God exists subjectively?

[theologian]

I did so previously.  If everything that moves must have been acted upon in order to move, the moment we introduce something that moves but is not acted upon, we have invalidated the premise.  The existence of an unmoved mover means that it's impossible for everything that moves to have been acted upon.

Remember that the term "move" we're using here is termed "motion" in Aquinas' Five Ways. And, in that context, "motion" means change.

Now, you said that one of the premise of the First Way has affirmed that everything that moves must be acted upon, and that is correct. Let's call that premise A.

Second, you argue that the conclusion then has invalidated the premise A, because the conclusion states that there is an Unmoved Mover.

The problem lies at your claim that conclusion which states that there is an Unmoved Mover contradicts the premise A.

How is it a problem?

Let's examine your reason for saying that the conclusion in the First Way contradicts the premise A. Let me quote you again:

The existence of an unmoved mover means that it's impossible for everything that moves to have been acted upon.

However, that reason is false. To show it, I'll frame it into a Q&A form.

Does the Unmoved Mover is moved or moves? (In context, does the Unchanging Changer changes or is changed?

Answer: Of course not, for everything that is unmoved is not moved.

If the Unmoved Mover is not moved, does it contradict the premise that "everything that moves must be acted upon by another"?

Answer: Obviously, no. For, the subject in that premise is that everything that moves and the predicate in that premise is that what must be acted upon. Since, the Unmoved Mover is neither moved nor acted upon, it doesn't contradict the premise which is both moved and acted upon. Because, contradiction can only be there if the Unmoved Mover is moved and not acted upon.

If you agree with the above Q&A, it follows that there is really no contradiction between the premise and conclusion of the First Way. That also applies to other argument like the Second Way. Uncaused Cause doesn't contradict the premise that every effect has a cause, because Uncaused Cause is not an effect.

If you don't agree, given that what I have given above are hopefully easier to understand, please point to me where I got it wrong above which will obviously show that I'm mistaken to think that there is no contradiction between the premises and conclusion in the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas in his Five Ways.

I don't know how to make it any clearer because it is so simple.  Logic should not tell us that there needs to be an exception in order to solve the problem.  Logic should tell us to scrap the premise because it is unworkable.  Logic should definitely not tell us to assign a quality to an unproven variable in order to allow that variable to solve the problem by presenting itself as the proof.  That is circular.

What premise should be scrapped? That every effect has a cause? Or that everything that has been moved are acted upon?

I believe that one of your two objections against the Five Way, namely that the conclusions in the Five Ways contradicts its premises, will be already resolved once you agree with my immediate answer above.

Now your second problem involves the assigning of God to be the Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Uncaused Necessary Being, Perfect Being and Supremely Intelligent Being. That is a problem according to you, because it presumes that it is the quality of God, and if we know the quality of God, then we are arguing in circles, for knowing the quality implies existence.

But, the Five Ways never puts in its premises that God is Unmoved Mover, First Cause etc. On the contrary, after showing the premises and the conclusion in Five Ways, that's when we only see the phrases something like "and that people call God".

Therefore, there were never assumed premises. Further, what is assumed here is that we assume that St. Thomas Aquinas and other theist assumed first that there is God and that we have conceptualized His quality.

Even if we grant your claim that the theists and St. Thomas Aquinas assumed beforehand the qualities of God, by just looking only on the premises and conclusion, it will still prove the existence of the Unmoved Mover, First Cause, etc without relying beforehand that God is the Unmoved Mover, First Cause, etc. Because, the premises in Five Ways never used the premise that God is the Unmoved Mover, the First Cause, etc, to prove the existence of the Unmoved Mover, First Cause, etc, and with that, it still arrive in its conclusion validly, for again, only after the premises and the conclusion have been presented in the Five Ways, that's the only the time the arguments in Five Ways say something like: and that people understood to be God. So, your second objection is not really an objection to Five Ways, as far as reality and logic is concerned.

Now, you may want to attribute the conclusions from the Five Ways, namely, the Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Uncaused Necessary Being, Perfect Being and Supremely Intelligent Being to other reality other than God. However, that will not succeed, for nothing in the created realities can be the Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Uncaused Necessary Being, Perfect Being and Supremely Intelligent Being. Because, if that is the case, then there's no use to demonstrate the Five Ways, because the Unmoved Mover, First Cause, etc., can just be pointed at the sensible reality easily with our senses. But, since the Unmoved Mover, the First Cause, etc., naturally can't be pointed and limited by our senses, it follows that the conclusion of the Five Ways can not be attributed to a non-God.

You keep explaining the five ways using this reasoning.  Your response to my post was to explain all the ways in which we run into limits that seem to confound us, then claim that God has a specific quality that overcomes this limitation.  But you don't explain how we can know that God has this quality aside from one version or another of "he has to have this quality."

I think you see it in the opposite way. For, the Five Ways don't start with what is God. Instead, Five Ways starts with the things we know to exist, which are the things we can see and feel. After that, using our intellect, we can arrive with the same conclusions in the Five Ways: that the Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Uncaused Necessary Being, Perfect Being, and Supremely Intelligent Being exist. And all of those we understood to be God. So, there's no need to explain the supposed initial quality of God which you assumed to be one of the premises in the Five Ways, while that is not really the case.

For the fifth way, science doesn't invalidate it.

I wasn't saying that science invalidates it, I think it invalidates itself.  But there was a time when that argument could have been used to explain many things that have different explanations now because we discovered them (the germ theory of disease, for example).  Knowing that natural explanations replace supernatural ones all the time but that the reverse does not happen should give us the confidence to reject the teleological argument.

Let me know if I have understood you here by asking you a question.

Do you see the Fifth Way as having the premise that the purpose which can be seen in nature are all supernatural?

Let me tell you now that if your answer is yes, then you don't get Aristotle and Aquinas. For, what the teleology is showing is that there is direction in every being, just an every acorn points to an oak tree. It doesn't throw away natural explanation of things. Now, it also completes the explanation why some causes are regular. And so, this can only be possible with a Supremely Intelligent Being.

---

Now to comment on your general comment, that we assume God's attribute and then we identify it with the conclusion of the Five Ways, let me do some answering. What is sure is that we didn't first define God as the Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, Perfect Being, and Supremely Intelligent Being. Instead, we have arrived at the conclusion that the Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, Perfect Being, and Supremely Intelligent Being exists, starting from the senses and then using sound Metaphysics and valid logical demonstration,and then we call those God.

---

The most charitable explanation I can see is that Aquinas wondered about these things and, frustrated over the dilemma that they all posed, proposed a God with those qualities as an imperfect solution.  But I don't think that's what happened.  I think Aquinas was quite confident in his belief in God but could not demonstrate him and so he fell back on the idea that if we can determine that he is required, then he exists.  That's what makes the exercise so telling-- that he has to invest God with qualities that break the logic of his examples in order for the examples to "prove" God.  I wonder what would happen if he'd followed the examples to their logical conclusion and simply declared them unsolveable?  In Italy in the mid-1200s?

That isn't the case. Aquinas actually holds that there must be preambles of faith, before one would accept faith. For, one must show that he is not tricking someone in evangelizing. And what is that preambles of faith? Those are truths that can be known by reason alone like the existence of God and the immortality of the human soul. Now, if we will not distort the Five Ways, it can be seen that there are really no contradicting conclusions with the premises, and that nothing in the premise presupposed the nature of God in order to prove His existence. I am now excited to see how you will respond to my invalidation of your two objectives here. You're doing a good work in discussing things properly and respectfully.

In any case, the examples do not work unless God has a quality that invalidates the premise.  The method by which you arrived at the answer does not change that.  And I honestly do not know what "sound metaphysics" is.  Is there a consensus on how metaphysics is researched, tested, and validated?

Metaphysics is high above empirical science, for the conclusions in the former are accepted without questions by the latter. Hence, the new atheism today is so wrong big time, because they conclude that there is no God, because empirical science can't show God, which has a hidden premise, which is notoriously overlooked as being false, and that hidden premise is that only which has scientific evidence can be true, yet that is self defeating, as that statement itself doesn't have a scientific evidence, for it is a philosophical claim, and that is an example of an incorrect metaphysics. Hence, validation, which is the method used by empirical science, is not the absolute measurement of all reality. The correct metaphysics must study being, for what is common to all are being.