Could a formless entity cause any changes?

[polytropos]

Wow! Bahman can keep this thread going for years!

Look at all the definitions to pick from and confuse .

I don’t have too much of an issue with defining form as “configuration.” That is more or less how the Thomist Eleonore Stump defines it. (One just has to be careful with the fact that the term tends to connote materiality, which is not a necessary condition.)

 

[polytropos]

That is in fact hammer which manifest itself as a formed entity to change the form of stone and you manifest yourself as a formed entity to change the form of hammer.

That is correct that having a form is a necessary condition to cause any change. The sufficient condition is that the entity that causes changes has to manifest itself as a entity that exist to another entity as it happen in example of hammer and stone.

I think this is the correct argument now:

First what is form? Form is configuration of an entity.
Second what is changes? Changes is reconfiguration of an entity.
Third what can cause changes? What cause changes has to have a form and has to have the ability to manifest itself as an entity that exist to the entity which is the subject of change. The latter quality, namely existence, should be mediated with something virtual so called force.

I think you’ve repeated yourself again, but it’s still not clear to me what you’re arguing.

The stone and hammer are one example of an entity with a form changing another entity with a form. From that you can’t generalize to saying that having a form is a necessary condition to cause change. Maybe it’s true, but having one example is pretty far from proving it.

The use of “manifest” remains unclear. Do you mean that the entity must be present to the changed entity in some “material” way? That would beg the question, in this case.

That is correct but the meaning of form is different from what I use here. Moreover God doesn’t have any body so I don’t understand how hylemorphic dualism could apply to God. I also have problem with hylemorphic dualism since it cannot resolve the problem of immortality of soul since the form is gone upon death hence soul.

You gave God and the soul as examples of things which are “formless.” I didn’t say that hylemorphic dualism applies to God; I was treating both examples separately.

The soul is a form. So it isn’t a formless entity. (It is not a complete substance, either. It is a metaphysical proper part of a substance.)

I don’t think that we are using different meanings of “form” here. As I said, at least one Thomist speaks of form in terms of configuration, and as long as you don’t question-beggingly take configuration to imply materiality, then I don’t find it too objectionable either. It’s true that in “God has a form” (or “God is Form Itself” or “God is the limit case instance of form”) and “Bahman has a form”, “_____ has a form” is not being used univocally. But that doesn’t imply that your conclusion follows, since when a term is used analogically, some features can be retained and others not. The uses must be analyzed more precisely if one is to argue that a particular implication (say, being able to cause other things to change) is retained.

I would say that even though the terms are not used univocally, God can cause changes. Aquinas’s First Way is basically an argument for this conclusion. The activities of created substances, the argument concludes, are not sufficient to account for the change we see in the world; there must be an unmoved mover, that which changes without itself changing. (An implication of this is that it is not a form/matter or essence/existence compound.) But one generates an aporia if one concludes that God’s simplicity (and the consequent fact that “____ has a form” is used analogically) implies that he can’t cause things to change.* For in such a case, that which was necessary to account for the change of natural substances cannot account for that change. So something has gone wrong.

I suggest that the statement preceding the * is where one has gone wrong. The assumption is unwarranted. (It appears to be a hasty generalization.) It also ignores the possibility that “____ has a form” could be used analogically and in this case retain the implication that God can cause things to change.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Forces are virtual/temporary since their duty is just to inform two entities that they exist.

" Virtual " and " tempory " are not synonyms. Furthermore, " force " or energy or power is not always temporary even in the case of natural causes - as opposed to Divine Causality.

There are a few problems here:

1. Two things must have the same nature to interact with each other, in another word one cause a change in another one and vice versa,

Not true. As I pointed out in the example of fire or heat making charcoal out of wood. Heat and fire do not have the same nature as wood or charcoal. So, even in natural causes, this is not true.

hence God could only cause a change on something which has the same nature as God.The same applies to soul and angel.

If it is not true in natural causes, it is not true in the case of God, the soul, or of angels. The essential point is that whatever the cause, it must have the power to cause a change in another being.

Unless otherwise you have to accept a hierarchy of being one can affect and cannot be affected.

Of course there is a hiearchy of being. But I don’t see the point you are trying to make. How does it relate to the discussion?

I remember that I have a discussion about hierarchy of mind which I have never been able to convince you.

You will have to refresh my memory. You have often said things which I may agree with in part and disagree with in part. But I reject absolutely that non-living beings or substances have a mind or intellect. And only man, angels and God have an intellect in the proper sense.

1. Is God, soul and angels are formless? If yes they cannot cause anything regardless of what nature they have.

They have a form which is spiritual, living, and intellectual, which are not dependent on matter. Vegative and animal life have forms which are spiritual souls which are totally dependent on matter, we call them material souls. Non-living substances have forms which are non-living but which are non-material, these forms are more like a program written into the matter of these substances. " Goldness " is a form written into the nature of gold, but it is not material itself. The same is said on all non-living substances. They have an encoded nature or form from which flow all the properties and characteristics of the particular substance.

How God could have intellect if it is formless? It could be formless from our perspective but not from itself since God’s mind contains thoughts and thoughts have form from a person perspective which is self-aware.

Did I say it was formless? If I did I misstated myself. the soul of man is a form. But it is a form which is living, intellectual, and spiritual or non-material. An angel is a form which is also living, intellectual, and spiritual. Likewise God is a nature or form, which is Pure Existence.

You realize of course that I am telling you things which takes Philosophers like Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas hundredes and hundreds of pages to explain. So it would be impossible for me to give you a complete explanation. Philosopy is just like any science. You just cannot think about it and start talking, any more than you can speak of Quantum Mechanics without reading and studying a pile of books and attending hundreds of lectures. I tried to explain that to you before but you seemed to think you could do philosophy without cracking a book.

Looling back over my posts here I never said that the soul, the angels, or God were " formless. " I did say that God, in a sense, is not a " form " in the same sense that lesser beings are or have forms, because God is beyond every genus. So it could be said that he was a form only analogically. When we speak of God it is preferrable to refer the He Whose Essence ( Form ), is Pure Subsistant Existence. It is this Substant Existence which is beyond every category.

You have to be careful not to confuse philosophical form with physical structure. They are not identical. Form is internal to the very being of a substance and is the source of What it is and that it is. Physical structure is what we see and measure, etc, which is the result of the interior form.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

I think you’ve repeated yourself again, but it’s still not clear to me what you’re arguing.

I might be able to expand more if you elaborate what is missing.

The stone and hammer are one example of an entity with a form changing another entity with a form. From that you can’t generalize to saying that having a form is a necessary condition to cause change. Maybe it’s true, but having one example is pretty far from proving it.

Electorn interacting with another electron. Human interacting with another human. And many others. You give me an example that it does not fill in this category.

The use of “manifest” remains unclear. Do you mean that the entity must be present to the changed entity in some “material” way? That would beg the question, in this case.

How about represent itself?

First what is form? Form is configuration of an entity.
Second what is changes? Changes is reconfiguration of an entity.
Third what can cause changes? What cause changes has to have a form and has to have the ability to represent itself as an entity that exist to the entity which is the subject of change. The latter quality, namely existence, should be mediated with something virtual so called force/information.

The soul is a form. So it isn’t a formless entity. (It is not a complete substance, either. It is a metaphysical proper part of a substance.)

The souls is a form or it has a form. To me they sounds different.

I would say that even though the terms are not used univocally, God can cause changes. Aquinas’s First Way is basically an argument for this conclusion. The activities of created substances, the argument concludes, are not sufficient to account for the change we see in the world; there must be an unmoved mover, that which changes without itself changing. (An implication of this is that it is not a form/matter or essence/existence compound.) But one generates an aporia if one concludes that God’s simplicity (and the consequent fact that “____ has a form” is used analogically) implies that he can’t cause things to change.* For in such a case, that which was necessary to account for the change of natural substances cannot account for that change. So something has gone wrong.

I have a question here: If God has a form and he is omnipresent why we don’t perceive him?

To me things has to have two properties to could interact with each other:

1. They should be able to represent themselves indirectly through exchange of force/information.
2. They should have form.

The former properties is however bidirectional meaning that we can affect God in the same way he can affect us using the same mode of information transmission. We however don’t perceive God yet claiming that God sustain everything. Isn’t it conradictional?

 

[Servant19]

Love is formless and it can change a hostile situation into a loving collaboration



.

 

[Bahman]

" Virtual " and " tempory " are not synonyms.

They are but related in case of force/infomation exchange. Lets consider the case of photon which is a termporal being from our perspective but it sees no space and time from its perspective hence it is virtual.

Furthermore, " force " or energy or power is not always temporary even in the case of natural causes - as opposed to Divine Causality.

Natural force are temporal since there exist a single virtual quantum being which is responsible for any action.

Not true. As I pointed out in the example of fire or heat making charcoal out of wood. Heat and fire do not have the same nature as wood or charcoal. So, even in natural causes, this is not true.

Heat is fire. Heat is termal energy caused by emission photon as it is for fire but in different spectrum.

If it is not true in natural causes, it is not true in the case of God, the soul, or of angels. The essential point is that whatever the cause, it must have the power to cause a change in another being.

It is true for natural cause hence unless you want to make exception it has to work in the case of God.

Of course there is a hiearchy of being. But I don’t see the point you are trying to make. How does it relate to the discussion?

With this I mean anything two things that have different nature are formless in each other framework. So being with nature A cannot cause any change to a nature B and vice versa since A is formless in B perspective and B is formless in A perspective but each has a form in their own perspective. Why? Because A and B could coexist and necessary and sufficient condition for them that they don’t interact with each other is that they have to be formless in each other perspective.

You will have to refresh my memory. You have often said things which I may agree with in part and disagree with in part. But I reject absolutely that non-living beings or substances have a mind or intellect. And only man, angels and God have an intellect in the proper sense.

Well, lets for example consider the case of soul and body. Do they have same nature? no. Can body be affected by soul?, yes. Can body affect soul?, yes. First, how such a thing is possible if they have different nature? Second, if they interact with each other why bother and assign them different nature? Call soul as different type of matter.

 

[empther]

Bahman’s latest…:hey_bud:

Well, lets for example consider the case of soul and body. Do they have same nature? no. Can body be affected by soul?, yes. Can body affect soul?, yes. First, how such a thing is possible if they have different nature? Second, if they interact with each other why bother and assign them different nature? Call soul as different type of matter.
:banghead:

Just as God moves the thoughts and wills in our soul in a non-deterministic way, as already pointed out in your thread about conscisciousness,
so God mediates interactions between body and soul.
It was God’s will to do things like this.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman’s latest…:hey_bud:
Just as God moves the thoughts and wills in our soul in a non-deterministic way, as already pointed out in your thread about conscisciousness,
so God mediates interactions between body and soul.
It was God’s will to do things like this.

Very interesting. So you can strive on power of God whenever something is wrong with your interpretation. Am I allowed to do the same? Yes? Thank you. I would say that something is wrong with your interpretation since God told me to say so.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

They are but related in case of force/infomation exchange. Lets consider the case of photon which is a termporal being from our perspective but it sees no space and time from its perspective hence it is virtual.

Virtual means not real. A photon is either real or not. But it is real so it cannot be virtual. Whether it is temporary or not I really cannot say. I am highly skeptical about that. And if a photon is in action it surely acts in time and space. If not you would have to prove that as well.
You cannot just state things like that without proof.

Natural force are temporal since there exist a single virtual quantum being which is responsible for any action.

This is a grossly exagerated statement. Natural forces are certainly temporal, they act in time and in a space. But not all forces are quantum actions. And quantum activity is not responsible for every or even most actions. You would have to prove that, you can’t just make a blanket statement like that.

Futher, you are evading the issue. This was my statement, " Furthermore, " force " or energy or power is not always temporary even in the case of natural causes - as opposed to Divine Causality. " You did not address this issue.

Heat is fire. Heat is termal energy caused by emission photon as it is for fire but in different spectrum.

Again, you would have to prove this statement. Again, you are evading my issues. This was my statement,
" Not true. As I pointed out in the example of fire or heat making charcoal out of wood. Heat and fire do not have the same nature as wood or charcoal. So, even in natural causes, this is not true. " You did not address this statement. Your whole object seems to be simply to repeat your ideological position at all costs and ignore what others say.

It is true for natural cause hence unless you want to make exception it has to work in the case of God.

It is not true in the case of all natural causes as I showed in the example of fire making charcoal out of wood. And the soul is the cause all the actions of the body, yet it is not the body but its form. So there is no argument preventing God, who is Pure Existence, from causing effects in the natural world.

With this I mean anything two things that have different nature are formless in each other framework. So being with nature A cannot cause any change to a nature B and vice versa since A is formless in B perspective and B is formless in A perspective but each has a form in their own perspective. Why? Because A and B could coexist and necessary and sufficient condition for them that they don’t interact with each other is that they have to be formless in each other perspective.

Are you saying that God cannot cause an effect in the natural world? He not only can but he does. He is a real, living Being with Limitless power, he can do whatever he wants. He can and does create things, in time, out of nothing, and he can cause his creatures to move and act or give them their own power to move and act, and he sustains all in existence and guides all things ( even photons ) to the ends he desires.

I don’t see what else you could be saying. So what is all this " formlessness " you are talking about? It means me nothing to me.

Well, lets for example consider the case of soul and body. Do they have same nature? no. Can body be affected by soul?, yes. Can body affect soul?, yes. First, how such a thing is possible if they have different nature? Second, if they interact with each other why bother and assign them different nature? Call soul as different type of matter.

Who said they have a different nature? They have one nature, human nature. The soul is the form of the man and it governs all of man’s activities. The soul govern’s all man’s activities because that is the way God created the soul, he gave it this power. How God does this no one knows, we know it is so because there is no other answer. God has the power to do so and he does it.

You keep evading the issue because you do not want to admit that a God who is outsied the material world exists and causes everything in it to happen. If you had not evaded answering the thread " Existence of God based on the existence of things " you would see the necessity of this God. This world consists of limited, contingent beings. Therefore it could not have caused its own existence. Therefore there exists a Being, God, who is not a part of this world and who has the power to cause this world to exist, while he himself has always existed without a cause.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Virtual means not real.

Virtual does have many meaning. Virtual in here means that it is created and exist in mind.

… If not you would have to prove that as well.
You cannot just state things like that without proof.

Photon trueness depends on the perspective and this is a little strange. The special relativity states that space and time shrink to zero from a photon perspective hence does experience no time and no space in another word photon does not exist in its framework. Please read here. This is the limit in which gamma is zero. The space and time can be perceived in our perspective hence a photon travels and it is local being. Photon however are the main entity that carry information between us so understanding them helps us to understand what mind is and how it functions.

This is a grossly exagerated statement. Natural forces are certainly temporal, they act in time and in a space. But not all forces are quantum actions. And quantum activity is not responsible for every or even most actions. You would have to prove that, you can’t just make a blanket statement like that.

That is the correct statement. We know that four forces exist in nature and we know the quantum theory for three of them except the gravity. This means that we can for sure say that all forces in nature are mediated by quantum virtual particle.

Futher, you are evading the issue. This was my statement, " Furthermore, " force " or energy or power is not always temporary even in the case of natural causes - as opposed to Divine Causality. " You did not address this issue.

How does Divine Causality could act on a physical being unless it manifest itself as one of these forces? This means that either one has to reduce the Divine Causality to natural forces or claim that Divine Causality is another force that only exist between God and natural world which means that we could either directly or indirectly observe the existence of God which to the best of my knowledge we haven’t achieve it yet. The only candidate which I have in my mind is randomness.

By the way, why do we need God intervention if creation can work on its accord?

Again, you would have to prove this statement. Again, you are evading my issues. This was my statement," Not true. As I pointed out in the example of fire or heat making charcoal out of wood. Heat and fire do not have the same nature as wood or charcoal. So, even in natural causes, this is not true. " You did not address this statement. Your whole object seems to be simply to repeat your ideological position at all costs and ignore what others say.

This is well known in field of science. Fire is simply thermal energy, photon, which is the result of de-excitation of an atom as heat is the former happens in visual range whereas the former happens in infrared range so it is just matter of frequency otherwise they are the same thing.

It is not true in the case of all natural causes as I showed in the example of fire making charcoal out of wood.

This has already been discussed.

And the soul is the cause all the actions of the body, yet it is not the body but its form.

First, body also affects soul. Our body however is physical and can be changed and can cause change as the result of one of these four forces. So the question is whether there is another force which mediate between soul and body since soul is physical otherwise if it act based on one of these forces or otherwise cannot cause anything.

Second, how soul can affect the body, in another word, is the force that act between body and soul are same force or they are different.

So there is no argument preventing God, who is Pure Existence, from causing effects in the natural world.

So then there must exist a force that grant this liberty to God and only exist between God and creation.

Are you saying that God cannot cause an effect in the natural world? He not only can but he does. He is a real, living Being with Limitless power, he can do whatever he wants. He can and does create things, in time, out of nothing, and he can cause his creatures to move and act or give them their own power to move and act, and he sustains all in existence and guides all things ( even photons ) to the ends he desires.

We should perceive a change if God cause something instead what we observe is that everything is subject of change by the four forces unless a person has a spiritual experience which cannot be explained by these forces.

I don’t see what else you could be saying. So what is all this " formlessness " you are talking about? It means me nothing to me.

It means a lot to me. I am sorry that I couldn’t convey my message.

Who said they have a different nature? They have one nature, human nature. The soul is the form of the man and it governs all of man’s activities. The soul govern’s all man’s activities because that is the way God created the soul, he gave it this power. How God does this no one knows, we know it is so because there is no other answer. God has the power to do so and he does it.

I am aware of hylomorphic dualism of Aristotle but that doesn’t answer how soul could exist upon the death if soul is the form and doesn’t have a separate form.

 

[Bahman]

Love is formless and it can change a hostile situation into a loving collaboration



.

Love has form since otherwise it could not cause anything. We experience love and it could be subject of time hence it has form.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Virtual does have many meaning. Virtual in here means that it is created and exist in mind.

Photon trueness depends on the perspective and this is a little strange. The special relativity states that space and time shrink to zero from a photon perspective hence does experience no time and no space in another word photon does not exist in its framework. Please read here. This is the limit in which gamma is zero. The space and time can be perceived in our perspective hence a photon travels and it is local being. Photon however are the main entity that carry information between us so understanding them helps us to understand what mind is and how it functions.

That is the correct statement. We know that four forces exist in nature and we know the quantum theory for three of them except the gravity. This means that we can for sure say that all forces in nature are mediated by quantum virtual particle.

How does Divine Causality could act on a physical being unless it manifest itself as one of these forces? This means that either one has to reduce the Divine Causality to natural forces or claim that Divine Causality is another force that only exist between God and natural world which means that we could either directly or indirectly observe the existence of God which to the best of my knowledge we haven’t achieve it yet. The only candidate which I have in my mind is randomness.

By the way, why do we need God intervention if creation can work on its accord?

This is well known in field of science. Fire is simply thermal energy, photon, which is the result of de-excitation of an atom as heat is the former happens in visual range whereas the former happens in infrared range so it is just matter of frequency otherwise they are the same thing.

This has already been discussed.

First, body also affects soul. Our body however is physical and can be changed and can cause change as the result of one of these four forces. So the question is whether there is another force which mediate between soul and body since soul is physical otherwise if it act based on one of these forces or otherwise cannot cause anything.

Second, how soul can affect the body, in another word, is the force that act between body and soul are same force or they are different.

So then there must exist a force that grant this liberty to God and only exist between God and creation.

We should perceive a change if God cause something instead what we observe is that everything is subject of change by the four forces unless a person has a spiritual experience which cannot be explained by these forces.

It means a lot to me. I am sorry that I couldn’t convey my message.

I am aware of hylomorphic dualism of Aristotle but that doesn’t answer how soul could exist upon the death if soul is the form and doesn’t have a separate form.

Well, it is pretty clear that you are an ideologue committed to scientism, no truth except what science can reveal. In other words you have a closed mind. So there is no sense in futher discussion.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Well, it is pretty clear that you are an ideologue committed to scientism, no truth except what science can reveal. In other words you have a closed mind. So there is no sense in futher discussion.

Linus2nd

I am open to both. That is you who is closed to science which is necessary as well.

 

[empther]

Bahman,
You desperately need to read this…

Respect For Truth
roseavenue.org/respect_for_truth.htm

 

[Bahman]

Bahman,
You desperately need to read this…

Respect For Truth
roseavenue.org/respect_for_truth.htm

I read that and thanks. It did help but very little.

The problem is that I am open to discussion almost read everything trying to put myself in shoes of those people who believe a topic but that is not something that I could see in people here.

Moreover, truth as far as I can see, cannot be summarized in a single book. According to last research the growth is exponential. So to me one has to have a very broad range of knowledge to make sure that have little sense of what is going on, hence understand what truth is.

 

[Servant19]

Love has form since otherwise it could not cause anything. We experience love and it could be subject of time hence it has form.

I would therefore propose to you that God, too has form…

.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am open to both. That is you who is closed to science which is necessary as well.

I am not closed to science, what you are promoting is not science but your interpretation of what it means. At the same time you reject any truth which cannot be verified by science. That is ideological scientism.

Linus2nd

 

[empther]

Linus said to Bahman,

At the same time you reject any truth which cannot be verified by science. That is ideological scientism.

In that case,
Bahman shouldn’t even be on the philosophy section since philosophy is about things that science can’t touch.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus said to Bahman,



In that case,
Bahman shouldn’t even be on the philosophy section since philosophy is about things that science can’t touch.

One can only hope.

Linus2nd

 

[empther]

One can only hope.

There is hope.

When this forum is forgotten,
when men have colonized other planets,
when the sun has burned out and the Earth is cold,

“the word of the Lord remains forever”
– 1 Peter 1:25