DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Classical Theism
HTML https://classicaltheism.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Philosophy
*****************************************************
#Post#: 243--------------------------------------------------
Atomism and unactualized actualizer
By: TiCatho Date: October 16, 2020, 9:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
What's a good argument against atomism? I mean, sure, we have
the potential-actual distinction, but if we look at it through
the lens of atoms, everything can be studied as small particles
moving (with a discretization of space if needed), and we have
ample evidence of "things moving". Atoms are unchanging in
themselves (partially actual?), and voilą... No need for an
unactualized actualizer. :(
I fail to see how I can refute that. Help? What do I have wrong?
Thanks in advance. :)
tiCatho
#Post#: 244--------------------------------------------------
Re: Atomism and unactualized actualizer
By: ClassicalLiberal.Theist Date: October 28, 2020, 5:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The physical is by definition always divisible. For example, if
I take a stick and cut it in half, I can then cut one of those
in half, and then one of those in half, ad infinitum. Because
physical things are the way they are, there can always in
principle be a division between it. Therefore, every physical
thing, just in terms of being physical, is composite. What this
means then is that each physical whole is only in existence
insofar as each one of its constituents continues to hold it in
existence or cause it to be. Metaphysically, the potential for
the whole is actualized by its parts. Therefore, you must appeal
to something ontologically prior in order to explain its
existence or we end up with a "brute fact" you might say.
A really important distinction to make when speaking of act and
potency is the potential for accidental changes lets say (this
involves moving up or down, left to right, etc. Any change
something undergoes that is not a change in the thing itself),
and the "potential for existence". There are things of
derivative existence (books, particles, angels, atoms, etc), and
things of underived existence (this is God). Given the analysis
above, an atom is strictly speaking something of derivative
existence because it must causally apeal to its structure. In
order to satisfy the causal principle, you must at some point in
the chain of continued actualization end up with something of
underived existence. Sure, you can posit that in some way a
physical thing can have no potentiality. There is nothing, as
far as I can tell, logically wrong with that; however, given the
reasons already stated, you will still need something causal
prior to it in order to explain its existence as such.
Another classic thomistic appraoch, even though I am not a huge
fan of it, would be to appeal to its metaphysical composition
(technically, a composition of act and potency is a metaphysical
composition, but that isn't what I am talking about). That is,
to state that every physical thing is composed of matter and
form (it has material existence, and has a physical/formal
structure) or to state that every physical thing is composed of
essence and existence (it exists, and it has a nature). In
either case, you cannot appeal to one or the other to explain a
physical things existence because you will end up with something
circular: the form causes the matter to exist, which causes the
form to exist, which causes the matter to exist, etc; its
existence is caused by its essence, which is caused by its
existence, which is caused by its essence, etc. You must then
appeal to something which is not composed of form or matter, or
of essence and existence. This is what we call, God.
It is important when talking about the argument from change to
understand why change is spoken about at all. As I see it,
change is simply talked about in order to establish the
existence of act and potency. It is not the change itself which
is important to the deduction, it is the metaphysical principles
it demonstrates. When Feser (I am assuming you've read some of
his work. If you haven't, you really should) talks about change,
he doesn't really deduce God existence from that change, even if
it seems like he is doing so. Rather, he deduces God existence
using the metaphysical principles change proves, and uses them
in a way to show that everything but God is only potentially in
existence, whereas He is actually in existence; He is pure act.
Sorry for the long winded answer. This is something I struggled
with for awhile and I feel a very thorough explanation is
required. If you have any further questions or would like me to
clarify something, I will be happy to respond.
*****************************************************