St. Thomas Aquinas’ The Way of Motion. Thomas’ Proof from Motion PotentialityActuality.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Mystery of Creation Christian Ed 10
Advertisements

Cosmological Argument What is it?. Cosmological Argument The simple starting point is that we know the universe exists (a posteriori) The simple starting.
PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD Arguments for the Justification of Theism: Cosmological, Moral, Design (Teleological) and Ontological.
Philosophy and the proof of God's existence
The God Stuff II. Background What makes this a table? Material Causes: The table is made of wood. Efficient Causes: The carpenter made it a table. Formal.
What is the sum of the following infinite series 1+x+x2+x3+…xn… where 0
Descartes’ cosmological argument
The Cosmological Argument by: Reid Goldsmith and Ben McAtee.
“… if (the best philosophy) doesn ’ t seem peculiar you haven ’ t understood it ” Edward Craig.
Aquinas’s First Way – highlights It’s impossible for something to put itself into motion. Therefore, anything in motion is put into motion by something.
Prime Matter Substantial form Substance (a matter/form unity) Quantity Quality Relation Where When Activity passivity posture Habit or state.
Aristotle and the Prime Mover
Reasons and God Descartes and Beyond Founders of Modern Philosophy Lecture 3.
The Cosmological Argument St. Thomas Aquinas ( AD) Italian priest, philosopher.
The Cosmological Argument. Also known as ‘The First Cause Argument’ Unlike the Ontological Argument, it derives the conclusion from a posteriori premise.
The Cosmological Argument The idea that there is a first cause behind the existence of the universe.
Summa Theologica Philosophy 1 Spring, 2002 G. J. Mattey.
The Cosmological argument
Cosmological arguments from causation Michael Lacewing
The Cosmological Argument.
Cosmological argument
 The cosmological argument is, as it’s name sugessts (from the greek cosmos, meaning ‘universe’ or ‘world’). An a posteriori argument for the existence.
The Cosmological Argument. This is an a posteriori argument There are many versions of it It is based on observation and understanding of the universe.
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 1
The Cosmological and Teleological Arguments for God.
History of Philosophy Lecture 12 Thomas Aquinas
How Do We Know God Exists? St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5 Proofs of God Ms. DeMeuse | Introduction to Catholicism.
Fredrick Copleston, a professor of history and philosophy, was a supporter of the Cosmological argument and reformulated the argument with particular focus.
The Cosmological Argument (Causation or ‘first cause’ theory)
1225 – 1274 (Aquinas notes created by Kevin Vallier) Dominican monk, born to Italian nobility. Worked ~150 years after Anselm. Student of Albert the Great.
Knowing God Through Creation
Philosophy 1050: Introduction to Philosophy Week 10: Descartes and the Subject: The way of Ideas.
Five Proofs for the Existence of God – by St. Thomas Aquinas.
Aquinas’ Proofs The five ways.
EXISTENCE OF GOD. Does God Exist?  Philosophical Question: whether God exists or not (reason alone)  The answer is not self-evident, that is, not known.
Evidently the Cosmological argument as proposed by Aquinas is open to both interpretation and criticism. The Cosmological argument demands an explanation.
1.Everything which begins to exist has a cause. 2.The Universe exists so it must have a cause. 3.You cannot have infinite regress (i.e. An infinite number.
HUME ON THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Text source: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 9.
The Cosmological Argument What is it about? Many religions in today’s society make claims, such as: Many religions in today’s society make claims, such.
The Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence or how come we all exist? Is there a rational basis for belief in God?
Anselm’s “1st” ontological argument Something than which nothing greater can be thought of cannot exist only as an idea in the mind because, in addition.
Cosmological Argument The Basics. Science can offer us explanations of things that are within the universe, but does the universe as a whole have an explanation?
The Cosmological Argument Science can offer us explanations of things that are within the universe, but does the universe as a whole have an explanation?
Notes - Proofs for God’s Existence
St. Thomas AquinasSt. Thomas Aquinas  CE  Naples, Italy  Benedictine then Dominican monk  Primary Works:  Summa contra Gentiles  Summa.
CCS apologetics Question #6 DOES GOD EXIST?. Some Arguments for God’s Existence Aquinas’ Five Ways Motion First Cause ContingencyDegreeTeleologyBeautyMoralityLoveOntologyAtheismReligionSingularityJudaismChristianity.
Anselm & Aquinas. Anselm of Canterbury ( AD) The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God (Text, pp )
The Cosmological argument attempts to infer the existence of God from the existence of the cosmos (universe) or from the phenomena within it. The claim.
Arguments for The Existence of God St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5 Proofs.
Chapter 1: The cosmological argument AQA Religious Studies: Philosophy of Religion AS Level © Nelson Thornes Ltd 2008 Revision.
The Cosmological Argument Today’s lesson will be successful if: You have revised the ideas surrounding the cosmological argument and the arguments from.
Thomas Aquinas and the Existence of God * The Five Ways (or Proofs) of St. Thomas Aquinas. * We can come to know God through reason. * Consistent with.
The Cosmological Argument Science can offer us explanations of things that are within the universe, but does the universe as a whole have an explanation?
Lesson Objective: Lesson Outcomes: Lesson Objective: Lesson Outcomes: Mr M Banner 2016 Grade 12 th May 2016 Starter: What does Cosmology mean to you? Title:
The Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence
Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
St. Thomas Aquinas. Contents  1. Biography  II. Philosophy and Theology  III. Proofs of God’s Existence  IV. Knowledge of God’s Nature  V. Creation.
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Explore the use of inductive reasoning in the cosmological argument
Anselm & Aquinas December 23, 2005.
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Aquinas’ three ways Learning Objective
What are the four causes of the Universe?
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Philosophy of Religion Arguments for the existence of God
Science can offer us explanations of things that are within the universe, but does the universe as a whole have an explanation? Think, pair, share.
Presentation transcript:

St. Thomas Aquinas’ The Way of Motion

Thomas’ Proof from Motion PotentialityActuality

Change/Motion The fulfillment of what exists potentially The actualization of what exists potentially (insofar as it exists potentially)

Examples of Change (in the widest possible sense) Gaining weight Getting a suntan Becoming a doctor A meteor crashes to earth A shooting star Riding a bicycle Learning a trade Teaching a concept

Potentiality Actuality Agent cause The agent cause is not only moving the block to its new form, he himself is moving or changing as he moves or changes the block.

PotentialityActuality The two are really different. Potentiality is NOT actuality. Actuality is MORE than potentiality.

At rest Potentially moving Not actually moving At rest Potentially moving Not actually moving Nothing moves itself from potency to act, except by something already in act.

To say: “Nothing moves itself from potency to act, except by something already in act” is to say that “from nothing comes nothing”, or “one cannot get something from nothing”. A thing cannot give what it does not have. If a ball is at rest, it is NOT moving. It does not have motion. And so it cannot impart motion to itself. A thing must receive a perfection that it does not have from something that actually has it. The ball at rest receives motion from something actually moving.

Imagine a moving freight train that is infinitely long, one that has no engine. Moving in this direction

Each one receives motion from a principle. The principle has something that is received by the one. The receiver initially has less. The cause of motion in the receiver is the principle. The principle is the cause, and thus the explanation. The principle accounts for the motion. From something comes something.

If the series goes to infinity, then there is no principle, no cause, of the motion in the series. The whole series lacks a cause. We are expected to accept that each part on the series has a cause and explanation of its motion, but that the motion originally came from nothing, not something, and that the movement of the whole series lacks a cause. In other words, something came from nothing. The caboose moves, but there is no engine, no first cause of the movement.

But if there is no first cause of the movement, then the caboose does not move, in fact, it never moves. Neither does any freight car on the series move, for it is preceded by an infinite series. To say that it moves, but that there is no first cause, is to say that potentiality and actuality are NOT different, that something can come from nothing, that something and nothing are the same thing, that potentiality and actuality are the same thing.

A terminal. An end. Infinity means “without end”, “without term”. But one cannot divide infinity in half and speak of a series that is half infinite. If the motion comes to an end, then the series is not infinite. It is finite. Hence, there is a First Unmoved Mover or Principle.

Every part of the series is dependent, every part receives what it has from something, but the whole does not receive what it has. The whole series is nothing but the sum of every part of the series. Every part of the series is dependent, but the whole is not dependent, but is independent. The motion of every part of the series is explained and accounted for, and thus caused, but the whole series is uncaused and unaccounted for. The motion of every part of the series comes from something, but the motion of the entire series comes from nothing. An infinite series is both finite and infinite at the same time. Contradictions

Hence, there is no infinite regress. There is not an infinite series of movers that precedes a moving thing. The series is finite. If the series is finite, then there is a First Mover that is unmoved by anything prior to itself. If not, then this first mover is not absolutely first. Hence, there is an Unmoved Mover, a mover that is unlike any mover within the series. For every mover within the series is a moved mover. The Unmoved Mover is not moved in the act of moving. The Unmoved Mover is not in a state of potentiality.