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.
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.
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.
This is merely a false assertion. The uncaused cause is demonstrated to be both unlimited, as shown above, and God in natural theology.
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.
It is not gibberish.
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.
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