An object being it's own cause

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matthias123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Matthias123

Guest
youtube.com/watch?v=urj4K1blY3w&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aquinasonline.com%2F&feature=player_embedded

Found this on a Catholic site. I highly doubt premis two is incorrect, because even thought changes are caused by forces, it is not its own cause. non-being cannot cause its movement to being because it doesn’t exist. Likewise something lesser cannot move something to somthing greater because the latter is not able to produce that effect.

I really think the person who made this video is getting lost in mechanistic physics and is not seeing the big picture.

If someone mentions a virtual particle in a vacuum I am going to have to hurt you. Physicists do not have the right to claim a break in causality when this is metaphysically impossible. For all we know it is coming from a parallel universe.
 
First of all, there is the motion of the transfer of energy to think about. There needs to be a cause for this motion because it cannot cause itself.

Thirdly and most of all, this person is trying to apply the first way to mechanistic philosophy. So of course it is not meshing well with modern physics, we dispute the mechanistic philosophy it is operating on.

The problem is they do not have the correct understanding of being in which contingent beings are a composite of essence and the act of existence. So a substantial change which would be a change in the essence of the substance. But modern physics does not use the substantial form, so therefore it will not mesh.
 
I liked this video. It meticulously points out that while Aquinas’ notions are very neat to think about, they are ultimately based on very outdated views of the universe. Besides, if God really wanted there to be a “proof” of his existence, you’d think he’d do something a little more dramatic like in the old days.
 
liquidpele said:
I liked this video. It meticulously points out that while Aquinas’ notions are very neat to think about, they are ultimately based on very outdated views of the universe. Besides, if God really wanted there to be a “proof” of his existence, you’d think he’d do something a little more dramatic like in the old days.
Click to expand...
ummm no that is not the case. I just made some arguments above, please explain why they are incorrect. My argument is that it doesn’t mesh, not because the argument is in error but because the person is attempting to reconcile it to the philosophy of mechanism, which has not concept of the substantial form, and therefore will not mesh.

The substantial change Saint Thomas is talking about is the change of one substantial form to another substantial form. Or one essence to another essence. He defines being as the composite of the act of existance and of essence. So it is not that the argument is in error and that modern physics is correct. It is that the philosophy behind modern physics does not use Thomistic ontology and thus is irreconcilable with the first way. The arguments works fine under Thomistic ontology. Now the debate whether we should use Thomistic ontology to describe objective reality is a metaphysical question and not a scientific one. Therefore this needs to be argued by metaphysical means.

In conclusion, modern physics is correct, and the first way is not flawed, what is in debate here is ontology. Without the proper understanding of ontology everything will fall apart, so the question of “what is being?” is a very important one.
Besides, if God really wanted there to be a “proof” of his existence, you’d think he’d do something a little more dramatic like in the old days.
Click to expand...
You are looking at things that act towards meaningful and purposeful ends. These things all have essence, or as Plato calls them, ideas. So since God is omniscient and he knew everything that could potentially be created before everything was actualized, these ideas were in the Divine Intellect. Therefore you are looking at some evidence.

Also I am tempted to say “the pot doesn’t ask the potter, why am I this shape”
 
Matthias123 said:
ummm no that is not the case. I just made some arguments above, please explain why they are incorrect. My argument is that it doesn’t mesh, not because the argument is in error but because the person is attempting to reconcile it to the philosophy of mechanism, which has not concept of the substantial form, and therefore will not mesh.

The substantial change Saint Thomas is talking about is the change of one substantial form to another substantial form. Or one essence to another essence. He defines being as the composite of the act of existance and of essence. So it is not that the argument is in error and that modern physics is correct. It is that the philosophy behind modern physics does not use Thomistic ontology and thus is irreconcilable with the first way. The arguments works fine under Thomistic ontology. Now the debate whether we should use Thomistic ontology to describe objective reality is a metaphysical question and not a scientific one. Therefore this needs to be argued by metaphysical means.

In conclusion, modern physics is correct, and the first way is not flawed, what is in debate here is ontology. Without the proper understanding of ontology everything will fall apart, so the question of “what is being?” is a very important one.

You are looking at things that act towards meaningful and purposeful ends. These things all have essence, or as Plato calls them, ideas. So since God is omniscient and he knew everything that could potentially be created before everything was actualized, these ideas were in the Divine Intellect. Therefore you are looking at some evidence.

Also I am tempted to say “the pot doesn’t ask the potter, why am I this shape”
Click to expand...
I purposefully avoided replying to your answers. I don’t agree, but I honestly don’t feel like going into why I think your logic is flawed. The last sentence was meant more in jest than to be taken seriously. Anyway, have a good night.
 
Matthias123 said:
If someone mentions a virtual particle in a vacuum I am going to have to hurt you. Physicists do not have the right to claim a break in causality when this is metaphysically impossible. For all we know it is coming from a parallel universe.
Click to expand...
Try to ignore people who seek to throw doubt on things with out presenting any arguments accept for mere jest.

Instead, me and you will talk.

Have you ever heard of an existential cause?
 
Matthias123 said:
I think non-theism has failed when they not only don’t pose arguments, but they refuse to critique arguments, and just hold that arguments are false on faith.
Click to expand...
You’re being a bit harsh. If Pele doesn’t refute your arguments, they stand. But he has no obligation to refute them; his time is his own.
 
MindOverMatter said:
Try to ignore people who seek to throw doubt on things with out presenting any arguments accept for mere jest.

Instead, me and you will talk.

Have you ever heard of an existential cause?
Click to expand...
The cause that moves an object from non-being to being?

My problem is that mechanism doesn’t use the substantial form as a formal cause. This is because some late scholastic philosophers abused it, and they find that it has a lack of explanatory power once you get to the lower levels, and they wanted a bottom up, instead of a top down system. I don’t even have too much problem with them using is for the scientific method, because the substantial form would void methodological naturalism, which we know is very effective. The problem is that when you claim that mechanism comprises all of objective reality you cause it to fail because there are very good reasons why this is not the case.

So meshing the first way with the mechanism of modern science doesn’t work, but this does not mean the first way is not completely valid.

Actually the substantial form in modern physics might have some advantages. We want to know whether light is a particle or a wave. Couldn’t we say that in essence it is a particle but is has accidental properties of a wave?
 
For example, what would be wrong with the claim that philosphicaly gravity is the result of the accidental change (curvature) in the substance of spacetime? What would be wrong in saying that heat in matter is the result of the accidental change in the substance of the particle in a system that results in it moving faster and thus providing heat?
 
AnAtheist said:
We don’t? Is there a law against it? Has the Supreme Court ruled that? Or king Nebukadnezar?
And what may the sentence be?
Click to expand...
Its not that there is a law against it. The fact is, its a false inference if one is making that inference from the principled position of empirical science. If they say that a physical thing has no cause, they can only mean, in reference to the study of physical objects, that such and such an act has no “physical cuase”; as in they are not propelled or moved or driven by the laws or rules of classical physics. It does not follow from that position that therefore it does not have a cuase. For a scientist to say that a changing thing has no kind of cuase at all from the standpoint of empirical science, would be to commit the falacy of composition. The truth is the scientist has no knowledge of what caused it from the stand point of science.

From a philosophical position, the fact is that these events, indeterminate or not, happen in relation to other events which are already existent, and the principled behavior of a changing entity ocurrs in respect of its being in relation to that which is already existent, without which they would have no principled act or meaning. Thus they have an “existential cause”, metaphysically speaking. To put it another way would be to say that they are cuased by that which is the ultimate nature of reality.
 
Matthias123 said:
Actually the substantial form in modern physics might have some advantages. We want to know whether light is a particle or a wave. Couldn’t we say that in essence it is a particle but is has accidental properties of a wave?
Click to expand...
I am not very good with technical terms. How does one picture the accidental properties of a wave in respect to an essense that is a particle?
 
AnAtheist said:
We don’t? Is there a law against it? Has the Supreme Court ruled that? Or king Nebukadnezar?
And what may the sentence be?
Click to expand...
because metaphysicians and philosophers say it is impossible. This is not the “well we said at one time fixed airplanes would not be able to fly” type of impossible, this is impossible impossible.

An object that doesn’t exist coming into existence without a cause, is not science, nor is it reasonable, this is magic. I do not believe that our univserse is magical.

To say that scientists can do so is the superstition of scientism. Unfortunately many people suffer from this.
 
MindOverMatter said:
I am not very good with technical terms. How does one picture the accidental properties of a wave in respect to an essense that is a particle?
Click to expand...
The substantial form would be that of a particle, but it would have behavioural characteristics of a wave.

It would just be another way of saying it is in essence a particle but it acts like a wave. This way we can avoid saying it is both, because something cannot be both a particle and a wave at the same time.
 
AnAtheist said:
But nature doesn’t give sh*t what metaphysicists and philosophers say
Click to expand...
When it comes to quantum physics, ones philosophical world view heavily informs ones interpretation. And while you might not give a ----, this does not change the fact that such events can be interpreted in a different manner that does not require one to indulge in contradiction. There are other interpretations. An honest person who doesn’t merely live for controversy would be very cautious when making claims that a square can be a triangle at the same time. I see no real reason to believe that such a thing is possible, and anything less then necessity is not going to convince me, and should not convince you.
 
AnAtheist said:
But nature doesn’t give sh*t what metaphysicists and philosophers say, and physicists describe nature by the empirical facts. So in any dispute between science and philosophy, facts always win over sophistry.
Click to expand...
Metaphysics are necessary for science, not the other way around. Scientists depend on metaphysics to do their science. Not to mention that the scientific method only studies nature, not all of objective reality. To study the rest of objective reality you must use philosophy and metaphysics. Without these methods science would not exist today.

A physicist may say that there is no physical cause, but he cannot say there is no cause, because that is out of his scope. Some make this claim and they have to competence or basis for doing this other then mixing in their own flawed metaphysical views.

So the metaphysicians and the philosophers say that no effect can occur without a cause. If it is not a physical cause, then it is some other kind of cause. All the scientist is able to report is that there is no physical cause. He cannot claim with authority that there is no cause whatsoever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top