Originally posted by Roy
View Post
... which is known through reason, ...
Again, no it isn't. Theism almost never results from reasoning, and certainly doesn't in JM's case. His reasoning is a prop for already held beliefs, not the basis for those beliefs.
Again, no it isn't. Theism almost never results from reasoning, and certainly doesn't in JM's case. His reasoning is a prop for already held beliefs, not the basis for those beliefs.
Atheism concludes to God does not exist.
No it doesn't. Atheism is not limited to JM's religion, and (using JM's terminology) does not conclude that God does exist.
No it doesn't. Atheism is not limited to JM's religion, and (using JM's terminology) does not conclude that God does exist.
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
This definition is very close to what I have said. There is no need for JM-atheism invented by Roy.
Therefore in accord with point 2 above, atheism either
1) affirms the existence of an uncaused cause, which is understood not to be God or
2) denies the existence of the uncaused cause, and thereby denies the existence of God as the uncaused cause.
Atheism does neither of these.
1) affirms the existence of an uncaused cause, which is understood not to be God or
2) denies the existence of the uncaused cause, and thereby denies the existence of God as the uncaused cause.
Atheism does neither of these.
JM-atheism doesn't either, since a JM-atheist could affirm the existence of an uncaused cause which is understood to be God, but not accept that God is the supreme being.
The uncaused cause is the cause which is not caused
Then what is not caused is ontologically prior to all causes.
Then what is ontologically prior to all causes is not receptive of being.
Then what is not receptive of being has no potency.
Then what has no potency is act without potency.
Then what is act without potency is pure act.
Therefore the uncaused cause is pure act.
The supreme being is that being with the most being.
What is the most being, is being without limit.
But being without limit is being without the capacity to receive further being.
The capacity to receive further being is potency.
Then the supreme being is that being without potency.
Which is being as act without potency
Which is being as pure act.
Therefore the supreme being is pure act.
The uncaused cause is pure act.
The supreme being is pure act.
What is identical in act is identical.
Therefore the uncaused cause is the supreme being.
Even after redefining 'atheism' to suit his argument JM fails to understand his own definition.
Theism concludes that the uncaused cause, is pure act, without potency, which is God.
No it doesn't. Thomism might (though I doubt it), but theism in general does not.
No it doesn't. Thomism might (though I doubt it), but theism in general does not.
In other words, God is act without limit, or infinite act.
Also, JM's use of 'potency' is suspect. If he's using the normal definition he's just described his God as impotent, which is unlikely, so he probably has some private definition of 'potency' which he hasn't shared.
Also, JM's use of 'potency' is suspect. If he's using the normal definition he's just described his God as impotent, which is unlikely, so he probably has some private definition of 'potency' which he hasn't shared.
No, that doesn't mean the same thing - an uncaused cause is not necessarily unlimited.
Scenario 1- If atheism affirms the existence of the uncaused cause.
If atheism affirms the existence of the uncaused cause, but denies the uncaused cause is God, then we have the following statements that atheism requires to be true.
1. An uncaused cause composed of act and potency exists as the prime act. - T
2. God does not exist. – T
3. Therefore the uncaused cause is not God. - T
4. The uncaused cause that exists is a limited act. - T
False. The uncaused cause could be unlimited but not God.
If atheism affirms the existence of the uncaused cause, but denies the uncaused cause is God, then we have the following statements that atheism requires to be true.
1. An uncaused cause composed of act and potency exists as the prime act. - T
2. God does not exist. – T
3. Therefore the uncaused cause is not God. - T
4. The uncaused cause that exists is a limited act. - T
False. The uncaused cause could be unlimited but not God.
Since JM's definition of 'God' does not include being unlimited, this can be possible even if God exists and even if it is conceded that it is not possible for two discrete unlimited entities to exist simultaneously.
5. The uncaused cause is limited by potency. - T
False for the same reason.
False for the same reason.
6. Therefore uncaused cause is composed of potency and act. – T
This can't be true since it is gibberish. JM apparently has his own private definition of 'act' as well, since the only non-temporal definition of 'act' as a noun is 'pretence, masquerade, charade' which is incompatible with the previous statements.
This can't be true since it is gibberish. JM apparently has his own private definition of 'act' as well, since the only non-temporal definition of 'act' as a noun is 'pretence, masquerade, charade' which is incompatible with the previous statements.
Potency is can be or can do.
Act is does be or does do.
However, the following arguments show lines 1 to 6 are false. The lines showing where lines 2-6 are false are given in brackets, for example (2), (3) and so on.
God is pure act.
But atheism concludes that God does not exist.
Therefore pure act (which is act without potency) does not exist.
False. (X in Y, !X) -/-> !Y. Something else that is pure act could exist.
God is pure act.
But atheism concludes that God does not exist.
Therefore pure act (which is act without potency) does not exist.
False. (X in Y, !X) -/-> !Y. Something else that is pure act could exist.
The modes of being are potency and act.
Act is does be or does do.
Potency is can be or can do.
When a thing is limited, the thing is composed of act and potency.
Act is the cause of the does be of the thing.
Potency is the cause of the can be of the thing.
But what does be, and what can be are contrary causes.
What does be is the cause of the act to be of a thing.
What can be is the cause of the limit of the act of the thing.
For an act, from itself is act, and not the limit of the act.
Then another cause is the cause of the limit of the act, other than the act.
The other cause, is a contrary cause of act, which is potency.
Potency is then the cause of the limit of a thing.
Then a thing without a limited be, is a be in act without the contrary cause of act.
Therefore a thing without limit is act without potency as the contrary cause of act.
To demonstrate there is only one being of pure act.
Pure act is act without limit.
Act without limit is act without potency.
If there are two acts (does be) without limits (can be), then there are two beings of pure act.
But two beings of pure act are two beings of act without limit.
But two beings of act without limit is being without limit, which is pure act.
Then the two beings of pure act, are both pure act.
Yet what is identical in being is identical
Then the two beings of pure act are identical.
Then the identical two beings are identical in being.
What is identical in being is identical, and therefore one being.
Therefore there cannot be more than one being of pure act.
Therefore there is only one being of pure act.
Roy’s claim is answered.
Therefore everything that exists is composed of potency and act.
False if pure potency can exist. I've no idea whether it can, since JM is using his own personal private definition for 'potency', but regardless the logic is flawed.
False if pure potency can exist. I've no idea whether it can, since JM is using his own personal private definition for 'potency', but regardless the logic is flawed.
Yet what is composed of potency and act is caused by another.
For potency causes potency, and act, act, which are then diverse causes.
If potency causes potency, and God lacks potency, but potency exists, then God is not the only uncaused cause.
Yet when potency and act are found united in a thing, the unity is not caused by the diversity of potency and act, but by another cause of the unity.
But what is caused by another is not an uncaused cause.
Therefore an uncaused cause which is limited does not exist. (4)
Sure it does. If act causes act and potency causes potency, there must be at least two uncaused causes, and at least one of them must be limited.
For potency causes potency, and act, act, which are then diverse causes.
If potency causes potency, and God lacks potency, but potency exists, then God is not the only uncaused cause.
Yet when potency and act are found united in a thing, the unity is not caused by the diversity of potency and act, but by another cause of the unity.
But what is caused by another is not an uncaused cause.
Therefore an uncaused cause which is limited does not exist. (4)
Sure it does. If act causes act and potency causes potency, there must be at least two uncaused causes, and at least one of them must be limited.
However, the prime act, is the prime act to be, which is then the uncaused cause.
Consequently, an uncaused cause which is unlimited, does exist.
What is unlimited is pure act.
But not necessarily the other way around. Pure act is not necessarily unlimited.
What is unlimited is pure act.
But not necessarily the other way around. Pure act is not necessarily unlimited.
Potency is the cause of limit of act.
Pure act is act without potency.
Hence pure act has no limit of be.
Roy has a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of being. This is one of many reasons why Roy is an atheist. He just doesn't get what being is. I suggest he dive into some good books on metaphysics and natural philosophy at the Thomistic Philosophy page.
JM
Comment