CORE #03 – Good Reasons to Believe in God (Part 1)

by · Published · Updated

Show Notes

Quick Tip

  • Read how experts respond to objections in the comment boxes of their articles. Use “Command – f” in MAC or “Ctrl-f” on PC to search the authors’ names to find their comments immediately. Search “Edward Feser”, “Bryan Cross”, and “Brandon Vogt.”

Show Outline

  • Reasons to Believe in God (part 1) focuses on a discussion of the Aristotelian Proof of God. A detailed defense of this argument can be found in chapter 1 of Dr. Feser’s Five Proofs of the Existence of God. 

Metaphysical Principles

  • Act and Potency: There is a distinction between actuality and potentiality. Actuality refers to how things exist here and now, while potentiality refers to a things capacities or potentials to exist in a different way.
  • The Principle of Causality: Whatever is being changed is being changed by something else. Nothing in a state of potentiality in some respect can actualize its own potentials in that same respect. Something else that is already actual in that respect must do the actualizing.
  • Linearly Ordered Series: Each member possess causal power in its own right. Do not, in principle, require a first member.
  • Hierarchically Ordered Series: Each member possesses causal power only instrumentally or derivatively, except for the first member that imparts power to the rest of the series. In principle, this type of series must have a first member. Not first in the sense of time, but first in the sense of possessing underived causal power.

Quote from Dr. Edwar Feser

As all of this indicates, what is meant by a “first” cause in this context is not merely “the cause that comes before the second, third, fourth, etc.” or “the one which happens to be at the head of the queue.” Rather, a “first cause” is one having underived causal power, in contrast to those which have their causal power in only a derivative or “secondary” way. As some commentators have pointed out, even if there could in some sense be an infinite regress of essentially ordered causes, there would still have to be a source of causal power outside the series to impart causal power to the whole (Brown 1969; Wippel 2000, p. 423). Otherwise, as A.D. Sertillanges puts it, you might as well say “that a brush can paint by itself, provided it has a very long handle (quoted in Garrigou-Lagrange 1939, p. 265). Even an infinitely long paint brush handle could not move itself, since the wood out of which it is made has no “built in” power of movement. The length of the handle is irrelevant. By the same token, even an infinitely long series of instrumental causes could not exhibit any causality at all unless there were something beyond the series whose instruments they were. (Cf. Suarez 2004, pp. 72-73).

The Traditional Rendition of the Argument from Motion

  1. Consider a case of a change in the world, such as a stone being moved by someone holding a stick.
  2. This requires actualization of potential for the stone to go from stationary to moving.
  3. And this requires actualization of potential for the stick to go from not moving the stone to moving the stone.
  4. This requires actualization of potential for the hand to go from not moving the stick to moving the stick.
  5. The steps in 2, 3, 4, and beyond constitute a hierarchically ordered series of potentials being actualized by something else, which are being actualized by something else, which are being actualized by something else, and so on.
  6. All hierarchically ordered series must have a first member that does not derive power from any other member in the series.
  7. This series has a first member that does not derive power from any other member in the series.
  8. Any first member of a hierarchically ordered series of potentials being actualized must be pure actuality (since otherwise, it would require something else to actualize it and then it wouldn’t be first).
  9. Therefore, there exists a first member of this series that is pure actuality or a Purely Actual Reality.
  10. That which is a Purely Actual Reality possesses the divine attributes.
  11. So, the first member of the series possesses the divine attributes such as immutability, incorporeality, maximal perfection, transcendence, simplicity, and unity.
  12. That which possesses the divine attributes is God.
  13. Therefore, God exists.

Feser’s Rendition of the Argument*

*Note that when I say “Feser’s rendition”, this is what I draw from his work and not direct quotes from Dr. Feser.

  1. Consider any object existing in the world such as a cup of coffee.
  2. The cup of coffee would not exist if the water in the cup was not actualized in a particular way here and now.
  3. The water in the cup would not be actual unless the hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms that make it up are actualized in a particular way here and now.
  4. The hydrogen and oxygen atoms would not be actual unless the subatomic particles that make them up are actualized in a particular way here and now.
  5. The steps in 2, 3, 4, and beyond constitute a hierarchically ordered chain of potentials being actualized by something else deeper in reality, which are being actualized by something else deeper in reality, and so on.
  6. All hierarchically ordered series must have a first member that does not derive power from any other member in the series.
  7. This series has a first member that does not derive power from any other member in the series.
  8. Any first member of a hierarchically ordered series of potentials being actualized must be pure actuality (since otherwise, it would require something else to actualize it and then it wouldn’t be first).
  9. Therefore, there exists a first member of this series that is pure actuality or a Purely Actual Reality.
  10. That which is a Purely Actual Reality possesses the divine attributes.
  11. So, the first member of the series possesses the divine attributes such as immutability, incorporeality, maximal perfection, transcendence, simplicity, and unity.
  12. That which possesses the divine attributes is God.
  13. Therefore, God exists

Using the Argument in Conversation

  • Don’t get sidetracked by other objections. Ask your friend: Which premise do you disagree with and why?
  • The argument doesn’t prove Christianity, but it does disprove atheism. Thereby, once the argument is presented and successfully defended, Christianity is still a viable option as a worldview whereas atheism is no longer a viable option. So, in that sense, the argument is an important step in defending the Catholic Christian worldview.

Resources Mentioned

Share This: