If God moved like the wind moves, then everything would fly apart. Even if just part of Him moved like the wind, it would be bad for us. Can you imagine?
So, God moves things around, but He stays still.
How does He move things? He made things like the wind to do His work for Him. In fact, he made motion. He made it so that things could move by the mysterious thing we call motion. Just imagine that!
Here is what the dictionary says about motion.
"the action or process of moving or being moved."
Now, this tells us what motion does, but it doesn't tell us what motion is or where it came from.
Motion comes from God. How? No one can tell us how. That's God's secret. In fact, people don't even try to tell us what motion is, only what it does. All the definitions of motion tell us what motion does. Yes, but what IS it?
Can you think of other things that move and change? They are all evidence that God started things moving, but He stays the same.
Everything that moves has something else making it move. Think about it. You move your hand. With your hand, you move a glass of water. You pick it up and move it to your mouth to take a drink.
Back to the wind. Forces of nature make the wind move. The wind moves the trees.
Everything that moves is moved by something else.
Think of this, too. Everything God made is moving. He keeps it all moving like it's supposed to, but He doesn't change. Everything He made is always changing, but not Him. Weird, right?
Are you moving right now? How are you doing that?
God is called the unmoved mover. How cool is that? What a great God He is! He is also the frist mover, since He made everything start to move in the first place.
Well, that may not be a perfect explanation, but I think I'm understanding. Scripture and the experience of Christians tell us that God did not just start everything moving but that He is active in His Creation as well. He did not just set things into motion and let them go. He is the Ruler over His creation as well, including us.
CHAPTER 4
THE IMMOBILITY OF GOD
We clearly infer from this that God, who moves all things, must Himself be immovable. If He, being the first mover, were Himself moved, He would have to be moved either by Himself or by another. He cannot be moved by another, for then there would have to be some mover prior to Him, which is against the very idea of a first mover. If He is moved by Himself, this can be conceived in two ways: either that He is mover and moved according to the same respect, or that He is a mover according to one aspect of Him and is moved according to another aspect. The first of these alternatives is ruled out. For everything that is moved is, to that extent, in potency, and whatever moves is in act. Therefore if God is both mover and moved according to the same respect, He has to be in potency and in act according to the same respect, which is impossible. The second alternative is likewise out of the question. If one part were moving and another were moved, there would be no first mover Himself as such, but only by reason of that part of Him which moves. But what is per se is prior to that which is not per se. Hence there cannot be a first mover at all, if this perfection is attributed to a being by reason of a part of that being. Accordingly the first mover must be altogether immovable.
Among things that are moved and that also move, the following may also be considered. All motion is observed to proceed from something immobile, that is, from something that is not moved according to the particular species of motion in question, Thus we see that alterations and generations and corruptions occurring in lower bodies are reduced, as to their first mover, to a heavenly body that is not moved according to this species of motion, since it is incapable of being generated, and is incorruptible and unalterable. Therefore the first principle of all motion must be absolutely immobile.
------------------------------------------
This is a fun one to think through, and I've not quite gotten it.
This first part makes sense to me, kind of. I want to play with these thoughts first, and then look at what I am supposed to understand from this.:
We clearly infer from this that God, who moves all things, must Himself be immovable. If He, being the first mover, were Himself moved, He would have to be moved either by Himself or by another.
God must be immovable. That makes sense from Scripture. I'll start there.
1 Corinthians 15:58English Standard Version (ESV)
58 Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.
It makes sense that a God who is immovable would command His people, through His apostle to be immovable in our work in the Lord. This work will produce something good. It is not in vain.
It seems like this verse is an example of the principle of potentiality moving towards actuality that Thomas explained. Not sure if I am right, but maybe?
I mean, we stand firm. We then act in ways that please God. We labor. This labor produces something of lasting value. It is not in vain.
We ourselves must be immovable for this to happen. If we change our minds or fluctuate between wanting to do something good that would be pleasing to God and not wanting to do something good, then there will be no good product of our labor. We will be doubting and unsure, thus unstable in all our ways as James said (James 1:8).
It is not a perfect example, since we can and do change our minds. God cannot and will not. It wold not even make sense for God to want to be moved. It goes against His nature. Hence, the Apostle Paul has to tell us not to change our minds or weaken in our resolve to continue to do the Lord's work.
Can't we deduce from this that God is immovable and wants us to be like Him in that regard? I think so. If He were moveable, then we wouldn't even be here. If He fluctuated or changed His mind, or weakened in His resolve, then His labor of creating everything would have been in vain.
Scripture also says in Hebrews 13:8 that Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. This supports the idea that God, the first mover, is not Himself moved. There are so many Scriptures that remind us of God's immobility contrasted with our human instability.
Now, how could someone further deduce the fact that the first mover must be Himself immobile?
He cannot be moved by another, for then there would have to be some mover prior to Him, which is against the very idea of a first mover.
The first mover cannot be moved by someone or something else. That's clear. Otherwise that thing or person would be the first mover. Aquinas already established that there has to be a first mover, and that we call God.
Hence there cannot be a first mover at all, if this perfection is attributed to a being by reason of a part of that being.
One part of the first mover cannot move while another part remains unmoved. If there is any part of the first mover that is in motion, then there is a kind of instability it would seem to me, and that instability would predominate, just as the unstable man is unstable in all his ways.
God has to be immobile Himself. Otherwise all of Creation - everything He set into motion - would be in a constant state of flux along with Hime.
The fact that gravity follows its own rules as it were - and I don't know much about gravity except that it keeps me on the earth and not out in space. If those rules were to be changing constantly, or even in part, then I know we'd be in big trouble. Well, we would not be at all.
If the oceans did not keep to their shores - and I know that can change, but only slightly compared to the vastness of the oceans - then we would not be able to live on the earth. There have to be certain constants or there can be no life and no universe.
If the first mover were not immobile, then motion would not be able to consistently produce the same kinds of results. It seems I remember some discussion about different theories of physics and all that. I do not have a background in science and math, so those kinds of arguments lose me. However, there has to be a constant of some kind otherwise any talk of science would not make any sense at all. The assumption in the scientific method is that there are things that do not change, or that change in a consistent way.
At the same time, the first mover can move creation whenever He wishes. In that way, He is always setting things into motion, but He is not Himself moved.
Okay, I'm stuck. I'll check out the answer key.
[I checked the blog guy, and I can't figure out what he is saying. I think I'm on the right track, here.]
That's all the farther for now. Later...
Scripture also says in Hebrews 13:8 that Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. This supports the idea that God, the first mover, is not Himself moved. There are so many Scriptures that remind us of God's immobility contrasted with our human instability.
Now, how could someone further deduce the fact that the first mover must be Himself immobile?
He cannot be moved by another, for then there would have to be some mover prior to Him, which is against the very idea of a first mover.
The first mover cannot be moved by someone or something else. That's clear. Otherwise that thing or person would be the first mover. Aquinas already established that there has to be a first mover, and that we call God.
Hence there cannot be a first mover at all, if this perfection is attributed to a being by reason of a part of that being.
One part of the first mover cannot move while another part remains unmoved. If there is any part of the first mover that is in motion, then there is a kind of instability it would seem to me, and that instability would predominate, just as the unstable man is unstable in all his ways.
God has to be immobile Himself. Otherwise all of Creation - everything He set into motion - would be in a constant state of flux along with Hime.
The fact that gravity follows its own rules as it were - and I don't know much about gravity except that it keeps me on the earth and not out in space. If those rules were to be changing constantly, or even in part, then I know we'd be in big trouble. Well, we would not be at all.
If the oceans did not keep to their shores - and I know that can change, but only slightly compared to the vastness of the oceans - then we would not be able to live on the earth. There have to be certain constants or there can be no life and no universe.
If the first mover were not immobile, then motion would not be able to consistently produce the same kinds of results. It seems I remember some discussion about different theories of physics and all that. I do not have a background in science and math, so those kinds of arguments lose me. However, there has to be a constant of some kind otherwise any talk of science would not make any sense at all. The assumption in the scientific method is that there are things that do not change, or that change in a consistent way.
At the same time, the first mover can move creation whenever He wishes. In that way, He is always setting things into motion, but He is not Himself moved.
Okay, I'm stuck. I'll check out the answer key.
[I checked the blog guy, and I can't figure out what he is saying. I think I'm on the right track, here.]
That's all the farther for now. Later...
No comments:
Post a Comment