Argument from Change: How does it show God can't change?

[IWantGod]

But it would seem reasonable that that which is the source of time and change shouldn’t be subject to time and change.

You are asserting that the quantum field is the cause of time and change. You know that there has to be an uncaused cause that is not physical in nature. But it seems that God is too far fetched for you and so you have slapped on the label “quantum field”. But the way you describe it makes the label essentially meaningless because it’s like you are trying to have a physical explanation without admitting that you are giving a physical explanation.

But what you are failing to understanding is that quantum events are a part of the fabric of our changing physical reality. It is not something separate from physical events. It’s not the case that subatomic events are distinct from physical activity. When scientists describe quantum events they are simply describing physical activity at the smallest level of physical reality.

Thus what you are essentially arguing is that a thing can begin to exist and necessarily exist at the same time, and that my friend is metaphysically impossible. It’s like you are trying to convince me that a square circle can actually exist by arguing that quantum physics gives the superficial impression that it is doing the same thing.

It seems that you are willing to conceive of a world where nothing is truly impossible using quantum physics as an excuse. This underscores what i have always suspected; that people are willing to think all kinds of irrational things in order to avoid a conclusion they do not want.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I myself know the bare minimum about quantum physics, so it’s hard for me to tackle this subject.

 

[IWantGod]

I myself know the bare minimum about quantum physics, so it’s hard for me to tackle this subject.

You only have to know a bare minimum to realise that he is wrong because what he is talking about isn’t quantum physics.

 

[IWantGod]

And reason tells me that Aquinas got his Five Ways wrong.

And this is what frustrates me, not because you are correct, but because you haven’t actually demonstrated any of your conclusions.

There are plenty of arguments for God that i have rejected. But most arguments, if not all, that have been presented against Aquinas’s five ways, have at some point rejected the principle of non-contradiction, the very substance of rational inferences.

This is exactly what you have done.

 

[IWantGod]

Aren’t you the one who believes that from nothing comes nothing?

And don’t you also believe that where there is nothing, nothing is true?

Isn’t this a contradiction?

There is no contradiction here.

The statement that “there is nothing in the room” is not an admittance that nothing actually exists in the room. The statement that there is nothing in the room is a reference to what actually exists in the room; for example what exists in the room is not a chair or any number of possible things. Only the room exists. Outside of that reference to reality, the concept of nothing is meaningless.

Similarly by saying there is no truth in nothing I am not saying there is no truth in the room.

There is no truth in nothing, because it is nothing. If nothing was an actual truth, then it would not be nothing, which is a contradiction. There is only truth in reality or in reference to reality.

 

[IWantGod]

Much of relativity is about more than just math, it’s about being able to conceptualize time and space in the same manner as Einstein did. That I can do. And I can envision Feynman’s sum over histories in my head, but I can’t do the math.

First of all, relativity is not the claim that change does not exist, it is the claim that change is relative.

And secondly no scientist has ever claimed that the quantum field is not physical or is not changing.

Therefore, what you are claiming is more than what scientists actually report on the subject. It is your own philosophical opinion (which you are entitled to despite it being wrong) and you failed to demonstrate that an uncaused cause with all that it entails can meaningfully be described as a quantum field; and that’s assuming that your interpretation of a quantum field has any reasonable meaning at all.

So all that we have here is an assertion. You have ideas that you prefer to be true, but these ideas don’t make much sense to me because they ultimately defy reason itself. At the very least the theist actually has logical arguments that back up their preferred view of the world.

 

[IWantGod]

Now although you may not realise it

No i do realise exactly what i am saying. Scientists have never claimed that a Quantum event is not physical or is not changing. This is a hurdle that you don’t seem to recognise exists.

This is your philosophy, and what you are arguing for is meaningless and metaphysically impossible.

 

[IWantGod]

It occupies no space, and no time.

You have no justification for making this claim

 

[IWantGod]

So the problem is this, there are things about quantum reality that we are never going to be able to prove, simply due to our perspective as observers.

Yes, but you’re not talking about quantum physics, your talking about something you made up which you have labelled quantum physics.

But I would suggest that this isn’t necessary, because quantum reality already fulfills these requirements. It occupies no space, and no time. To which of course you’re going to reply that this is only an assertion. Which is in some sense true,

In every sense it is true that you making an assertion.

but it’s backed up by observation and experimentation.

No it is not.

From all appearances, quantum reality is non-local,

I’m not an expert but even if it does appear that way, it doesn’t take a genius to realise that a quantum effect being non-local is not the same thing as being non-physical.

Non-locality is difficult to reconcile with something that exists in space and time

It depends what you mean by non-local. Do you know what that means.

Here, let me help you…

Nonlocality occurs due to the phenomenon of entanglement, whereby particles that interact with each other become permanently correlated, or dependent on each other’s states and properties, to the extent that they effectively lose their individuality and in many ways behave as a single entity.

Here is the website i got this from, so we can all learn exactly what we are talking about.

https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_nonlocality.html

I can’t “ prove ” that quantum reality doesn’t exist in space and time

What you are saying is not science and it is not something you can prove logically. You haven’t even explained what a non-physical quantum event is. In metaphysics, all you can prove is that the uncaused cause is not physical, is necessary, and is an intelligent cause. What is the reason that you would say that it is a quantum event and what does that mean exactly?

 

[Wesrock]

So what am I left with? I’m left with something that has no dimensions. It has no space, and no time. But oddly enough, that’s how many people would define “nothing”. So all that you’ve left me with is to propose that reality came from nothing. But as you’ve suggested, that’s impossible.

That which is nothing would need to go one step further on top of all of that: it has no effect or possible effect on anything.

 

[jochoa]

But how does the argument conclude that the First Cause is Pure Act through and through?

The First Cause is Pure Act through and through because of the divine formula.

As Creator of everything, there is an unchanging greatest creation, and there is an unchanging formula to fulfill the greatest creation, therefore, the first cause is unchanging within the formula.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

That which is nothing would need to go one step further on top of all of that: it has no effect or possible effect on anything.

Well, that would pretty much put a nail in the coffin for “nothing” being the cause of anything. But then again I’m not proposing that quantum reality is nothing in that sense, just as you wouldn’t refer to God as being nothing in that sense. It’s just that neither of them change, and each can be thought of as being the cause of space and time. I’m pointing out that quantum reality meets the criteria of Aquinas’ first cause, in the same way that God is said to.

Now I’m absolutely sure that IWantGod will point out that Aquinas’ first cause must be conscious. But the first way doesn’t make that argument, and if anyone would like to make that argument I can certainly take the other side. However if you think that agreeing on the first way is difficult, going anywhere beyond that is dang near impossible.

The “First Way” found in the Summa Theologica is a brief summary meant for seminary students already versed in Platonic and Aristotlean philosophy and Christian theology. Crib notes. In both the Summa Contra Gentiles and Compendium Theologiae, the former meant for educated Christian missionaries and the latter for the everyman, Aquinas starts with the argument from motion (the basis of the first way) and then proceeds on to the unmoved mover’s immutability, eternity, oneness, omnipotence, knowledge, intellect, and will, in extensive and systematic detail, as following from the argument from motion. The sections on these alone would probably take hundreds of pages as he gets down into nitty gritty detail, addresses objections and counter arguments, and so on. Of course, most people seem to think the brief overview near the start of the Summa Theologica is the entire argument, but that’s just not true. And the SCG and CT are certainly not the only places he discussed it, either.