Fritzsche 1
F. Kyle Fritzsche
PHIL 311–Ancient Philosophy
Dr. David Lutz, Professor
Monday, 10 November 2014
A Potential God: Reconciling Actuality with Creation
One of the best and most famous philosophical identifications of God is that presented by
St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. In the work, St. Thomas illustrates some of the
ways humans can understand certain qualities of God, whom St. Thomas presents as superlative
and infinite in every aspect. He draws his theology from the Catholic Christian view prevailing
in the 13 Century AD, and much of his philosophical support, especially around the existence
and nature of God from the works of Aristotle such as the Metaphysics we have been studying in
class. St. Thomas’s uses Aristotle’s ontology to support his arguments, and most of the evidence
in St. Thomas’s Five Ways to prove God’s Existence is drawn from Aristotle’s Cosmological
Argument.
This creates a problem in St. Thomas’s theological theory, and thus on Catholic
philosophy in general. It negates the value of prayer, or of any attempt to form new relationships
or interactions with God, which are essential to Catholic Salvation and justification. St. Thomas
establishes, in exploring the doctrine on the Divine Nature, that God is Omnipotent, even
claiming that this is a truth confessed by all.1 Yet St. Thomas also agrees with Aristotle that God
is the First and unmoved Mover, complete in actuality.23 Since to be complete in actuality is to
1
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, 2nd ed., trans. English Dominican Province, 1920, from
NewAdvent.org (Online ed.: Kevin Knight, 2008), I,25,3,A.
2
Ibid., I,2,3,A.
3
Aristotle, Metaphysics, from Ancient Philosophy: Essential Readings with Commentary, ed, Nicholas Smith et al.
(Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), 1071b.
Fritzsche 2
have no further potentiality, there must exist a paradox between God’s complete actuality and his
unlimited power. This essay will expose the paradox in a Being simultaneously having complete
actuality and omnipotence, as well as the paradox of an unmoved impersonal Creator, and will
attempt to reconcile these two qualities considered essential to the Christian God by approaching
them with an amended understanding.
Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover seems much more primitive and impersonal than That of
Aquinas. This not only makes God seem simpler, but it also makes it difficult to see the paradox
involved in his Concept. Still, though, the paradox is there that a Being, unmoved, created and
controls the universe. Aristotle writes, “Clearly, then, he is thinking of that which is most divine
and most honorable, and he is not changing; for change would be for the worse.”4 The fact that
Aristotle’s God cannot change, even in Its thinking, (and also cannot have Its thinking decided
by an outside source5) agrees with the total actuality and even derives from it6, but disagrees with
the idea that God is a creative Being. How can a being that does not think of other things create
those things? That would be contradictory. Further, a Being that does not change its thought or
motion would never have begun to create a finite universe, as that would go against Its essential
actuality and goodness. I now introduce St. Thomas Aquinas, who both explores further into
Aristotle’s concept of full actuality, and directs the philosophy somewhat better with a
monotheistic theological insight.
When St. Thomas applies this first-principle approach to Catholic philosophy, he comes
up with a Being that, while fully actual, is also personal—who thinks not just of Its own thought,
4
Ibid., 1074b.
Ibid.
6
Ibid., 1073a.
5
Fritzsche 3
but of everything, even that which is completely outside of It [Him].7 Aquinas also distinguishes
between a will for change and a changing will: “It is possible to will a thing to be done now and
its contrary afterwards; and yet for the will to remain permanently the same.”8 These reconcile
the ability for the God of St. Thomas and the Catholic Church to create, solving the cosmological
problem, but there remains one horrible paradox. St. Thomas, as stated above, presents God to be
omnipotent, but like Aristotle’s God, St. Thomas’s is a purely actual Being. completely free of
potentiality: “The first being must of necessity be in act, and in no way in potentiality….It is
therefore impossible that in God there should be any potentiality.”9 Now this is a serious problem
to God’s omnipotence: If God is completely actual, He has fully realized all his capabilities.
Thus, God has accomplished, and still does, all the infinitude of things that He might
accomplish. If this is true, then so is its converse: For any act that a purely actual Being has not
done or is not doing, it follows that such a Being could not begin to do it, since an agent who
does have the power to carry out an action, and is not already doing so, holds potentiality and not
actuality with regard to that action.
While St. Thomas was able to overcome the paradox of Aristotle’s cosmological
argument, he has created his own problem. This current concept of God not only struggles to be
identified as truly omnipotent—St. Thomas himself acknowledges that we have not clearly
identified a true idea of omnipotence10—but this Thomistic God is visibly limited in what He can
accomplish. A totally actual God cannot create anything he is not already creating, and can only
offer blessings and gifts that he has already been giving. By this process, there could be no
7
Aquinas, Summa, I,14,6,A
Ibid., I,19,7,A.
9
Ibid., I,3,1,A.
10
Ibid., I,25,3,A.
8
Fritzsche 4
Redemption or Salvation, and to allow for creation we would have to deny that God’s existence
is prior in time to the world’s. This also makes impossible the concept of God resting.
It is important to reconcile the actuality of God with the ability of God to create the
universe and be prior to it, for both philosophers have demonstrated that a first cause must exist,
and must be God. Therefore, it is necessary to alter our understanding of the qualities of God
slightly. At first, it may seem more natural to change our interpretation of what it means for God
to be omnipotent. After all, St. Thomas bases his assertion of God’s omnipotence on consensus,
and then immediately confesses his lack of understanding of it.11 However, it is necessary for the
Creator Being to be omnipotent, for every other being depends upon the creator for their very
existence, and to fulfill any potential they may have. Thus, the Creator must have the power to
accomplish at least what is theoretically or practically possible for any of His creation, which is
to say: God must be able to do whatever it is possible to do.
Instead of altering the fundamental understanding of Divine omnipotence then, we should
look to our understanding of what it means to be actual and potential. Aristotle introduces
potency and actuality as opposite extremes: “That which has a potency may not be actualizing
it.” and “that which exists potentially may not be existing actually.”12 St. Thomas has things pass
from potential into actuality,13 which is similar, in a way, to how a person may pass from youth
into age. We do not consider mortal people to be both young and old at the same time; in fact,
the more they have one characteristic, the less they are considered to have the other. On the other
hand, an immortal being, who has infinite existence in time, would be said to have—at the same
time—everlasting youth and age immemorial. For a being that has infinite existence, presence,
11
Ibid.
Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1071b. (both)
13
Aquinas, Summa, I,3,1,A.
12
Fritzsche 5
and power, such as the Thomistic God, this concept can and should be applied to a state of
actuality. God is necessarily complete in actuality, but this should in no way deprive Him of His
potential. This can explain why the Thomistic God not only was able to create the world, but
then also rest, and continue to be Almighty. It also allows for spontaneous acts of Salvation, and
for God the Son, in Christian Doctrine, to take on mortal flesh and become a limited and
dynamic Human, while still remaining an infinite, unchanging God. Therefore, God could be
considered to be infinite in potentiality as much as He is in actuality, and this is a sign of his
omnipotence.
Aristotle was the first philosopher to advance the Cosmological Argument with a
conscious being, albeit an insensitive one, as the first cause. It would be dangerous for him, or
for anyone, to prove that the universe depends for its existence on a Being with impossible
qualities, and with St. Thomas’s theological developments showing a personal and loving God, it
would be dangerous for people to get a false understanding of God’s nature, as that can lead to a
disordered relationship between God and his created people. Therefore, it is necessary for us
always to pursue a better understanding of the Being who gave us the grace to seek him, so that
our relationship with Him can be one of respect and reverence instead of distrust and disbelief.
Our study of the philosophy of God is important in developing that relationship and is invaluable
to our spiritual comfort, to our philosophical understanding, and to the interests of a well-ordered
and happy world.
Fritzsche 6
Bibliography
Aquinas, St. Thomas. The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. 2nd ed. Trans. English
Dominican Province, 1920. Online ed.: New Advent-Kevin Knight, 2008. Web. 13
November 2014. <http://www.newadvent.org/summa>
Aristotle. Metaphysics. From Ancient Philosophy: Essential Readings with Commentary. Ed.
Nicholas Smith et al. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. Print.