Aquinas and Modern Physics

[rom]

How did you verify this?

By reasoning. This is sometimes a better and easier way than experimental verification, especially when you are dealing with an intangible reality like God.

I said you can verify by reasoning that God’s act of creation did not happen in time but in His eternal NOW. Indeed, how can God’s act of creation be in time when He does not live in the time duration but in eternity? The effect of His creative act (the world) may exist in time, but His act itself is outside it.

Did you read my post carefully? In my post I explained that to live in time is a mark of imperfection, since it implies not possessing the perfection of existence at all times. But our concept of God is that He is a perfect Being. Therefore, His duration cannot possibly be temporal but eternal.

What more verification do you need?

No because it is possible that before the Big Bang the universe was an extremely large stretch of a hot, dense material persisting in steady state until the BB occurred. Another theory is that the BB was a moment in time (not the beginning of time) when the universe switched from a moment of contraction to a moment of expansion. Another possibility is the the BB is the offspring of a parent universe.

Yes, and it is also possible that these scientific theories are wrong. Can you offer strong verification of these theories? Honestly, I don’t think anybody really knows what happened before the BB. This is why I’d rather stick with the fundamental principles and philosophy rather than hang my hat on speculative theories such as the above, which ignore the fundamental question of where the laws of quantum physics came from. Don’t get me wrong. I love science and enjoy it. But when it comes to intellectual satisfaction, I think that philosophy is a big winner. (IMHO)

 

[lelinator]

The 13.8 billion years applies to the world, not to God. The world, indeed, began to exist 13.8 billion years ago, but God willed the creation of the world at His own duration , which is eternity, not at the world’s time.

But if the world began to exist 13.8 billion years ago, then God also began to exist 13.8 billion years ago. Existing outside of time still doesn’t allow something to exist “before” time. Before time is a reference frame that simply cannot exist. You can exist for all time, but not before time.

So if the world/the universe/reality had a beginning, then so did God.

 

[rom]

Before time is a reference frame that simply cannot exist. You can exist for all time, but not before time.

If the word “before” connotes time, then your statement is correct. Because there is no such thing as a time before time. But the referent for “before” time is not time but being. This is why in philosophy it is more correct to use the word “priority” rather than the word “before” when speaking of God as the source of being. God is ontologically prior to the world because He is the source of the world’s existence. And, if God is prior to the world in existence, then He is also ontologically prior to time.

There are two kinds of priority: ontological priority and temporal priority. “Before” time is ok to use when you are referring to temporal priority.

In this thread we are talking of God’s ontological or existential priority over the world.

 

[AlNg]

to live in time is a mark of imperfection, since it implies not possessing the perfection of existence at all times.

But God did live in time. First of all He was observed walking in a garden., Secondly, He came down from earth and became man. Does this mean that since He lived in time, He did not possess the perfection of existence at all times?

But our concept of God is that He is a perfect Being. Therefore, His duration cannot possibly be temporal but eternal.

Sounds like a spinoff from the ontological argument which is generally no longer accepted.

 

[AlNg]

. Because there is no such thing as a time before time.

Not exactly correct. If the BB was the beginning of time for our universe and the BB was the offspring of a parent universe which had existed before the BB, then the time of the parent universe would be before the time of the universe created at the moment of the BB.

 

[Dovekin]

No because it is possible that before the Big Bang the universe was an extremely large stretch of a hot, dense material persisting in steady state until the BB occurred. Another theory is that the BB was a moment in time (not the beginning of time) when the universe switched from a moment of contraction to a moment of expansion. Another possibility is the the BB is the offspring of a parent universe.

The article you posted is interesting, but it does not really support your conclusions. (at least on my hasty reading of it) It argues that our “local” universe may arise from another; and inflation would create the conditions we see in most circumstances.

But “the arrow of time” is the result of inflation/gravity within the local universe. They discuss it in problematic ways, but the basics of BB are there: low entropy initial condition (highly dense) and inflation determine “the arrow of time.” It is possible that another time system exists, but it cannot be determined if one does. That meta time system would not affect time in a local universe, which is the only universe where we have actual knowledge.

 

[lelinator]

There are two kinds of priority: ontological priority and temporal priority. “Before” time is ok to use when you are referring to temporal priority.

In this thread we are talking of God’s ontological or existential priority over the world.

I can see how that might seem like a reasonable explanation, but is it true? I mean there has to be some sort of “first” cause…right? Ehhhh, maybe…maybe not. I mean “first” could be a meaningless concept, even ontologically. Which came first ontologically, the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit? When it’s impossible to have one thing without another thing, then it’s also impossible to say that one of them came first. If neither of them can exist without the other, then neither of them could possibly have preceded the other.

Then it becomes a matter of whether some things are “necessary”, while other things aren’t. But other than asserting that they’re not necessary, how do you prove that they’re not necessary? After all…I exist…how do you prove that I don’t “necessarily” exist?

Well you might point out that I change. I experience the passage of time. But how do you prove that change, and the passage of time aren’t necessary? I mean we’re already assuming that something must necessarily exist without a preceding cause. Why can’t we also assume that change must also exist without a preceding cause? Doesn’t the Trinity already point to the fact that “existence” as a totally singular concept, may not be adequate to describe all that’s involved in the act of existence? There may be more to “existing”, than just existing.

 

[IWantGod]

But if the world began to exist 13.8 billion years ago, then God also began to exist 13.8 billion years ago.

You can’t say that something is timeless and at the same time say it began to “exist” just because there was no time or a “before” a particular point. Obviously concepts like “before” is meaningless for a timeless being and it is also meaningless to attribute a temporal beginning to a things “existence” that is not itself a temporal being.

Also it’s a contradiction to say that the entirety of existence began to exist, because that would mean that absolutely nothing is possible and that existence itself in it’s entirety proceeds absolutely nothing. Therefore you are necessarily wrong.

Can you not see the contradiction?

 

[IWantGod]

After all…I exist…how do you prove that I don’t “ necessarily ” exist?

You change.

 

[IWantGod]

But how do you prove that change, and the passage of time aren’t necessary?

A being that is ontologically necessary, a necessary act of reality, by definition cannot not be real, cannot not have an act of reality, is not potentially real, because that which is only potential has no act until it’s given reality, while that which is necessarily real just exists and cannot possibly be otherwise because it’s being involves a logical necessity. Change necessarily involves an actualisation of the potentially real, an actualisation of that which was not actual, whether that involves a new state of being or a new nature.

A necessary act of reality is not in any way shape or form an actualised potential, because if it was that it would contradict the ontological necessity of it’s act because it’s an actualised potential.

This is not difficult to understand. A necessary being is not a continuous chain of becoming by definition.

 

[AlNg]

A necessary being is not a continuous chain of becoming

Suppose someone were to argue that a continuous chain of becoming was necessary for his thesis. Can you prove that it was not necessary for his thesis.

It is possible that another time system exists, but it cannot be determined if one does.

Can you determine that no time system existed before the BB and that the scenarios where time did exist before the BB are all not possible. Or is this just speculation ?

The article you posted is interesting, but it does not really support your conclusions.

The article discusses the possibility of a parent universe. Forgetting about the article for a moment, If there was time in the parent universe, it is conceivable that that time of the parent remained and was carried by its child universe.

 

[IWantGod]

continuous chain of becoming was necessary

The idea that particular potential states necessarily follow an act in virtue of a things nature, is not the same thing as saying that an act of reality is ontologically necessary. A ball necessarily rolls down a hill, but that doesn’t mean the ball and the hill posses the nature of a necessary reality; and such is evident because there is unrealized potential becoming actual; and while they may necessarily follow in sequence a potential is not a necessary act of reality. An ontologically necessary reality doesn’t change at all because it cannot not be actual or be unrealized in any way. It was just explained in the post you qouted.

 

[lelinator]

A necessary act of reality is not in any way shape or form an actualised potential, because if it was that would contradict the necessity of it’s act.

This is not difficult to understand. A necessary being is not a continuous chain of becoming.

Well it’s certainly not difficult to understand what your argument is, but determining if its correct, or whether it even applies, is a whole other story.

You believe that the first cause must be conscious. But consciousness wouldn’t seem to be a necessary attribute of “existence”. Mere, simple existence wouldn’t seem to necessitate the presence of consciousness.That means that the first cause possesses something that it wouldn’t seem to require “necessarily”.

Now you may be able to reason backwards from what exists now, to the existence of consciousness. But that would simply demonstrate that consciousness exists, but it wouldn’t tell us anything about why it exists, when it doesn’t exist necessarily.

Unless the explanation is that consciousness is simply an inescapable consequence of existence. Thus it can be described as “necessary” because it isn’t possible for it not to exist. But this leads to deeper questions. Does consciousness also have inescapable consequences? And wouldn’t those inescapable consequences also be “necessary” in the same way that consciousness can be said to be necessary?

But this would mean that a simplistic approach to determining what’s necessary simply doesn’t work. There’s that which “exists” necessarily, simply as a fundamental attribute of its nature, and then there are things such as consciousness, that exist as an inescapable consequence of the nature of existence. And they too are necessary.

The problem is, how do you determine what’s an inescapable consequence of existence, and what’s not. After all, change may also be an inescapable consequence of existence/consciousness. Thus change would be necessary.

If you’re going to argue that consciousness is a necessary attribute of existence, then you open the door to absolutely everything being a necessary attribute of existence.

So how do explain the existence of consciousness, if it isn’t in fact necessary?

 

[rom]

Which came first ontologically, the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit?

The Three Persons are of the same substance. Therefore, existentially and ontologically, no one is first. Relatively, that is, not ontologically but solely from the standpoint of their relations, the Father is first.

After all…I exist…how do you prove that I don’t “ necessarily ” exist?

The fact that you can cease to exist means that you do not necessarily exist. If you are a necessary being, then it means that existence essentially belongs to you; you don’t accidentally exist, but you exist because it is of your essence to exist, and you cannot be non-existent. But you know that is false. One day you will die and cease to exist. So, you are not a necessary being.

The opposite of necessary being is contingent being, one that exists, but to whom existence does not belong essentially. The fact that its existence is accidental to its essence means that if it is found to exist, then it must owe its existence from another. In other words, every existing contingent being must have a cause.

But how do you prove that change, and the passage of time aren’t necessary?

If change is necessary, nothing would be permanent. If nothing is permanent, and everything is changing, then science and knowledge would be impossible because by the time you know something, it is no longer what you thought it is. Since the various branches of science exist, change is not a necessary but a contingent phenomenon. If something changes, then it must have a cause.

Why can’t we also assume that change must also exist without a preceding cause?

Because it is a metaphysical impossibility. To change means to acquire new properties that didn’t exist before. To say that these new properties could just exist without a cause is to say that something could come from nothing, which is impossible.

 

[rom]

But God did live in time. First of all He was observed walking in a garden., Secondly, He came down from earth and became man. Does this mean that since He lived in time, He did not possess the perfection of existence at all times?

Christ has two natures: one human, the other divine. Christ, as human, lived in time and did not possess the perfection of existence at all times. As divine, Christ is eternal and does not live in time.

Sounds like a spinoff from the ontological argument which is generally no longer accepted.

My argument is not identical to St. Anselm’s ontological argument. You cannot prove the existence of God from the idea of a most perfect being, which is what the ontological argument tried to do. But you can prove something about God’s essence from the idea of a most perfect being, because ideas are our conception of the essences of things. I am not here trying to prove that God exists, which I already tried in previous posts. What I am here saying is that, if He exists, then it is of His essence to exist eternally rather than temporally because a temporal existence is incongruous with His essence as a most perfect being.

Not exactly correct. If the BB was the beginning of time for our universe and the BB was the offspring of a parent universe which had existed before the BB, then the time of the parent universe would be before the time of the universe created at the moment of the BB.

My contention is that time existed when the world began to exist. If the universe always existed, then time always existed because time is the duration (or mode of existence) of a changing universe. However, if the universe only began at the BB, then time only began at the BB and there was no time before time (or before the BB).

Perhaps the world always existed, or that it is everlasting. But SCIENCE HAS NO PROOF OF THAT! However, we know from philosophy that even if this changing world always existed, then it was, is, and always will be dependent on an Unchanging First cause of being, which is God.

 

[IWantGod]

Well it’s certainly not difficult to understand what your argument is, but determining if its correct, or whether it even applies, is a whole other story.

If you redefine the concept of ontological necessity you will get different answers. Better to stick with what is meant by it.

If a ball falls down a well it will necessarily hit the bottom in virtue of the fact that it falls. This is a different kind of necessity.

How do we rationally arrive at the concept of ontological necessity that i am talking about and how do i justify it’s existence?

If absolutely nothing cannot in principle be a true state of affairs, then something has to exist necessarily and cannot possibly not exist because then it would follow that absolutely nothing could in principle exist. Since out of nothing comes nothing it cannot be the case that absolutely nothing could in principle exist because we know that something exists. Hence the inference of an ontologically necessary being. Thus i am justified in holding to the concept of a being that cannot be unrealized or unactualized in any way. Thus it follows inescapably that this being cannot be made of actualised potential, because that would contradict the necessity of it’s existence, since that which is only potential is not necessarily real by definition of it only being potential.

Therefore ontological necessity, properly understood, cannot be attributed to a being that is made of actualised potential. Thus things that are changing are not by definition ontologically necessary beings.

Now the only way to get by this argument is to simply ignore it. But that does not change the fact that a potential reality is not an act of existence, and therefore to say that it is necessarily real would be a contradiction, which i think is fairly obviously so long as you comprehend the meaning of what is said.

Now you may be able to reason backwards from what exists now, to the existence of consciousness

We know that the uncaused cause is intelligent because that which changes is not an ontologically necessary reality by definition. And therefore to cause such a reality is the same thing as sustaining that reality in existence because by itself any created reality does not have the power of existence in it’s own nature; otherwise it would necessarily exist without a cause. Also to cause that which is not ontologically necessary is also to create the rules of it’s behaviour as an actual thing. So the uncaused cause would actually be creating the laws of physics. This only makes intelligible sense if it is being done by an intelligence since it cannot occur naturally.

 

[lelinator]

The fact that you can cease to exist means that you do not necessarily exist. If you are a necessary being, then it means that existence essentially belongs to you; you don’t accidentally exist, but you exist because it is of your essence to exist, and you cannot be non-existent. But you know that is false. One day you will die and cease to exist.

DISCLAIMER: I’m a solipsist.

I don’t think that there’s sufficient evidence to prove that I can ever cease to exist. In fact I think that it’s quite likely that I have always existed, and will always continue to exist.

If change is necessary, nothing would be permanent. If nothing is permanent, and everything is changing, then science and knowledge would be impossible because by the time you know something, it is no longer what you thought it is

Everything is changing…constantly. You can’t stop it. But that doesn’t mean that chaos exists, or that change is random. It’s the fact that change isn’t random that makes science possible. The question isn’t whether things are constantly changing, rather it’s
why is that change coherent?

Because it is a metaphysical impossibility. To change means to acquire new properties that didn’t exist before.

To change means to acquire an attribute that’s an inescapable consequence of the cause. Therefore the change is “necessary”. To argue that a change isn’t necessary is to argue that the cause isn’t necessary… And since everything can be traced back to the first cause, it would mean that the first cause isn’t necessary.

Is that what you’re suggesting?

 

[AlNg]

If nothing is permanent, and everything is changing, then science and knowledge would be impossible because by the time you know something, it is no longer what you thought it is.

No because the changes could occur very very slowly so as to be barely perceptible within thousands of years. Take for example the change in the average yearly temperature of the sun.

 

[lelinator]

We know that the uncaused cause is intelligent because that which changes is not an ontologically necessary reality by definition.

But since reality isn’t necessary, an intelligent creator isn’t necessary either. So why does intelligence/consciousness exist if it doesn’t exist necessarily?

 

[IWantGod]

But since reality isn’t necessary

What do you mean by reality. Like i said that which is not ontologically necessary can only be given reality and sustained in reality since it’s nature has no reality of it’s own. So when i speak of you being real it is necessarily different to the uncaused being real, because the uncaused cause is existence by nature, and we not.

And this is neccesarily true.