tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post4495625415344081649..comments2024-03-28T02:54:46.537-04:00Comments on The TOF Spot: First Way, Part IV: The CascadesTheOFloinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-59370755900891205022016-03-23T07:19:57.906-04:002016-03-23T07:19:57.906-04:00To TOFSpot: here is a post of mine, in which I lin...To TOFSpot: here is a post of mine, in which I link to yours.<br /><br /><a href="http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/2016/03/kalam-loftus-lindsay.html" rel="nofollow">somewhere else : Kalam, Loftus & Lindsay <br />http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/2016/03/kalam-loftus-lindsay.html</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-13989973615632775892016-03-23T07:02:49.420-04:002016-03-23T07:02:49.420-04:00To PatrickH, both comments in common: not really.
...To PatrickH, both comments in common: not really.<br /><br />The identity of the First Mover with the First Cause with the First Being with the Most Noble (or Most High) with the Designer holding all Wisdom of the Universe is more like being proven in the following. Five Ways are a starting point.<br /><br />One could even say that Dawkins et al. provide their version of five ways, but with non-identic gods.<br /><br />Those of first three ways to them equal "matter/energy" (irrespective of arrangement) and those of latter two to them equal "evolution" in active and passive sense (designer being failure of all that had to fail, most noble being most evolved,most pruned by above).Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-47418453779080456962016-03-23T06:55:53.904-04:002016-03-23T06:55:53.904-04:001) Lacking even the potency is even less like pure...1) Lacking even the potency is even less like pure act than having potency and not act.<br /><br />OR:<br /><br />2) If there were any set of attributes to which it were NOT even in potency (still less in act) and OTHER ones to which it were "in pure act", that is in an act which cannot at all be disturbed or initiated, then there would have to be an intermediate set of attributes to which it were not in act but yes in potency, and therefore the "bpa" considered would NOT be a being of pure act.<br /><br />ONE exception: The Father may very well be a Being of Pure Act while still being neither in act nor in potency of being the Son. And vice versa. And both of them in relation to Holy Spirit.<br /><br />One could state Trinity (hopefully not too heretically) as three beings of pure act who are nevertheless one being, because all their not-personal-specific attributes of act are pure act shared by all three of them.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-3975972305695718312014-11-16T09:43:15.450-05:002014-11-16T09:43:15.450-05:00Sorry, I meant to conclude to: So in the Five Ways...Sorry, I meant to conclude to: So in the Five Ways Thomas has shown there is an unchanging source of all change and of all causal order and the absolutely necessary source of necessity and contingency, and Being Itself (and Good and..) and That to which all things move by nature. I think that goes a long way to limning pretty much of what we think of God as being.PatrickHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04864910409538457529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-40324606250599735302014-11-16T09:36:53.782-05:002014-11-16T09:36:53.782-05:00St Thomas never wasted words, and he ends each of ...St Thomas never wasted words, and he ends each of the Five Ways with the same statement (sometimes in different words): and this we call God. St Thomas was, I think, also identifying each of the Ways as pointing to the same Person. Let's say I claimed that there exists the Scarlet Pimpernel, and this we call Mike Flynn. And there exists the Lone Ranger, and this we call Mike Flynn. And there exists Richard Milhous Nixon (aka Flynn), and there exists Morticia Adams (aka Flynn) and finally there exists Winne the Pooh, and this too we call call Mike Flynn. We would be saying that these five beings exist, they differ from one another in important enough ways t(from our perspective) that we have given them different names, but in reality they are all One and the Same. I think this is why Thomas did not end the Five Ways with a generic "and all of these we call God". He was saying in addition to having proved the exist of the First Mover, First Cause, etc, that the First Mover is the First Cause is Necessity, is Being Itself (and Good and Life and Wisdom) and the Omega and the Alpha. That's why he tagged each way with a common identifier. PatrickHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04864910409538457529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-77411196044326081802014-11-15T00:13:29.137-05:002014-11-15T00:13:29.137-05:00Thanks, all, for the responses. I think that answe...Thanks, all, for the responses. I think that answered my question to my satisfaction. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-3431107993185629332014-11-13T17:38:08.085-05:002014-11-13T17:38:08.085-05:00I see, Johnrob, that we seized on the same point a...I see, Johnrob, that we seized on the same point at about the same time!Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06877019716219367152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-28866232776968859352014-11-13T10:58:25.393-05:002014-11-13T10:58:25.393-05:00I think the BPA that we are talking about is that ...I think the BPA that we are talking about is that which all possible potencies is actualized. Thus, one cannot talk about a BPA which lacks any one possible potency X. If all X that exists, then it is found in BPA actualized.<br /><br />In fact, having no potency at all, it is not appropriate to talk of BPA along this line of thought. Rather all potentialities (potencies) must emanate from BPA!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11205690785357010714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-14786955939717021792014-11-13T10:52:00.735-05:002014-11-13T10:52:00.735-05:00I shamelessly say this was one of the most thrilli...I shamelessly say this was one of the most thrilling things I have read. If I go back into teaching, no matter which subject, we're starting with this.<br /><br />Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06877019716219367152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-21213696356705171802014-11-13T10:49:28.733-05:002014-11-13T10:49:28.733-05:00Anonymous - I would also add that your question se...Anonymous - I would also add that your question seems to assume a nonsensical concept. It's not that the BPA once had potencies which have since been actualized; being Pure Act, he has never had potencies at all.<br /><br />If that's true, then the question just doesn't make sense. (There may be some other objection to the BPA being unique, but this wouldn't be one).Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06877019716219367152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-73121651145011789162014-11-13T10:44:49.317-05:002014-11-13T10:44:49.317-05:00Aron - You may just be punctuating the point, but ...Aron - You may just be punctuating the point, but I would say that I read TOF very much in the spirit of the passage you quote. The proofs can point to a triune nature, and even give us a little light in understanding it.Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06877019716219367152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-84243822814747967562014-11-12T21:05:08.540-05:002014-11-12T21:05:08.540-05:00This is great summary! Thanks and I will also book...This is great summary! Thanks and I will also bookmark this link.<br /><br />It is also of great interest to know how can we philosophically defend the independent faculties: intellect, will [and passion (or being with material body)] for every human beings?<br /><br />Thanks a lot!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11205690785357010714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-33403223068314140432014-11-11T18:43:59.931-05:002014-11-11T18:43:59.931-05:00@ Eric Fesh re: Perfect
It seems we should not use...@ Eric Fesh re: Perfect<br />It seems we should not use the word "perfect" to describe God, since the word means "finished, completed, the end-point of a process/change/becoming." This can't apply to the Conclusion of the Five Ways since It is Pure Act. Aquinas concedes this but then shows that a thing can be relatively perfect--more or less finished, like my grading for the night. Once you see this, it's easy to see that the degree of perfection is equal to the degree of actuality, and we ARE talking about Pure Act after all. So while it's not the proper use of the term perfect, we actually end up cracking open the word and getting more out of it (so to speak).<br /><br />Once we have "Perfect" in hand, we can go on to show that BPA is Good by running a "dummy" version of the Convertibility of Transcendentals. That's really the main reason to work with "Perfect." For Aquinas it's a bridging term to get from Pure Act to Pure Goodness.<br /><br />Check out ST I Q4-6 if you want the sources.<br /><br />RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-34205259226346313122014-11-10T09:32:46.009-05:002014-11-10T09:32:46.009-05:00Any feature which a BPA has is either a necessary ...Any feature which a BPA has is either a necessary corollary of being a BPA or not. If it is a necessary corollary, then any BPA will have this feature; if it is not, then any BPA which has it would be composite (since you'd have the BPA Essence + this accidental feature), and since anything composite has potentials, it wouldn't be a BPA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-81860566914365444462014-11-09T04:08:53.587-05:002014-11-09T04:08:53.587-05:00Does this mean Ayn Rand was not an atheist?Does this mean Ayn Rand was not an atheist?Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04720409839023747889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-42112071312974763212014-11-08T17:07:42.238-05:002014-11-08T17:07:42.238-05:00I would have appreciated a better explanation of h...I would have appreciated a better explanation of how the definition of "perfect" was arrived at... I'm an enthusiastically orthodox Catholic and that still read funny to me. Reminded me a bit of Anselm's Ontological Argument (which apparently has some holes in it...Eric Feshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07907631372035481206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-73032393818184393022014-11-08T14:12:06.592-05:002014-11-08T14:12:06.592-05:00St. Thomas did not believe that the Trinity could ...St. Thomas did not believe that the Trinity could be proven by pure reason. The thing about the processions of intellect and will is just a plausibility argument to help understand the Trinity after it had already been revealed by faith. See <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1032.htm" rel="nofollow">ST I, question 32, article 1</a>.<br /><br />From his Reply to Objection 2:<br /><br />"Reason may be employed in two ways to establish a point: firstly, for the purpose of furnishing sufficient proof of some principle, as in natural science, where sufficient proof can be brought to show that the movement of the heavens is always of uniform velocity. Reason is employed in another way, not as furnishing a sufficient proof of a principle, but as confirming an already established principle, by showing the congruity of its results, as in astrology the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them. In the first way, we can prove that God is one; and the like. In the second way, reasons avail to prove the Trinity; as, when assumed to be true, such reasons confirm it. We must not, however, think that the trinity of persons is adequately proved by such reasons."Aron Wallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10552077344304954390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-82497654153443134962014-11-08T14:08:40.582-05:002014-11-08T14:08:40.582-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Aron Wallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10552077344304954390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-32484934183285432312014-11-08T13:58:03.778-05:002014-11-08T13:58:03.778-05:00As I understand it, for a First Mover to lack X mu...As I understand it, for a First Mover to lack X must put it in potency to X. The same might not be true of armadillos. TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-31133588469681557812014-11-08T10:54:59.651-05:002014-11-08T10:54:59.651-05:00Theorem 2. A Being of Pure Act (BPA) must be uniqu...<i>Theorem 2. A Being of Pure Act (BPA) must be unique.<br />1.Suppose there were two such beings.<br />2.To be distinct, one must possess an attribute X the other lacks, such as being here rather than there. (by definition)<br />3.But the one that lacks the attribute is then in potency to X and cannot be a BPA, a contradiction. (§1.2)<br />Hence, from this point on we can say the BPA.</i><br /><br />Hi TOF, I've got a quick question regarding this argument. <br />Why can't one say that both BPA's (let's just use two for now) have actualized all their potencies, but don't share all the same potencies? Or, in other words, why does attribute X have to be a potency of one of the beings of pure act as opposed to that being simply not having that potency to begin with? Thanks. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-23185246389123072442014-11-07T14:59:20.074-05:002014-11-07T14:59:20.074-05:00I suppose in a way analogous to the way in which T...I suppose in a way analogous to the way in which TOF the father of two, TOF the son of his parents, and TOF the husband are not three different people. Analogies are never perfect, of course; and the God being perfectly Actual, the three persons are each entirely God and entirely complete.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-73774666705428306922014-11-07T09:19:26.894-05:002014-11-07T09:19:26.894-05:00Excellent summary. I've bookmarked your posts...Excellent summary. I've bookmarked your posts for future reference.<br /><br />To my mind, once you to get to unmoved mover all of the attributes of God follow. But one area I do have difficulty (intellectually) is in reconciling the Trinity with divine simplicity. I know ultimately it is as mystery, but if both the Son and the Holy Spirit are objects of the divine intellect and will, respectively, then the subject of the knowing and desiring must in some way be distinct from the objects, and yet if all three are somehow divine and one, how does that not by necessity make God composite?LSnoreply@blogger.com