Preface
This blog post is a reply to another blogger, David, in an on-going
discussion about the merits of an argument Thomas Aquinas makes for
God's existence. The reply is more in-depth than many would expect
for a non-professional discussion about one of Aquinas's arguments.
This is, in part, because I think our discussion could benefit from
more detail on key terms. But, since this discussion concerns
Aquinas, a prolific writer in his own right who commented and built
on Aristotle, a complex and influential philosopher, a simple
definition couldn't adequately cover some relevant complexities. Yet
despite the length, I hope the engagement with Aquinas, Aristotle,
and Plato brings perspective to a modern discussion about the
existence of God.
I'd like to thank all the people who have patiently listened to me
talk about Aquinas. Being a sounding board has helped me better
understand the material. I value the time everyone has been willing
to put aside, even if it is small. A special thank-you to those who
read the drafts of this work (yes, there were many drafts). And, most
of all, a thank you to David for not being an internet troll, but
honestly engaging with some emotionally difficult issues in a mature
way. I believe that people grow morally when they cooperatively
engage with a community. While we don't have to see eye-to-eye, I
appreciate the willingness to work with others on sensitive and
difficult issues.
Introduction
This
article comes as a response to a friend's affinity for a particular
strain of arguments for God's existence collectively called the
Cosmological Argument for God's existence. While I am doubtful that
this strain of arguments could make a convincing case for God's
existence, in this article, I outline and criticize one family of
them I call the Thomistic
Cosmological Arguments.
These arguments are characterized by their reliance on a metaphysical
position about the nature of objects, which its proponents often
trace to Thomas Aquinas and some of his arguments for God's
existence.
David, through an interpretation of Aquinas's cosmological argument,
developed a version of the Thomistic Cosmological argument.i
As a response to this approach, I spend some time in this article
expanding on the basic metaphysical positions about the nature of
objects often adopted in the development of the Thomistic
Cosmological argument. These metaphysical positions are expanded upon
through an interpretation of Plato and Aristotle's view of the
metaphysical nature of objects, through the lens of Aquinas. After
outlining a metaphysical problem the ancient philosophers set out to
resolve and Aquinas's solution to that problem from his understanding
of Plato and Aristotle, I explain his cosmological argument for God's
existence with an emphasis on what he refers to as his First Way.
My criticisms of the Thomistic Cosmological argument follows its
development. I take issue with the conception of the metaphysical
nature of objects, and the exceptions made for an understanding of
God. Through an analysis of the argument, I explain why the
foundation for the argument is fundamentally flawed.
Setting the
stage: Change, and the One and the Many
The question that framed many of the metaphysical discussions for
Aquinas and other ancient philosophers was that of being;
more specifically, “what is being?”
Without some context, the modern reader may need clarification on the
question's subject matter. In this section, I provide some context
and clarification with a description of the observations and
questions that originally motivated the medieval and ancient
philosophers. I begin with reflections on change, and a describe the
question of the One and Many,
then more directly describe the subject matter of being,
and finally return to arguments about change. This will provide a
framework to understand the metaphysical system developed by Aquinas
and others used to answer the question of being.
Many ancient philosophers reflected on change in objects and were
puzzled by it. They noticed that some objects can change and still be
considered the same object, yet others, if they change, are
considered new or different objects. These reflections on change
concerned both animate and inanimate objects.ii
A pile of sand that is melted into a glass vase, for example,would no
longer be considered a pile of stand in virtue of its different
shape, texture, hardness, etc. On the other hand, there are many
other cases where people continue to refer to an object as the same
despite its many changes. The prototypical example would be the
change we see in plants and animals. Some living beings lose and gain
matter, change shape and color, and can look entirely different over
the course of their lifetime. An acorn looks completely different
from the fully developed tree it will become, and has far more
material than it originally began, but some would still claim that,
though the tree looks different from the acorn, it is still the same
object.iii
That is, while an acorn is not a tree, the two share a continuity
such that the tree could be considered the same object as the acorn,
but with different properties. Yet, in other cases, if enough
qualities change in an object, it would be considered a different
object altogether. The difference in our intuitions about how to
regard objects that have changed was the subject of discussion for
many philosophers. Some like Parmenides, argued that all change is an
illusion. Others, like Hericlitus, argued that everything is change.
Aristotle holds that some objects change while others do not in a
manner roughly inline with our common notions of change in the world.
Similar to the attempt to understand the sameness in objects that
change over time, philosophers were also puzzled about the
relationships between different objects and notions of sameness
between them. The question of the One and Many, for our
purposes here, concerns the observation that many objects, though
they are different, still fall into a concept such that they are
considered the same kind of object. For example, there are a number
of different chairs inside my house. Some chairs are almost identical
in appearance and construction, while other chairs look fairly
different. Yet, despite their differences, they are still all
considered to be chairs. The ancients noticed that, while in many
respects objects can be different, there is another respect in which
they are the same. They wanted understand what about the world or the
objects allows for the identification of sameness between objects.
The questions arising from notions
of change and reflections on the One and Many was
examined through an analysis of being
qua being. Although
the question of being
qua being is abstract,
a basic understanding of being can be built from our practical
relationship to objects. To unpack the subject matter of being
qua being, I'll start
with the familiar. The etymology of the word “being” tracks the
ancient subject matter. The word “being” is just a form of the
phrase “to be.” The most common use of “to be” is in the form
“is,” as in “she is tall,” or “that is a goat.” Thus, to
frame the subject matter in practical terms, our attempt to
understand what an object is is to develop a conception of an
object's being.iv
The subject of being
qua being investigates
the categories or general concepts themselves and their nature or
place in the world. Again, an analysis of the phrase is helpful in
understanding the subject matter. Since being
has been discussed, the only remaining piece is “qua,” which just
means “in terms of.” Thus, if being
refers to what something is, then being
qua being is a
reflection on what it means to be something. To explain, under the
subject of being qua
being, there are a
number of questions about the identification of my chair as a chair:
(1) Where does the concept of a chair come from? (2) Is the concept
of the chair only in my head, or somewhere else? (3) What is the
interaction, if there is one, between the concept of the chair, and
the chair itself? Each of these questions, along with others, has a
long history of discussion within philosophy, particularly
metaphysics and epistemology (theory of knowledge).
Aquinas and others, in their discussion of being qua being,
broke the subject into two different, but interrelated, inquiries.
They investigated “to be” in terms of our conceptions of objects,
also known as their essence, and in terms of their existence
itself. The former subject, essence, is typically described as an
inquiry into “what something is.” The latter, existence, is
described as regarding “that something is.” For Aquinas, as
opposed to others, essence and existence are distinct and separate
qualities of objects.v
This distinction between essence and existence comes into play in the
interpretation of Parmenides' argument against the possibility of
change, and Aquinas's argument for God's existence.
Expanding on the understanding of being from the perspective
of its essence and through an analysis of change, the philosophers
ask under what conditions do things remain what they are, and when
are they are new or different things. More specifically, two
interpretations for the term “change” can be given to reflect
these concerns: (1) An object changes if it has different properties,
but retains its identity; this I will call the continuation
interpretation. (2) Change occurs if there is a different or new
thing; this I will call the differentiation interpretation.vi
Aquinas, like many other philosophers, developed his conception of
being and change through an analysis of non-being.
Parmenides, a contemporary of the ancient philosophers, disagreed
with Plato and Aristotle about the existence of change, and nature of
being. Parmenides thought change didn't exist. Later Arabic
philosophers and scholastic philosophers continued to build and
comment on the analysis of non-being. Since the metaphysics for the
cosmological argument develops out of the continuation interpretation
of change, this article will focus on the continuation
interpretation. Like different interpretations of change, different
conceptions of non-being and/or nothingness open different
kinds of metaphysical questions.
The difference in interpretation of nothingness and/or non-being
hinges on the role negation plays in the distinction. On one
interpretation, within the context of the essence aspect of being,
the use of nothing or non-being analyzes different kinds of objects.
The terms could be simply the application of “not” to either
thing or being. To explain consider the familiar saying “out of
nothing; nothing arises.” Here the interpretation could be that the
“no” is modifying “thing” so that it is equivalently claiming
“out of not-thing, not-thing arises.” While the sentence
construction is awkward and not grammatical, the approach at a
description may be if not familiar, certainly intelligible. The claim
is simply that from like-kind only like-kind can arise. For instance,
from this reasoning, only dogs can arise from other dogs; or, using
the negative, a non-dog cannot arise from a dog. I will call this the
negation as modification interpretation.
Another interpretation of nothing or non-being within the context of
essence could explicate the conception of nothing as a special kind
of thing. On this understanding, the nothing in question refers to
what is left over when all matter is removed from an area; this I
call the void. Since all objects are created, at minimum, from a
combination of matter, an object cannot arise if there is no matter
present. Thus, the saying “out of nothing; nothing arises”
asserts that objects cannot be constructed from the void. This I will
call the negation as void interpretation.vii
Finally, an interpretation of nothing in the saying “out of
nothing; nothing arises” within the context of the existence aspect
of being refers to the impossibility of the modification of a
non-existent thing. In other words, the saying points out that, if
something does not exist, it cannot be said to come into existence,
since this would imply that there is already a thing which is
modified.
Now that the central terms used in the argument against the
possibility of change have been introduced, the argument can be
introduced. There are a few different presentations of the argument.
For the sake of this article, I'll use David's summary of it:
- Change would require being to arise out of non-being or nothingness, but
- From non-being, or nothingness, nothing can arise, so that
- Change is impossible
There are two interpretations of change, and three interpretations of
nothing and/or non-being described for this article. This article
will focus on the continuation conception of change and examine the
resulting interpretation from the use of a negation as modifier form
of nothing, and the existential interpretation of nothing. These two
interpretations of the text will provide a venue for an examination
of the argument from within the context of the whole/part debate,
powers, and causation. Since Aquinas uses his solutions to some
problems within these topics as elements in his argument for God's
existence, the analysis of these problems will provide a groundwork
for Aquinas's argument for God's existence.
The interpretation of paradox using the negation as modifier
conception of nothing and non-being will be called the Essentialist
Argument against Change. The argument, on this interpretation, holds
that, in order for change to arise, a property of an object must be
able to change and yet that object retains its identity. If this is
so, a property not currently associated with the object must become
associated with that object. And, moving to the second line of the
argument, a new combination of properties associated with an object
does not make that object. Yet, by definition, change is exactly the
act of making non-object properties, an object's property. Thus,
change is impossible.
In more practical terms, the Essentialist interpretation asserts that
an object with some set of properties cannot lose or gain a property
without creating a new object. For example, imagine that the chair
I'm sitting in is described with a complete list of its properties –
its shape, weight, location, etc. Here one might say that, the chair
is the complete list of its properties. However, according to this
conception, if I move my chair to a different location, there would
be a chair with a different property, and so a different collected
list of properties. If my chair was that previous complete list of
properties, then, with a different list of properties, it is now a
different chair. Yet, for the chair to change, it would need to have
a different property, like a different location, and retain its
identity. If that particular chair simply is the complete list of its
properties, then, by definition, change is impossible.
Under the existential interpretation of the paradox, the argument's
first premise asserts that change requires that something change from
a state of non-existence to existence. However, returning to the
existential interpretation of non-being, in order for a thing to
change from a state of non-existence to existence, there would have
to be a thing which is changing existence. But, if there is a thing
that is changing existence, the thing must already exist, or else
what would be changing? The description of non-existence presumes
that there is no thing to change. Thus, if change is the alternation
of an object from non-existence to existence, change is impossible.
Aquinas and Aristotle rejected the conclusions of these paradoxes
that change is impossible. They held that some changes in the
properties of objects, like a chair changing positions, does not
create a new object. Further, they held that new objects come into
and leave existence. For them and others, the rejection of these
principles defies commonsense, and possibly even coherence. Yet, in
order to reject the conclusion, one must re-examine the premises.
Through this examination, they come to some conclusions about the
nature of objects and their existence.
Resolving
Paradox: Essence, existence, and their manifestations
This section will examine the response to the Paradox of Change
explaining the concepts employed to account for a conception of
change. I begin with the distinction between matter and form in
objects, and explain how it is used to respond to the essentialist
interpretation of the Paradox of Change. After explaining some
nuances to the essentialist interpretation and its response, I
explain actuality and potentiality in terms of its response to the
existential interpretation of the Paradox of change, with a brief
explanation of its connection to a contemporary debate about object's
powers. Finally, I explain how the different concepts introduced in
this section interrelate to each other. This provides the framework
in which to understand the cosmological argument for God's existence.
Aquinas conceives of objects as being composed of two aspects, matter
and form. Matter is that material which one would compose an
object. Form is that aspect of an object which makes it more than a
simply its composition of matter. That is, form is the organizing
principle or aspect that makes matter possess properties that it
would not possess by itself. A bronze statue, for example, has bronze
as its matter, and gains its shape through its form. The form of a
statue organizes that bronze such that the bronze has a shape, and is
not just a lump of bronze. All worldly objects have a combination of
matter and form from which they are composed.
The Paradox of Change, under the essentialist interpretation, is
resolved through the relationship between matter and form. Under this
response, our conception of an object refers to its form. As such,
provided the form of an object does not change, an object will
persist despite its changes. Likewise, if an object no longer retains
its organizing principles or aspect, the object no longer persists.
Under this conception of an object, since changing the position of
the chair in my house does not change its organizing principle or
aspect, the change of position does not destroy the chair. However,
if the chair was taken apart, although all the matter may still
exist, since it no longer retains its organizing principle or aspect,
the chair no longer persists.
While the matter and form
distinction may provide a satisfactory response to some cases of
change in objects, Aquinas identified some kinds of change that
should be further distinguished. Namely, he noticed that there are
some properties to an object that, if they are lost, would not cause
the object to be destroyed, while other changes would. The changes in
an object that would not cause the object to cease existence are
called accidental
change. The changes in an object that would cause an object to cease
existence are called substantial
change. For example, an animal that loses the ability to walk would
not be considered to cease existence, even though that animal has
lost an ability. However, if some animal dies, that animal no longer
exists. To Aquinas, since being alive is a necessary condition for an
animal's existence, being alive is a product of its substantial
form, whereas the ability to walk is not essential to its existence,
and so is part of an accidental
form.
In response to the existential interpretation of the Paradox of
Change, Aquinas argues for a hierarchical conception of an object's
existence. Rather than objects either having existence or not,
objects have some properties which exist, or are actual, and
others that exist potentially. That is, an object can possess
a property, but, even though that property is not actual, that does
not imply that the property does not exist. For example, a piece of
wood has the ability to burn, but just because it is not currently
burning does not mean that it cannot burn. The property of burning
exists potentially within the object. An object undergoes change when
a potential property becomes actualized. All worldly objects have
actual and potential aspects to the object.
The development of the actual and potential distinction allows for a
response to the existential interpretation of the Paradox of
Change which itself is a threat to the possibility of some
change, even if the distinction between substantial and accidental
forms are granted. Aquinas argues that some change does not undermine
the existence of an object even if that change is considered to be
part of the objects substantial form. For instance, if an object is
considered to be wood, for the sake of argument, we might supposed
that it must have the ability to burn. Yet, the fact that, at some
moment, the wood is not expressing the ability to burn does not mean
it cannot burn. The substantial and accidental forms alone cannot
account for this kind of substantial change. Aquinas holds that there
are actual and potential properties within the substantial form which
would account for substantial change.
In addition to providing a response to the existential interpretation
of the Paradox of Change, the actual and potential distinction
coupled with the matter and form distinction provides an explanation
for powers in objects. Powers are those properties an object
possesses that may or may not be realized through the life of that
object. A bomb, for example, has the ability or power to explode.
Using Aquinas' terminology, we would say that an exploding bomb
exists potentially within the form of the object.
The concepts of actuality, potentiality, matter, and form are all
interrelated in the conception of an object. In the scholastic
jargon, we would say that it is through an object's substantial form
that the properties of an object are actualized in matter. Further,
matter cannot exist without substantial form to actualize it. The
concept of matter without form is called Prime Matter, and
said only to exist as a potentiality. To help visualize the
relationship between the various concepts, consider the following
metaphor: imagine a stain glass window with light shining through the
window and causing an image on a wall. The image on the wall would be
the object we experience in the world. The glass would be the form of
the object, and the light would be existence itself that actualizes
the form of the object. The part of the glass that does not have
light shining through it would be the property of an object that
would be said to exist potentially.
To recap, following the reasoning of Aristotle and Aquinas, if one
believes that object's change and thus reject Parmenides argument
against change, it follows that objects must have forms (accidental
and substantial), and that there are different ways in which
properties of an object can exist (potentiality or actuality). It is
through our knowledge of the essential and existential qualities of
an object that Aquinas builds an argument for God's existence.
Metaphysical
Arguments for God's existence
This section will cover some variations on the metaphysical argument
for God's existence with an emphasis on the cosmological argument,
and Aquinas's First Way. I will start with some reflections on the
metaphysical stance on objects connected to Aquinas's view of the
world. Then provide a presentation of his argument for God's
existence from the First Way, and a reflection on his general
existential argument. Finally, I'll provide a general structure to
the various versions of the metaphysical argument for God's
existence.
A crucial notion to understanding the approach of the cosmological
argument is that God is considered the foundation of existence
itself. Returning to the stain glass window metaphor, if image on the
wall is the object we experience in the world, God is the source of
light that allows for the image to be cast. He actualizes an object's
potentiality latent within that object's form. This manifests,
through matter, the object that we experience in the world. Aquinas,
in reasoning about the source of light, argues that the stain glass
window could not be its own source of light. The source of light must
come from something entirely different from the objects themselves.
Thus, Aquinas argues that, through our understanding of the world, we
can come to know that God exists.
Within the context of change and the
conceptual framework used to understand it, in the cosmological
argument, Aquinas argues that, based on our understanding of change,
there must be an unchanged changer (unmoved mover). Change as a
potentiality becoming an actuality for an object implies that there
must be another which initiates this change. Since objects cannot be
the source of their own change and there cannot be an infinite
regress, there must be a source for change.
David summarizes the argument as follows:
- Change occurs.
- Whatever changes is changed by another.
- Change is something existing potentiality becoming an actuality. Only what is already actual can cause something to go from potentiality to actuality.
- A thing cannot be in both actuality and potentiality, at the same time and in the same way.
- Whatever is changeable is changed in the act of changing another.
- Now if this changer is itself changing in order to cause this change, it too must be changed by another (2), and so on.
- This series of changers cannot regress infinitely,
- because each changing changer derives its power to change the next, from the previous changer in the series.
- Therefore, all such changers are only instrumental changers. Just as boxcars are instrumental in pulling other boxcars, with no locomotive, no boxcar would be pulled.
- Therefore, this series of changers must regress to an unchanging changer.
- By (3), this unchanging changer, or unmoved mover, must be unchangeable; pure actuality with no potentiality in its being.
Drawing on the clarification of terms in the preceding sections, the
argument states that substantial change, as the persistence of an
object despite changes in its essential properties, occurs. In order
for substantial change to occur, potential properties in the
substantial form of the object must be actualized. Objects cannot be
their own source of change. Each object that causes change must
itself have a source of change. This chain of changer and changed
cannot go on infinitely. Thus, there must be some entity that changes
but is unchanged.
The argument must specify substantial as opposed to accidental change
to differentiate itself from those cosmological arguments which argue
for a beginning to time, due to the impossibility of an infinite
regress, rather than a metaphysical ground. Aquinas held that a
beginning to time could not be argued on a metaphysical basis.viii
An accidentally ordered series, like time, is like the grandmother
who begets the mother who begets the daughter. While one precedes the
other, one's existence is independent of another. That is, if the
grandmother dies, the mother doesn't necessarily also cease to exist.
The substantially order series is like the table that holds up the
cup. Without the table, the cup would fall. The difference between
these series is that, in the accidental set, the parts can exist
independently of each other whereas, in the substantial set, the
parts cannot exist without each other.
In addition to reasoning that the objects we experience cannot be the
ultimate source of their own existence, Aquinas argues that our
knowledge of existence in objects is indicative of a source of
existence. Brian Davies, respected Aquinas scholar, explains with a
passage in Summa Theologiae:
Whenever different things share
something in common, there must be some cause of this sharing;
precisely as different, they themselves do not account for it. Thus
it is that whenever some one element is found in different things,
these receive it from one cause, just as different hot bodies get
their heat from one fire. Existence, however, is shared by
all things, however much they differ.
There must therefore be a single source of existence from
which whatever exists in any manner whatsoever, whether invisible and
spiritual or visible and material, obtains existence [my
emphasis] (pg 31).
Similar to the conclusion that, from different instances of objects
of the same type, there must be a singled shared type, like our
experiences of chairs there must be a chairness. The different shared
instances of existence are evidence of a single source of existence.
The hierarchy to existence within the Aquinas's cosmological argument
is also empirically verified through our interactions with other
objects in the world. Though not in formally part of the cosmological
argument, this belief about the relationship between plants, animals,
and human beings undoubtedly would have provided support for this
position. For Aquinas, plants are above minerals in that they are
able to keep their form while changing their matter. Animals are
above plants in their ability for self locomotion. And, humans are
above animals in that they have control over their forms. Since
objects are actualized through their forms and the greatest being is
one who is Pure Actualization, the hierarchy of actual and potential
found in the natural world, and even beyond it, provides support for
the cosmological argument.
Finally, all the dots can be connected together for Aquinas's
argument. An object derives its reality as a combination of its
essence and existence. The change we see in the world is an
expression of the relationship between these two. If we believe that
objects change over time, we must believe that they retain their form
and the expression of their form changes. This is to say that an
object's property exists potentially and becomes actual. There must
be a source of this existence. The source of existence is God.
The doctrine's
challenges: an outline of some criticisms
The Thomistic approach to the cosmological argument relies on many
interrelated metaphysical positions that do not seem to individually
be a productive approach to their respective problems, and whose
conclusion, that God's essence is existence itself, seems flawed. The
conception of form needed for the argument could not be a solution to
the paradox of change assumes the very problematic entities that it
tries to save. The notion of existence necessary for the argument is
that of a property the very quality it needs to avoid to be a
solution.
Criticisms of the Forms
The criticisms of the forms presented puts to task our conception of
the form, and what or who has a form. This section presents questions
the nature of the form with the Third Man Argument. If correct, form
cannot be a solution to the Paradox of Change. Next, the
meaningfulness of the form distinction is put to question with the
Sorites Paradox. Without a meaningful distinction, the forms cannot
resolve the Paradox of Change.
The Paradox of Change, and the question of the One and Many
centers around the relationship between particulars and the general,
and how qualities about the two conflict. The Paradox of Change
questions the relationship between an object as a whole and its part
either as parts related to each other at a particular instant, or how
they related to each other at different instants in time. Similarly,
in the One and Many, different aspects of objects (predicates)
have a “sameness” relationship. In the matter and form
relationship, it is the substantial form that gives matter its
meaning or essence. In Plato's theory of the forms, the participation
in the Form gives an object its meaning or essence. Yet, if it is the
substantial form or Form that provides meaning or essence to its
parts or objects, then where does a Substantial form or form get its
meaning or essence? The very same reasoning that gives rise to the
postulation for the substantial form for ordinary objects can be
applied to the substantial form itself.
Traditionally introduced as an argument against Plato's theory of the
forms, the Third Man Argument (TMA) questions the use of the form to
provide an essence to objects while positing the form itself without
providing an explanation for its essence. The TMA claims that,
according to Plato's theory, a man has an essence (being a man), that
is inherited via its participation in the form man-ness. However, the
form man-ness would itself have to be a man. Since the form is itself
a man, there must be a third form man-ness-ness that covers both the
original man and its original form man-ness. The third form would
also itself need a form. Thus, there is an infinite regress of
forms.ix
The strength of the TMA comes from the critical stance towards the
relationship between objects and their essences. For Plato,
Aristotle, and others, entities (parts or objects' predicates) obtain
their relationships to each other vis-a-vie their essences. Yet, on a
similar basis, one can question the grounds that establish the
relationship between essences and their object. The solution used to
resolve the relationship between objects and their parts cannot be
used on itself without begging the question or causing an infinite
regress. As a result, a foundational source for essences can never be
established.x
Aquinas's substantial forms as the entity that instantiates the
relationship between an object and its parts must answer why the
substantial form and its object does not require its own substantial
form. A proponent of the theory may hold that the substantial form as
grounded in the object avoids criticisms that would be made of
Plato's theory of the forms. As an entity that unifies parts into a
whole, a natural conclusion would be to conceive the substantial form
as a part of the object. However, as a part, the substantial form
would itself need a form to unify the substantial form with its
parts.
The argument that objects possess matter and form leans on the
preservation of ordinary objects. Some, in contrast to Aristotle,
argue that atoms are the only things that exist, and, as such,
ordinary objects – like tables and chairs – do not exist. Others
argue that only the world as a whole exists, and everything is simply
a part within the greater whole. For modern Thomists, retaining the
substantial forms of ordinary objects remains an crucial part in
arguing for moral relationships between objects.
The Sorites Paradox is a significant challenge to the
differentiation of ordinary objects.xi
This objection brings to question the methodology used to
differentiate objects and their substantial forms. Consider, for
example, why we cannot fit a full professional football (not soccer)
team into a Honda Fit. Here are two ways a Thomist could reply:
- The substantial form of the Honda Fit and the substantial form of the football team, as a collective, each provide properties to their respective matter such that the football team cannot fit in the Honda.
- The Honda Fit has its own substantial form, and each person in the football team has his own substantial form. The individual properties of each football player and the Honda Fit is such that the football players cannot fit in the Honda.
These examples associate the essences of the individuals with a way
in which the objects involved would be referred to. Namely, we can
refer to a football team as a collective, or to the individual
players of the team each with their own properties.
In a fashion similar to the Third Man Argument, responses to this
paradox undermines its own case for the forms, and more importantly
how it will be used in later arguments. A natural response could be
that each football player has an accidental form from which those
players relational properties derive. The collective property is a
product of their respective accidental forms. However, if this is
possible, all objects can be broken into only accidental forms as
simply relational parts and properties resulting from these
relations. Yet, accidental forms are said to not exist independently,
and if all things are simply their parts and relationships, no case
could be made for an inherent purpose existing within the collective.
On the other hand, if the football team as a collective must have
their own substantial form in order to retain their collective
property, then what about the other properties resulting from other
collectives? For instance, if all the football team cannot fit in the
car, then all the football team plus one more person also cannot fit
in the car. A variety of other relationships can be developed each
also with their own respective properties. Each property cannot be
appeal to the accidental properties without falling into the original
fork.
If the forms are not a viable conception of the composition of
objects, the cosmological argument cannot get off the ground. The
argument about the Paradox of Change assumes that there must
be some entity to which people refer. If an explanation can be
provided without an entity assumed, there is no Paradox to Change and
thus God as a solution to it. Further, not just any conception of the
forms will do. A conception of the forms that does not provide an
account of purpose or meaning results in a God that both does not
instill meaning or purpose in the world, but whose perfection is no
longer worthy of worship or deference.
Existence Criticism
The influential philosopher Immanuel Kant famously wrote in response
to another argument for God's existence (the ontological argument)
that existence is not a real property. This remark succinctly
captures the central idea behind the objections I find compelling.
Unpacking this quote, there are two aspects to this claim that
motivate the cosmological argument: (1) Existence is a property; (2)
It is a particular kind of property. For the former, many criticize
that, if existence was a property, there would have to be entities
without existence. For the latter, I challenge the conception of
existence as similar to light.
Aquinas, in this response to the Paradox of Change, acknowledges the
motivating criticism behind the conception of existence as a
property. The existential interpretation of the Paradox of Change
finds the idea that a modification can be made to a non-existent
object would be impossible. His proposal is that there are potential
properties which subsist on actual objects. But, this simply proposes
an entity that exists, but whose existence is derived in another
manner. That is, Aquinas would claim that a property exists
potentially, but this is still claiming that it exists. On the other
hand, he could claim that there are potential properties, but that
they don't exist. However, if the properties don't exist, the claim
that an object has those properties wouldn't be meaningful.
The reconciliation of the tension that a modification can be made to
a non-existent entity is that existence, like other properties, comes
in degrees. Just as there are different intensities to light, there
are different intensities to existence itself. Using this conception
of existence but with actuality as a greater degree of existence, and
potentiality as inferior or lesser, prime matter as pure potentiality
exists as the weakest kind of existence, and other creatures with
their relationship to their form and actuality having greater degrees
of existence. God whose essence is existence, and as such is Pure
Actuality. This relationship is further seen through his conception
of the relationship between minerals, plants, animals, humans,
angels, and God.
Existence as a property, aside from the issue with modifying
nonexistent objects, relies on a phenomenon that was previously
explained in terms of existence itself. Namely, an object has a
property with respect to its existence. In particular, an actualized
property would be a property that has existence. However, if
existence is a property, then the property of existence would have to
exist. And, similar to the Third Man Argument, the existence for the
property of existence would also have to exist. This could be said of
all instances of existence. Thus, there would be an infinite regress
of existence. More importantly, the solution to the metaphysical
problem uses the very phenomenon under question as a solution. This
is not a tenable approach to solving the problem.
The supposition that existence is hierarchical, or similar to light,
is not a position that can be given evidence in its support. Even if
its accepted that objects are a composition of form and matter,
existence as separate could be assumed to function analogously to any
other phenomenon in the world. As an independent aspect of objects,
existence theories could be given many different mutually
inconsistent behaviors or properties. For example, our existence
could be like floating a boat on water. Our matter and form are like
the boat, and God is like the water. However, unlike the God that is
like the sun, its only through the existence of the boat that
floating can be achieved. One could assign greater amounts of
existence to different objects consistent with the analogy.
The cosmological argument utilizes the concepts of actual and
potential, by some, without explaining and supporting these concepts.
One possible exposition of these concepts as reflections on the
nature of existence seems problematic. Supposing existence as a
property seems self-defeating, and further description of that
property seems unsupportable.
God Whose Essence Is Existence
A common contention with the cosmological argument is that, even if
many of its assumptions are granted, the entity that follows does not
bear enough attributes to be called God. The central criticism here
is that, even if the cosmological argument establishes that there is
a foundational entity grounding existence, the necessary attributes
of this entity does not contain those attributes associated with God.
The entity would not need to have consciousness, be a free agent,
powerful, knowledgeable, or good. The cosmological argument from
within a more robust metaphysical system could argue for these
attributes. In this section, I'll explain why the attributes don't
follow from the argument, and why in the past the attributes of God
may have been more closely associated with the essence of existence.
The criticism of the inference from the essence of existence to God
is that, in short, if other forms do not have the attributes
associated with God, the form of existence as a kind of form, also
would not necessarily have these attributes. Another argument would
need to be provided that links the form of existence to the various
divine attributes. For example, the forms of other entities, though
unchanging despite alternations in their matter, still are not
conscious. The substantial and accidental forms of my chair is only
said to be unchanging despite my chair's changing properties, not
that the form chair-ness has awareness. Further, even if the
chair-ness forms produce the chair properties, the powers of the form
is restricted to its type. A chair does not also give the floor its
powers for instance. The forms, as a solution to the problem of
change, can only be said to be unchanging entities.
In addition to restrictions to the form of existence, as a form, the
separation of essence and existence in objects restricts the
entailment from the form of existence. Objects, as realized through
the combinations of essence and existence, contain their properties
within their forms which are realized through their participation in
existence. Since essence is separate from existence, the form of
existence does not itself have the properties found in an object's
essence. Thus, at best, the form of existence only realizes a
property through other object's forms, not in itself. To explain,
there is a difference between superman's ability to fly, and mine.
Superman has the ability to fly inherent to his constitution,
whereas, if I want to fly, I have to use an airplane.
As such, although we can both fly, there is an inherent difference in
our powers. An object that instrumentally realizes some state
of affairs through another does not have an inherent power. God, as
an entity that realizes states of affairs through others, does not
necessarily have powers associated with states of affairs.
Powers obtained through instrumental relationships impacts epistemic
entailment, and may limit an agent's control over the power. Objects'
independence from God in their essence, while retaining a dependence
through existence, would also mean that God need not understand the
essence of an object to enact its existence. The instrumental
relationship between an object's essence and God could mirror the
instrumental relationship between human beings and the objects they
interact with. Returning to my ability to fly, my possession of the
ability to fly does not also entail an understanding of the
principles of flight. Similarly, God, if he does realize objects
through their essence, doesn't mean that he controls the relationship
between objects, nor must he understand the way in which their
essence is realized. Thus, God, as Pure Actuality or the essence of
existence, need not be able to control events nor understand the
forms with which he interacts.
The divine attributes typically associated with God (knowledge,
power, goodness) are derived more readily from a metaphysical system
that argues for a Platonic metaphysics, more specifically
Neoplatonic, than an Aristotelian. Yet, a more robust concept of
universals carries with it a heavy price, a more complex metaphysical
system to defend. Plotinus, a founder of Neoplatonism, for example,
held that God is a unity or the One. God, in his system, contains
both the Good and the Intellect, encompasses all forms. The forms are
distinguished from within the unity through the thought of God. The
Good was to act in accordance with one's form. Thus, God, as the
ontological ground of Being, would also have complete understanding
of all forms and embody the Good.xii
However, the Platonic metaphysics must contend with a host of classic
metaphysical challenges some of which have been introduced in this
article.
The cosmological argument must argue for a God recognizable to the
theist. Most commonly a being that is all powerful, all knowing, and
perfectly good.xiii
I've argued here that God as metaphysical foundation does not
necessarily entail self-awareness. Additionally, God's separation
from the objects in the world weakens the ability to argue for a
being with the divine attributes. The cosmological argument, as
presented here, even if the requisite ontology of objects is adopted,
cannot successfully argue for a being that would have the divine
attributes. Thus, it fails to argue for God's existence.
Conclusion
The Thomistic Cosmological Argument for God's existence fails to make
a case for God's existence due to internal problems with his
conception of forms, analogizing existence with essence, and not
sufficiently compensating for the impact rejecting Platonism would
have on the argument. The criticism of the forms simply applies a
classical criticism against Platonism to a Platonized Aristotelian
metaphysics. The criticism of Aquinas's metaphysics of existence
points out that the virtue of existence is its difference from
essence. Analogizing existence to essence takes on the criticisms
made of the forms, and raises questions regarding how existence is
supposed to be different from essence. Finally, an argument for God
built on the Platonic metaphysics that also accepts the criticism of
the Platonism that is supposed to support it must account for the
change in metaphysical grounds. Thus, the Thomistic Cosmological
Argument for God's existence fails.
Footnotes:
i The
interpretation of Aquinas and his arguments for God's existence
tries to lean heavily on Edward Feser's interpretation. David, in
his blog posts about the cosmological argument, cites and has many
similar arguments to Edward Feser. He has also confirmed that Edward
Feser's positions are similar to his own, with some reservations.
Since I knew that my objections the cosmological argument he
presented would fall outside David's resources to adequately
respond, I've tried to use Feser's positions and arguments as a
measure of David's. However, Feser's details on Aquinas are often
sparse, and organization could use some improvement. Thus, I've also
drawn on other Aquinas scholars. This includes Brian Davies,
Eleonore Stump, John Wippel, and Frederick Copleston.
ii I've
taken the matter and form distinction to apply to all worldly
objects. Others, possibly Eleonore Stump and certainly Jeffery
Bower, seem to distinguish between “stuff” and “things.”
Bower's use of these terms follows Ned Markosian's distinction
between stuff and things. My account of matter and form is more
similar to Wippel's account, which I find has more in common with
Avicenna's metaphysics (see McGinnis, Jon. Avicenna. 2010.).
iii The
acorn/tree analogy is used here for a few reasons: (1) Aquinas and
other scholastic philosophers started from an analysis of living
things, and a differentiation between the living and non-living (2)
The metaphysics laid out here is often used to support continuity of
identity for people. The acorn/tree analogy is explicitly used in
medical ethics discussions. (3) Later discussions that build off the
problem of change focus on mereology, identity, and powers.
Modern philosophers (Descartes, Locke, Hume, etc) analyzed
philosophical problems in terms of experiences, rather than the
composition of parts. Feser criticizes this approach to solving
philosophical problems. In keeping with his and David's formulation
of the cosmological argument, I've tried to formulate the argument
by keeping to the acorn/tree analogy.
iv I'm
implicitly assuming here that the entity that allows for different
objects to be the same category similarly allows an object with
different properties over time to be the same object. This is, in
part, because I've interpreted Aristotle's distinction between
matter and form, as a revision of Plato's conception of the forms.
Rather than positing disembodied forms like Plato, Aristotle posits
that the forms of objects exist in those objects. Aquinas's
Substantial Forms seems to come from this type of interpretation.
This position should allow for the rejection of Platonic universals,
or Ultra-realism as Feser describes it, while still adopting a kind
of realism.
v Some
sympathetic to Aquinas's metaphysics don't hold that the distinction
between essence and existence is real. See Brower, Jeffery 2014,
Aquinas's Ontology of the Material World: Change, Hylomorphism, &
Material Objects. FN 39, pg 17. For the sake of this discussion,
I'm assuming that the interpretation of essence and existence as
real is correct.
vi Brian
Davies attributes a similar distinction between creation and
preservation to Aquinas. The Thought of Thomas Aquinas.
(1993) pg. 34.
vii Aquinas
held that absolute non-being, what I've described here as void,
could not exist. Wippel, John. The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas
Aquinas: From Finite Being to Uncreated Being.
(2000) pg 72.
viii Wippel
and Davies both mention that some interpret Aquinas's First Way as
regarding physical motion rather than metaphysical change. I've
adopted the metaphysical interpretation since it is that
interpretation adopted by David, Feser, and many other contemporary
Thomistic advocates.
ix Vlastos,
Gregory, “The Third Man Argument in the Parmenides.” The
Philosophical Review 63, no. 3
(1954).
x This
is my brief version of the Third Man Argument (TMA). I've tried to
formulate it to draw closer parallels with Russell's Set Paradox. I
also think there is a strong relationship between the TMA and the
Liar Paradox. There isn't enough space here to draw out how these
arguments are inter-related. Feser argues that his understanding of
the forms is not subject to the TMA because forms exist within their
particulars. However, he does not explain how this resolves the TMA.
xi The
Sorities paradox is usually explained as individual parts – like
individual grains of wheat – not having a property that exists
within the whole – like a heap of wheat. The football team and car
relationship is drawing to emphasis this aspect of the paradox.
xii This
understanding of Plotinus comes from: Gerson, Lloyd. “Plotinus.”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012. <Accessed 17
Dec 2017>
xiii
Conceptions of God can vary widely, and the cosmological argument is
not the exclusive domain of Catholicism.