Ex Motu
- Some things are moved.
- Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
- An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
- Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
- This mover is what we call the FSM
- Some things are caused.
- Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
- An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
- Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
- This causer is what we call the FSM
- Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
- It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as nothing can come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occured.
- Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
- This being is what we call the FSM.
- Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
- These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
- All designed things have a designer.
- The universe is designed.
- Therefore, the universe has a designer.
- This designer is what we call the FSM.
It follows from the above five arguments that the FSM does indeed exist. QED
4 comments:
It would be all very well and good to simply replace "God" with "FSM" in the Five Ways, very clever, good for a lark, but I fear that in doing so you misrepresent the understanding which Thomas derives from Aristotle. This understanding is especially needed, as he himself says in the Proemium to the first question, to understand precisely the implications of the arguments he makes, and as the whole about God which he claims can be reached by natural reason alone is ostensibly contained in the five ways (all the later arguments about God's perfection, simplicity, etc. are directly argued by reduction to an absurdity contradictory to those same five ways) it seems at the least unclear how what he says (God exists) and what you claim as a ridiculosity (FSM exists) are the same thing.
Way 1: Aristotle's definition in the Physics, which Thomas takes up, is that motion is the "actuality of potency as such." That is to say, a moving thing is having its ability to be moved made actual, such that it "is" moved. This potency, Aristotle says in the Physics in the same chapter, needs its actuality from another, for as it is in potency, it lacks that act itself.
Ultimately, this leads to a first mover which IS pure act. The spaghetti monster, as "spaghetti" or "monster" has potency to be something other, and thus is not pure act. God, however, is, simply. Literally, according to Scripture, and backed up by natural reason.
Way 2: By that same reasoning, a cause in some sense being that which imparts some act to the effect, the uncaused caused cannot be the FSM.
Way 3: If a thing is necessary, it cannot be otherwise. But that which has potency CAN be otherwise. Therefore if the first being is necessary, it must be pure act. Therefore the first necessary being cannot be the FSM.
Way 4: I hardly see how the FSM qualifies as that which contains all the perfections, whether as a univocal cause (as man contains the nature of man) or an equivocal cause (as the sun "contains" the coming-to-be of a plant, since it in some sense GIVES it that coming-to-be) since the FSM is itself limited, and being a "flying" "spaghetti" "monster", only univocally contains the perfections of flying spaghetti monster, or only equivocally contains some embodied things, being embodied itself. Unless it causes itself, in which case, see ways 1 through 3.
Way 5: If the FSM has some potency as an embodied thing, it is not pure act. But as Ways 1, 2 and 3 proved, it must be pure act to be the first cause, in any sense, and as a designer is a cause (the sculptor causes the statue's actuality) so the FSM cannot be the designer.
All these come from an honest reading of what Thomas actually said, which he further reinforces with other necessities which follow from and elucidate the precise claims to the five ways. Please, lend credence to the auther, as you would have us lend credence to your blog posting.
(1) Who says the FSM has any potency and is not a pure actor? This can be easily elucidated both ex natura and ex scriptura (re: the revealed scriptures of the FSM). Besides, don't let the seperate definitions in the compound name FSM fool you into thinking it is equivalent to an everyday object. The only difference between FSM and the word associated with divine superhumans, god, is that it was only revealed to humanity that Providence has more physical shape of a free-moving pile of cooked noddle with meatballs that give the impression of having a face. The only difference between the Thomists' God and the FSM is simply the FSM has a shape beyond its qualities versus the shapelessness of the Thomists' God.
(2) Ultimately, the physics of Aristotle is wrong, and it follows from the incorrectness of Aristotle that the five ways of Thomas are inapplicable to any philosopher that desires empiricism as a frame of reference for epistemology or metaphysics. So, yes the above was just for comedy value, and I have no further interest in exploring it beyond the face-value humor it offers.
The Quinquae Viae do not attempt to explain the nature of God, the merely prove that he exists. However your FSM argument does not hold true. First, in your argument, your merely claiming that what I call God, you call the FSM. By making the arguments in any form, you necessarily admit that there is a first mover, a first cause, etc. Since you have admitted there is a first cause, a first mover, you admit that it is necessarily true that all things derive from this being. By calling it the FSM, you're merely questioning the nature of the being, not the existence of the being itself. As for the argument of the nature of the first cause, it can not be the FSM, because the FSM is made from separate constituents. The first cause can not be made of anything. It is everything, and nothing can be added or removed from it. If there is a FSM, you would be able to break it down further than what it is.
But like I said, the Quinquae Viae are not meant to probe the nature of God, even though Thomas has covered that quite thoroughly in the Summa Theologica as well as his other works (also the works of St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Ambrose, and other scholars). The five proofs are merely used to prove the existence of a being which is called God.
So far as I can tell, you literally just replaced the word "God" with "FSM," and then proceeded to define "FSM" as having all the same characteristics as the God described by Aquinas. That's a tautology, basically.
The Quinquae Viae doesn't really try and prove the existence of the "Christian God" - it just proves that "God" exists. And if you call "God" "FSM" you're affirming the same proof. It's not really a shortcoming of his proof. It's just a limit in scope -- he proves other aspects throughout the Summa Theologica.
Post a Comment