cause, even necessarily required, but only mediately or secondarily. Accordingly from movement it ought to be concluded to the necessary and prime universal movement, but not a prime being.

        The five proofs are called ways as they do not demonstrate the physical be of God, but only the proposition that "God is" is to be affirmed as true. The attributes of God are subsequently proven following upon this truth.

        Each way is composed of a minor and major premise. Each minor is a fact common to every being other than God, which is movement, caused causality, contingency of being, limited perfection and passive ordination. Each effect is a sign of dependence on a cause and ultimately a prime cause. Each proof is therefore materially dependent upon a fact but formally dependent upon the nature of that fact which will be determined in the proofs.

        The major is a principle whereby the it becomes necessary to admit the prime proper cause of the fact. The principle is divided into the principle of efficient causality under five modes of causation and the principle of limited regress. The conclusion of each way states the existence of the prime proper cause of the fact whereby there is a prime unmoved movent, uncaused cause, absolutely necessary being, most perfect being and an unordered orderer. Each conclusion will suit the subsistent being alone, which will be shown below. This supreme truth is stated as God exists by existence which is himself.

        The proofs of the existence of God

        The following are the five ways from the Summa Theologica. The five ways may be stated on other manners to elaborate on points as required.

        The First way

        1. The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act.

        For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.

        Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.

        If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; which is God.
        The first way is more simply put as follows.

        There is movement in the world, but whatever undergoes movement is moved by a second. And if this second is moved to move (not merely to be or to become), it must be moved by a third, which must be in order to move; and if this third is moved to move, it must be moved by a fourth and so on. But this series cannot regress to infinity because if there is none, which starts the series, then neither will there be any intermediate movements, nor will there be any movement. Therefore there must be a movent which starts movements and is therefore the prime movent, itself unmoved. But a prime movent itself unmoved is God. Therefore God is.

        The Second way

        2. The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.

        Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.

        Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, which is God.
        The Second way is more simply put as follows.

        There are efficient causes in the world, since they are not their do, are efficiently caused to cause (not merely to be and to become). But whatever is efficiently caused is caused by a second, which must be in the order of cause. And if this second is similarly caused, it is caused by a third, which is caused to cause and so on. But this series cannot regress to infinity because if there is none that is and supplies the causation of the series, then causation will never be found in the series, nor reach the end of the series. Therefore there must exist an efficient cause, which causes the causation of the whole series, and therefore is a prime efficient cause itself uncaused in causing which is God. Therefore God is.

        The Third way

        3. The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus.

        We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence.

        Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. 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 which is God.
        The Third way is more simply put as follows.

        There do exist contingent beings. But every contingent being, if it is, has distinct from itself, an efficient cause, not only of its become, but also of its be. And if this efficient cause itself is a contingent being also of it there is such a cause, And if this cause also is contingent, also of it there must be such a cause. But this series cannot regress to infinity because since efficient causes subordinated with regard to be, are subordinated per se. Therefore there is outside the series of causes which are contingent beings, a cause which is necessary being. But a necessary being is either itself a prime cause, and therefore a prime being, self existent and so absolutely necessary, or supposes a prime cause, and therefore a prime being, self existent and so absolutely necessary, since in such causes there is no infinite regress. Therefore there is a prime cause, and therefore a prime being, self existent and so absolutely necessary., which is God.

        The Fourth way

        4. The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii.

        Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
        The Fourth way is more simply put as follows.

        There exist things, which are more, or less truth, good, beautiful or in other words are of transcendental perfection. But what has perfection in a less degree, is not the perfection, but only has it as diverse from itself, but united to itself: for perfection identical with essence of its possessor cannot be in a lower degree. Therefore there exist things having entity and goodness, beauty and so on united to themselves. But diverse things do not unite themselves, and must therefore be united by other which is an extrinsic cause of their union. Therefore there exist things which have entity and goodness and so on from an extrinsic cause, which has entity and goodness and so on (otherwise it could not cause it). But an infinite regress of such causes is impossible in a series such as this which is ‘per se’ subordinated to the prior cause. Therefore since there exist things that have entity and goodness and so on from an extrinsic cause, there exists something which is entity, goodness etc, which is being by essence, good by essence, and so on. But that being is being, goodness and so on to a maximum degree for what befits from its nature, and not from some cause, cannot be in it in a lower degree. Therefore there exists something which is being in the maximum degree, goodness sin the maximum degree and so on, which is God.

        The Fifth way

        5. The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things, which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
        The Fifth way is more simply put as follows.

        The action of things in the world is ordered towards an end. But the action of a thing cannot be ordered toward an end, without there being an ordering intellect. And if this ordering intellect is not its understand, it is ordered to understand (not merely to become or to be) by a higher ordering intellect, which must be in order to order and so on. But this regress cannot be to infinity, because if there is no ordering intellect which is and supplies, then such order will never be found in these members nor will the action of anything be ordered towards an end.

        Therefore there must exist an orderer which causes the order of finality found in all the members of the series, and therefore is a prime orderer itself not (passively) ordered. But such prime orderer is the universal orderer, which is God.

        Commentary and Subsequent proof of subsistent be.

        The conclusions of the five ways are as follows

        1. There is an unmoved mover.
        2. There is a first cause
        3. There is a necessary being
        4. There is a perfect being that is its own perfection.
        5. There is some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end

        As movement is a transition from potency to act the unmoved mover does not have a transition from potency to act and is therefore pure act. The unmoved mover is therefore pure act. To be pure act is to have all perfections without limit. So 1 and 4 above are identical in the same being.

        The first cause is the necessary being, for if were a contingent being, it would not be the first cause but only a secondary dependent cause. So 2 and 3 above are identical in the same being. To move is to be a cause, so 1 and 2 above are identical. To direct something to an end is to be the cause and the mover so 1, 2, 5 are identical. So the first mover is the first cause, which is the necessary being, which is its own perfection to an unlimited degree which is the cause of all things that are directed to their end. (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are identical conclusions) This being is unlike any other being. Because it is its own perfection and its necessary, it doesn’t have being but rather is its own being, or in other words is subsistent being. To be a subsistent being is to have being without limit which is only found in God. There can only be one God as all other beings have being by participation.

        The conclusions of the five ways are anagogical to the premise’ within each way and distinguishes the secondary beings from the prime being in the manner shown below.

        Secondary cause (creature)____________Prime cause(creator-God)

        Has being by participation_____________ being by nature = subsistent be

        Essence and be are diverse ____________ Essence = be

        Act is done through a power ___________Act = essence

        Powers are moved from potency to act___ Act=power=essence

        Is a contingent being _________________necessary be as it is a subsistent be

        Is an ordered orderer_________________ an unordered orderer

        Is a moved mover____________________ unmoved mover

        Is a caused cause____________________ uncaused cause

        As being is analogous, the prime cause is more unlike than like the secondary causes and accordingly a misunderstanding can easily arise that assume the prime cause is either the same as the secondary cause, or at east very similar to the secondary causes. Hence the first doer has its essence = do, secondary doers have essence and act, which are diverse as show in the list above. The prime cause has to be so unlike the secondary causes for it to be pure act. Hence in metaphysics it is shown that being is analogous and not univocal or equivocal. So the prime cause is analogously like the secondary causes according to the analogy of proper proportionality.

        As God has been proven to be the subsistent be, He has the entitative attributes of simplicity, perfection, goodness, infinity, immensity, uniquity, immutability, eternity, unicity, beauty and transcendence. God also has the operative attributes of knowledge, ideas, truth, life, happiness, will, love, holiness, justice, mercy, providence and power. These attributes follow upon the notion of subsistent be and can be proven as being necessary from this conclusion.

        The following are summary arguments, which conclude that God is.

        General proof

        More does no come from less, the more perfect from the less perfect, but rather less comes from more, the less perfect from the more perfect. But in things of this world contingently existing, there is existence, intelligence, life, and knowledge. Therefore there must be a prime cause, which has these perfections more perfectly, from himself, and from eternity; for otherwise the more would be coming from the less, which is proof ‘per absurdum’ of Gods existence. Therefore God is.

        Arguments from actual essences of things

        Since the essences of things of this observable world are really distinct from be, these essences are not beings by essence, but beings by participation. But those things which are beings by participation, require being by essence: as their extrinsic formal cause, and as their efficient cause. Therefore there exists essences, which are beings by participation, there must exist a being, which is being by essence. Therefore God is.

        Argument form possible essences

        There are possible real essences as real being is divided into actual real being and possible real being. Actual real essences exist, and therefore are possible, not only while they are actual but also before they exist, for then they are not nothing, but can be, that is, they are in potency to exist.

        But possibles are objective potencies, which are objects of an intellect. Therefore there exists an intellect in which objective potencies are found, as in their ultimate foundation. Such potencies are only found in the ultimate intellect, as a created intellect cannot be the ultimate foundation can be the exemplar of natural things as such an intellect has human and angelic intellects have their objects from things.

        Therefore an intellect, which knows possibles, as received by abstraction from existing things is not the exemplar (outstanding cause) of natural things. An intellect, which is the exemplary, (outstanding cause) of natural things must then have the objects of its knowledge from itself. This can only occur in an intellect, which is its own essence, through which all other things are known. This intellect is the divine intellect. Therefore God is.

        Argument from the immutability of truth.

        True judgements, whether contingent or universal, are immutably true. Contingent judgements, which are at some time true, remain immutably to have been then true. For example, if it said John is standing and later he is found to be sitting, the original statement is true in the sense that John was standing.

        Universal judgements are true independently of time, since they are concerned about essences, which transcend any or all time whatsoever. But truth of these judgements is taken relatively to the actual be of existing things or to the possible be of essences as exercised. But this actual or possible be, as exercised refers to participated being itself. Therefore from immutable truth requires being by essence. Therefore God is.

        Argument from desire of happiness

        Concerning the ordering of the intellect and will to their perfect happiness. A natural ordering cannot be towards something intrinsically impossible as an ordering is specified from its term. Therefore if the specific tern were impossible, also the ordering would be impossible. But human intellect is naturally ordered towards some infinite being, and human will towards some infinite good. As the formal object of intellect is being, and formal object of will is good, which formal objects are unlimited according to being and goodness. Therefore the human intellect and will attain their ultimate fulfillment according to their natural ordering in only some infinite being which is infinitely good. This ultimate being, which is infinite, is God. Therefore God is.

        Argument from Moral Conscience

        Gods’ existence is evident by the voice of conscience as if in it were the voice of a supreme lawgiver. Or again, He who understands moral obligation, that good is to be done, understands also, at least implicitly, the principle or source of the be of the obligation is a sovereign law giver, who is God.

        Or again,

        Man as a rational being is subject to moral obligation, that is, to a finalistic and categoric or absolute necessity to act fittingly to the ultimate order of things, which reason pronounce to avail for every rational being. But such necessity supposes as its first principle an absolute and subsistent intellect and as its end absolutely ultimate an infinite good. Therefore God is.


        JM

        Comment


        • #5
          Causation presumes existence. There has to be existence - and such an uncaused existence needs no God. And causation means change to cause a change.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            Why doesn't existence need proof of its existence?
            Be is a fundamental that is defined via description according to what be does. Be actualizes acts. Such is proven indirectly by denying the description and concluding the denial is false, therefore the affirmation is true.

            And any entity contingent on existence is no God.
            The contingent are composed of essence and being, hence the contingent is not God. By definition, God is the necessary being, and therefore that being which must be by nature. Contingent beings are not necessary and therefore must be efficiently caused by another cause - God, as the necessary being.

            An argument for the existence of God according to being is given below.

            A real thing is either contingent or necessary.
            If contingent, then that thing is dependent for its being upon another.
            The other, is the necessary being.
            If the thing is necessary, then necessary.
            Therefore if a thing exists, the necessary being exists.
            The necessary being is God.
            Therefore God exists.

            JM

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              Causation presumes existence.
              Causation is defined in the opening page.

              There has to be existence
              There only has to be a necessary be. All other contingent beings need not exist.

              - and such an uncaused existence needs no God.
              The uncaused be is God, which does not need another God.

              And causation means change to cause a change.
              This is circular.

              If you wish to make comment, it is best to do so using the terminology and definitions provided.

              JM

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                Causation is defined in the opening page.
                There has to first be an existence.


                There only has to be a necessary be[ing]. All other contingent beings need not exist.
                There has to be existence for there to be a being. Unless you are saying that the necessary being is the uncaused existence. You presumed existence. Any being contingent on existence is not a necessary being.



                The uncaused be[ng] is God, which does not need another God. This is circular.
                Then "Proofs for the Existence of God" is silly like "Proofs for the Existence of Existence."






                If you wish to make comment, it is best to do so using the terminology and definitions provided.

                JM
                You did not define existence - which was presumed in your "Proofs for the Existence of God"
                Last edited by 37818; 06-18-2016, 10:47 PM.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  There has to first be an existence.
                  Which is God. God is being. Which means God is His own existence.

                  There has to be existence for there to be a being. Unless you are saying that the necessary being is the uncaused existence. You presumed existence. Any being contingent on existence is not a necessary being.
                  Yes, God is the necessary being, who is the uncaused existence.

                  Then "Proofs for the Existence of God" is silly like "Proofs for the Existence of Existence."
                  No. Not all existence is God. Being is not univocal whereby all being is the same, but analogous, whereby being is modally different. We can prove the existence of a cat, which is not God. So too, we can prove the existence of God as being, which means God's nature is 'to be'. Existence is only one way of saying God is. We can also conclude to God as prime mover, cause, orderer, and perfector. Hence we can say God exists as the prime mover, cause, orderer, and perfector. Proofs for the existence of God then does not collapse only into proofs for the existence of existence but proofs for the existence of that being which is the prime mover, cause, orderer, and perfector, and which must exist.

                  You did not define existence - which was presumed in your "Proofs for the Existence of God"
                  Existence is to exist, which is the same as 'to be', which is defined above as an act which implies a nature.

                  JM

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                    Which is God. God is being. Which means God is His own existence.
                    He is the Self Existent.


                    Yes, God is the necessary being, who is the uncaused existence.
                    Of which all caused existence is contingent.


                    No. Not all existence is God.
                    I did not say that. But, ". . . For in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . ." -- Acts 17:28. He is the uncaused omnipresent Existence in which all other caused existences are present in.
                    . . . Being is not univocal whereby all being is the same, but analogous, whereby being is modally different. We can prove the existence of a cat, which is not God. So too, we can prove the existence of God as being, which means God's nature is 'to be'. Existence is only one way of saying God is. We can also conclude to God as prime mover, cause, orderer, and perfector. Hence we can say God exists as the prime mover, cause, orderer, and perfector. Proofs for the existence of God then does not collapse only into proofs for the existence of existence but proofs for the existence of that being which is the prime mover, cause, orderer, and perfector, and which must exist.
                    God is the fundamental self evident uncaused existence. Self evident truth needs no proof. God's identity is the Self Existent.


                    Existence is to exist, which is the same as 'to be', which is defined above as an act which implies a nature.

                    JM
                    Last edited by 37818; 06-19-2016, 10:05 AM.
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                      Be is a fundamental that is defined via description according to what be does. Be actualizes acts. Such is proven indirectly by denying the description and concluding the denial is false, therefore the affirmation is true.



                      The contingent are composed of essence and being, hence the contingent is not God. By definition, God is the necessary being, and therefore that being which must be by nature. Contingent beings are not necessary and therefore must be efficiently caused by another cause - God, as the necessary being.

                      An argument for the existence of God according to being is given below.

                      A real thing is either contingent or necessary.
                      If contingent, then that thing is dependent for its being upon another.
                      The other, is the necessary being.
                      If the thing is necessary, then necessary.
                      Therefore if a thing exists, the necessary being exists.
                      The necessary being is God.
                      Therefore God exists.

                      JM
                      Essence and being are in the above being said "exists." They are being presented as contingent to say they "exist." Uncaused existence is the starting point of all contingent things. Only uncaused existence is self existent. And the Self Existent is the idenity of God - else there is none.
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                        Be is a fundamental that is defined via description according to what be does. Be actualizes acts. Such is proven indirectly by denying the description and concluding the denial is false, therefore the affirmation is true.



                        The contingent are composed of essence and being, hence the contingent is not God. By definition, God is the necessary being, and therefore that being which must be by nature. Contingent beings are not necessary and therefore must be efficiently caused by another cause - God, as the necessary being.

                        An argument for the existence of God according to being is given below.

                        A real thing is either contingent or necessary.
                        If contingent, then that thing is dependent for its being upon another.
                        The other, is the necessary being.
                        If the thing is necessary, then necessary.
                        Therefore if a thing exists, the necessary being exists.
                        The necessary being is God.
                        Therefore God exists.

                        JM
                        One of the problems with the above is in the assertion that necessity=being, in the sense of a god. Another problem with it is that if the contingent thing is of one and the same substance as that of the necessary, then fundamentally they are one and the same thing. In other words, if the effect is in the cause, if the effect wasn't created out of nothing, then it is the same thing as its cause.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Just picking out a few of those definitions from the OP.
                          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.
                          In what way does an apple act? It does not. It does nothing. There is no action involved in being. So how can you say "Be is the actualization of all acts".

                          What does be "is the fundamental perfection of all creatures" mean, and why should we suppose it is true? Is the be of an apple the fundamental perfection of all creatures? This appears to be an implication of the statement, but makes no sense at all.
                          Analogy – more unlike than like.
                          Well a rock is very unlike Sundays, so are they analogous? Not according to any sense of the word I know of.
                          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.
                          I do not not where to start with this nonsense.
                          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.
                          Okay, so the marble and the apple are substance, fair enough, but their mass, colour and shape are accident?
                          Perfection: fullness of be. For example, a glass has water, whereby the water is a perfection of a glass.
                          What about if the glass has beer in it? That would be better than water, and so better than perfection, right? And if the glass was half full, would it be half perfect? If not, how full must the glass be to be considered perfect? So full it cannot be picked up without spillage? What exactly?
                          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.
                          What the heck does "That which can have itself otherwise" mean?!? Also, since this appears to be defined as the opposite of "necessary", why is "necessary not defined?
                          My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            One of the problems with the above is in the assertion that necessity=being, in the sense of a god.
                            Thats what God is, the necessary being. Saying that there is a problem, does not demonstrate that there is one, when one does not exist.

                            Another problem with it is that if the contingent thing is of one and the same substance as that of the necessary,
                            The contingent thing is not of one and the same substance as that of the necessary.

                            then fundamentally they are one and the same thing. In other words, if the effect is in the cause, if the effect wasn't created out of nothing, then it is the same thing as its cause.
                            The contingent has a real distinction between the essence and be of a thing. The necessary has a real identity of essence and be.

                            There are no problems with the above argument for the existence of God.

                            JM

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                              Just picking out a few of those definitions from the OP.

                              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.

                              In what way does an apple act? It does not. It does nothing. There is no action involved in being. So how can you say "Be is the actualization of all acts".
                              The apple acts as a thing having being, whereby the apple is a concrete thing, existing. An act does not always mean the act, to do. An act can mean an act to do, but an act can also mean the act of being. For example, a poet exists, then writes poetry. The poet existing is an act to be, then the writing of the poem is an act of writing from a habit residing in the poet. According to the dictum of 'do follows be', the poem was written because the poet first existed in act, then wrote in act.

                              What does be "is the fundamental perfection of all creatures" mean, and why should we suppose it is true? Is the be of an apple the fundamental perfection of all creatures? This appears to be an implication of the statement, but makes no sense at all.
                              The fundamental perfection is the primary being of the thing. What is first in a thing is that which all other perfections in a thing are dependent. For example, a man has being as his primary perfection. When the man has being, this is the same as saying man exists. When man has being, he can then walk, talk, sleep, and eat. All these human actions are dependent upon the man having being as the fundamental perfection of the man.

                              Analogy – more unlike than like.

                              Well a rock is very unlike Sundays, so are they analogous? Not according to any sense of the word I know of.
                              Yes they are analogous. A rock has being to thereby exist as a concrete thing. Sunday exists as time. Time has being, analogous to the rock, which has being.

                              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.

                              I do not not where to start with this nonsense.
                              What is proper is a necessary accident of a thing. For example, it is necessary that a body have the accidental perfection of quantity, whereby quantity is parts outside of parts. It is not necessary for a body to have the accidental quality of the colour red. For a body can be blue or yellow as well. The colour of a body, is not a necessary accident, but a common accident.

                              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.

                              Okay, so the marble and the apple are substance, fair enough, but their mass, colour and shape are accident?
                              Yes.

                              Perfection: fullness of be. For example, a glass has water, whereby the water is a perfection of a glass.

                              What about if the glass has beer in it? That would be better than water, and so better than perfection, right? And if the glass was half full, would it be half perfect? If not, how full must the glass be to be considered perfect? So full it cannot be picked up without spillage? What exactly?
                              Whatever fills the glass has being, and is therefore a perfection of the glass, or jar, or container.

                              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.

                              What the heck does "That which can have itself otherwise" mean?!? Also, since this appears to be defined as the opposite of "necessary", why is "necessary not defined?
                              That which can be subject to change. A piece of wood can burn and have itself otherwise as ash. A man can die and have himself otherwise as a corpse.

                              The necessary is that which cannot be otherwise, or that which must be, or that which cannot, not be. For example, it is necessary that A is A, and not otherwise. Or, ontologically, God is the necessary being, and all creatures are contingent beings.

                              JM
                              Last edited by JohnMartin; 06-19-2016, 06:31 PM.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                              14 responses
                              42 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              129 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              78 responses
                              411 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              303 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X