Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[Peter_Plato]

How does cause differ from correlation?

This is an interesting question.

Off the top of my head…

I suspect a cause is either a necessary or sufficient condition for an effect. There is a one way dependency that exists between the cause and the effect.

A correlation is where two events frequently, perhaps even always, occur together, but there is no determinable dependency between the two. Event A is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for Event B.

For example, two events may arise from the same causal factors so they are co-related, but there is no dependency of one upon the other.

 

[XAIPETE257]

Some modern physicists think the answer is yes. However there seems to be no evidence that this is so.For those who may be interested, there is no evidence for the assertion that there are experiments showing this universe creating something. This is pure hyperbolic speculation, it is not even known what ( if anything ) has been observed. If, indeed, some form of matter appeared where there had been none, it can only have come from some form of prior existing matter.

But besides this, is it possible that the universe could have created itself and that it sustains itself in existence?. There are lots of highly speculative theories to that effect Fr. Robert Spitzer of the Magis Center of Reason and Faith has some very interesting presentations about some of these theories. You can watch them here.
magisreasonfaith.org/spitzer_videos.html

Thomas Aquinas has demonstrated philosophically that only God can cause anything to exist, only he can create anything and sustain it in existence. He discusses this in the Summa Theologica, Part 1, Qs 44-45, and 103-109. You can read it for yourself.

Linus2nd

If we concede to the idea that the universe created itself, then we must also accept that the universe is not a closed system, and energy can flow in and out of it. This would render the application of the second law of thermodynamics to the decline of the universe useless.

This is how the theory goes:
Premise 1: The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that entropy in a closed system can only increase.
Premise 2: The universe is a closed system
Premise 3: Energy is constantly being converted into non-usable or irretrievable forms of energy
Conclusion 1: The total kinetic energy of the universe is slowly being lost, thus approaching absolute zero.

Premise 4: Everything that has an end must have a beginning.
Conclusion 2: The universe could not have created itself.

I hope this helped! Blessings!

 

[yppop]

Motion, however you define it, is physics. Not metaphysics. Not cake making. Not motorcycle maintenance.

Baptist Guy
Are you sure that motion is physics? How about this:

Suppose you imagine every particle in the entire universe frozen in place. Now imagine that every particle in the universe is simultaneously incremented to a new position. Then just as a the motion on the screen in the cinema results from the sequential projection of a fixed image on each frame of a film strip as it is incremented through the motion picture projector, scientists inside the universe would observe change of all sorts, some of which they call motion and some of which they call growth, etc.

Because no incremental change is observed, scientists assume that the motion is continuous. Furthermore they observe that certain motion occurs in such consistent and repeatable patterns that they can be described with mathematical equations. However, in order to derive such equations they had to abstract the elements that formed the patterns, thus we have “mass” that causes a “gravitational force” that causes bodies of matter to move towards each other.

Newton was the guy that first applied abstraction to the observation of natural phenomena. Others followed his lead so that we now can describe continuous motion and other change with a host of abstractions such as gravity, energy, momentum, charge, mass, inertia, etc. But these elements of physics are merely manifestations of what occurs at the ground of reality.

If, however, motion is incremental (discrete) and not continuous, then the question is: what causes the incrementation?

I contend that it is God that causes one cosmic frame to increment to the next cosmic frame, a Divine Impetus. This is evident when we consider the Big Bang that was initiated without the presence of any of the known forces or of energy. There had to be an impetus to create the space, time, energy, and matter and it had to be non-physical.

God creates and sustains at the implicate level that which science describes at the explicate level.

I don’t know that such a scenario would be in keeping with Thomas’ thoughts, (Linus might comment on that), but I believe that the scenario I just sketched would arrive at the same conclusion, namely that all motion and change is the result of the unmovable mover, God. I merely am describing God’s direct involvement as the Divine Impetus.

So, motion, as I define it, is metaphysical or even theological but surely not “physics”.

Note. I do have a master’s degree in physics, a subject I love. I just love God more.

Yppop

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Relentless attack? Shirley Knot. That would mean at least one philosopher leading the charge in every generation since 1700. Please list these massed hoards of philosophers.

Parcing again, another sophism. Well, let’s start with Galileo and Newton and go from there. Perhaps you should read a little on the history of the Philosophy of Science, would you like some references. How about some of the works of Fr. Stanley Jaki, Dr. Wolfgang Smith, Fr. William A. Wallace. Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius X, Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Dr. Anthony Rizzi, Dr. Peter Kreeft, Fr. Robert Spitzer, and your personal favorite, Dr. Edward Feser - just for starters.

Motion, however you define it, is physics. Not metaphysics. Not cake making. Not motorcycle maintenance.

You mean to tell me that I must receive a blessing from some scientist before I can point out the obvious? That is utter nonesense. If any scientist says that seriously, please find a quotation. And if you find one, I’ll show you a scientist who knows as little about science as you do. And Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas, and the Muslim and Jewish philosophers would disagree with you. So would any farmer out in the pasture chasing down his cows. I have never heard such a rediculous statement. It does you seriious discredit…

Science is about empirical evidence, meaning sense experience, observation, the things which are evident to our senses.

Did I say anything any different. Your problem is that you cannot draw distinctions. Science indeed studies these things but it first accepts them as self-evident facts of reality, the same reality that is accepted by unscientific folks in their everday lives. And science has no monopoly on self-evident facts. What you don’t recognize or refuse to recognize or are unable to recognize, because of your native prejudices, is that any one, including ST. Thomas, can make perfectly true statements about motion and other aspects of daily life without making scientific statements. Call it common sense judgment or whatever. It is not scientific.

Science can indeed apply its methods on these things, but it does so using the scientific method. And that method is well defined. Its decision to make a scientific study, according to the scientific method, separates its object from the ordinary judgments and experiences of life. It does not void these judgments and experiences as long as they are true in themselves, i.e. that they are self-evidently true…

I deny that in the world only some things are moving, as it’s evident to my senses that all things are moving. All things change continuously.

Thomas did not deny that " all " things are moving. He said, it is self-evident that some things are moving. Perhaps he thought some things didn’t move. I don’t know that. But even if he might have thought that, so what. Today, thanks largely to science, we know better. However, everything also has a stable element, its nature, which remains the same throughout its life span or its term of existence as an identifiable being or substance.

And if you say that it is evident to your senses that " all things " are moving, then your sense of observation is faulty, to put it politely. It certainly is not evident to the vast majority of folks. Shall we do a poll?

Teresa de Ávila knew that: nada te turbe, nada te espante, todo se pasa, Dios no se muda (let nothing disturb you, let nothing frighten you, everything passes, God does not change).

Sorry I don’t read Spanish. But I applaud your ability. And with as much as you translated, I agree totally. Glad you are reading her. She can’t do you anything but good.

So it was a Catholic saint from my neck of the woods who started your so-called “relentless attack” around 1550, a couple of generations before Galileo and a while before your massed hoards.

Enlighten me. You might be right, and it wouldn’t surprise me.

Then Yoda, you have much to learn.

Just discussed that. Science can make it an object of study under the conditions stated above. It can prove common knowledge incorrect, but to make the blanket statement that movement is not true to common experience is unscientific. It is also false.

'Already did so several times in several ways on other threads. Was released for good behavior.

Nonsense, you haven’t proved a single thing yet but how prejudiced you are in your judgments.

Yikes, calm down, you’ll do yourself a mischief. Can you cite evidence that the majority of Catholics are the slightest bit bothered. or even know of, yon argumentums? Fashions come and fashions go, but we live by faith, not by sight .

Don’t need to. Many Catholics are blissfully ignorant about many things, as are non-Catholics. They have been lulled to sleep by the constant barrage of propaganda and ideological information put out by the media and which covers college and university campuses. Yes, we are beginning to wake up. For the sake of the world I hope it isn’t too late, because if Catholicism is reduced to the backwaters of culture, the whole world will suffer greatly. There is certainly is nothing outside of Catholicism which shows even the mildest hope of meeting the current challenges.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If we concede to the idea that the universe created itself, then we must also accept that the universe is not a closed system, and energy can flow in and out of it. This would render the application of the second law of thermodynamics to the decline of the universe useless.

This is how the theory goes:
Premise 1: The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that entropy in a closed system can only increase.
Premise 2: The universe is a closed system
Premise 3: Energy is constantly being converted into non-usable or irretrievable forms of energy
Conclusion 1: The total kinetic energy of the universe is slowly being lost, thus approaching absolute zero.

Premise 4: Everything that has an end must have a beginning.
Conclusion 2: The universe could not have created itself.

I hope this helped! Blessings!

Sorry, I’m not up on the laws of thermodynamics. But I agree that if the universe created itself, then may be open ( whatever that means). Whether energy could flow in and out under those conditions, I have no idea.

I think your argument sounds good, would have to think about it awhile.
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Linus2nd

 

[Tomdstone]

Are you saying lung cancer doesn’t have a cause?

Does failure to identify a specific cause constitute a refutation of the principle?

If not, why are you asking?

It depends on your definition of cause. What is your definition of cause. For an example, what is the cause of lung cancer?

 

[Paddy_Walker]

That seems more complicated than the doctrine of the trinity, quantum mechanics and brain surgery rolled into one but it’s been a long day.

…dam, such a good argument.
I imagine it is more complicated than we can imagine.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It depends on your definition of cause. What is your definition of cause. For an example, what is the cause of lung cancer?

I thought I gave my definition. Have you got a better one?

 

[Tomdstone]

I thought I gave my definition. Have you got a better one?

I guess I missed your definition. What exactly is a cause?
BTW, are you assuming that the universe must have a cause? I know that we look for causes, but do the causes always exist. For example, what is the cause of lung cancer?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Baptist Guy
Are you sure that motion is physics? How about this:

He,he - that individual is a Baptist Lady. ( FYI ) Just a question, do you ever discuss any of this with your Son, the Priest? He would probably get a good laugh.

Suppose you imagine every particle in the entire universe frozen in place…
Because no incremental change is observed, scientists assume that the motion is continuous. Furthermore they observe that certain motion occurs in such consistent and repeatable patterns that they can be described with mathematical equations. However, in order to derive such equations they had to abstract the elements that formed the patterns, thus we have “mass” that causes a “gravitational force” that causes bodies of matter to move towards each other.

Not sure I understand your similie. But mass and gravity are real enough. But gravity " waves " is a question mark in my book. Though Inocente claims scientists have demonstrated that it is so - not sure myself. But it does’nt really matter. The point is that something causes all bodies with mass to seek out the nearest most massive body. That, to me, demonstrates rather than disproves Aristotle’s and Thomas’ contention that " bodies which are moved are moved by another, " the basis for the argumantation in the First Way or at least as regards local motion. And indeed it is very near to what Aristotle and, especially Thomas, said in regard to the movement of heavenly bodies and the natural movement of ** light ** and heavy bodies seaking their proper places.

Newton was the guy that first applied abstraction to the observation of natural phenomena. Others followed his lead so that we now can describe continuous motion and other change with a host of abstractions such as gravity, energy, momentum, charge, mass, inertia, etc. But these elements of physics are merely manifestations of what occurs at the ground of reality.

Now you are hitting the nail on the head. Even Newton acknowledged that there had to be a cause for the initial motion and for any change in velocity or direction. However, his theory could never be tested because there is no perfect vacuum, so there is no constant velocity. Besides the fact that even in the most empty areas of outer space there exists ( it is extimated by a number of scientists ) at least one hydrogen atom per cubic centimeter, which over the long haul would mitigate against constant velocity and one can hardly imagine any location in outer space where there were not significant " forces " of gravity at work. William a Wallace brings all this up in From a Realist Point of View, 1979 edition. ( just got mine , out of print now, took me three weeks to locate a copy for sale).

If, however, motion is incremental (discrete) and not continuous, then the question is: what causes the incrementation?

For sub-atomic particles only. For beings which can be identified as having independent natures that would not hold. Animals and such would move continuously as long as they intended to move, a rock would roll continuously as long as it was not obstructed, etc.

I contend that it is God that causes one cosmic frame to increment to the next cosmic frame, a Divine Impetus. This is evident when we consider the Big Bang that was initiated without the presence of any of the known forces or of energy. There had to be an impetus to create the space, time, energy, and matter and it had to be non-physical.

Now that is very close to what Wallace points out. Though he was talking about bodies with mass, he didn’t discuss " quantum motion. " His idea is that God, the Unmoved Mover, is the prime mover ( motor principle ) or efficient cause of the movement of Newton’s continuously moving body since He gave it a form or nature susceptible of motion. Now the instrumental mover is whoever or whatever launched the body into space. This instrumental mover imparts to the moved body an impetus which causes an accidental change in the form, which makes the impetus an accidental part of the bodie’s nature. Thus explaining the body’s continuous motion. From the moment its form receives its modification of impetus, it moves under the power of impetus flowing naturally from its own nature. It is a natural power of its nature now. In this respect it is not so different than the natural radiation given off by many elements which causes them, in time, to undergo a substantial change into another element. Uranium for example, degenerates, in time, to lead.

God creates and sustains at the implicate level that which science describes at the explicate level.

Well said.

I don’t know that such a scenario would be in keeping with Thomas’ thoughts, (Linus might comment on that), but I believe that the scenario I just sketched would arrive at the same conclusion, namely that all motion and change is the result of the unmovable mover, God. I merely am describing God’s direct involvement as the Divine Impetus.

And I mentioned a similar idea early on in the thread " The First Way Explained. " And it turns out we both may have been close to correct, according to Wallace anyway. But whatever the case, all motion, even Newtonian, or that of Einstein, has a cause. There is no motion without an efficient cause somewhere.

So, motion, as I define it, is metaphysical or even theological but surely not “physics”.

Right. Although, science may make it an object of study. But it must employ scientific methodology. But that does not remove motion as an object of Philosophical analysis and common experience. Inocente would prefer to sweep Philosophy and common experience under the rug.

Note. I do have a master’s degree in physics, a subject I love. I just love God more.

Yppop

Loved this post of yours.

Linus2nd

 

[XAIPETE257]

Sorry, I’m not up on the laws of thermodynamics. But I agree that if the universe created itself, then may be open ( whatever that means). Whether energy could flow in and out under those conditions, I have no idea.

I think your argument sounds good, would have to think about it awhile.
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Linus2nd

Perhaps I can clarify. The universe is a closed system because energy is not able to flow in or out of it. I will give the example of a balloon to demonstrate the concept of an increase in entropy (chaos) in a closed system (which is what the 2nd law seeks to define):

Imagine that you are blowing air into a balloon. As the air particles initially flow into the balloon, the path of the particles can be easily predicted. As time goes on and air continues to flow into the balloon, however, the paths of the particles within the balloon become increasingly difficult to predict. Thus, the “entropy” or chaos in the system increases because the balloon is a closed system.

In the same way, the energy within the universe is being converted into forms that we do not easily perceive, such as friction, sound, and heat. These forms of energy eventually dissipate and are spread into practically nothing. If energy is not flowing into the universe from an exterior source, and energy is not mysteriously leaving the universe, then the decline of the universe’s energy is predictable. Most physicists are certain that the universe will eventually “wear out” because of a complete lack of kinetic energy (absolute zero). This means>>>> **The Universe will eventually die. ** Another important implication of this law is that the universe is not capable of sustaining itself, and can therefore not be responsible for its own existence.

I hope this brought some clarity!!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Perhaps I can clarify. The universe is a closed system because energy is not able to flow in or out of it. I will give the example of a balloon to demonstrate the concept of an increase in entropy (chaos) in a closed system (which is what the 2nd law seeks to define):

Imagine that you are blowing air into a balloon. As the air particles initially flow into the balloon, the path of the particles can be easily predicted. As time goes on and air continues to flow into the balloon, however, the paths of the particles within the balloon become increasingly difficult to predict. Thus, the “entropy” or chaos in the system increases because the balloon is a closed system.

In the same way, the energy within the universe is being converted into forms that we do not easily perceive, such as friction, sound, and heat. These forms of energy eventually dissipate and are spread into practically nothing. If energy is not flowing into the universe from an exterior source, and energy is not mysteriously leaving the universe, then the decline of the universe’s energy is predictable. Most physicists are certain that the universe will eventually “wear out” because of a complete lack of kinetic energy (absolute zero). This means>>>> **The Universe will eventually die. ** Another important implication of this law is that the universe is not capable of sustaining itself, and can therefore not be responsible for its own existence.

I hope this brought some clarity!!

But how do we know it is a closed system, that is what I don’t understand. Granted if it is a closed system, what you say seems reasonable. And if it is true, and I would just have to take science’s word for that, your conclusion would be correct. What are others saying about this?

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

I guess I missed your definition. What exactly is a cause?
BTW, are you assuming that the universe must have a cause? I know that we look for causes, but do the causes always exist. For example, what is the cause of lung cancer?

Post 678

Do causes always exist?

Are you saying lung cancer does not have a cause? Can you even make sense of that?

I can’t. Ditto with the universe.

 

[Tomdstone]

Post 678

Do causes always exist?

Are you saying lung cancer does not have a cause? Can you even make sense of that?

I can’t. Ditto with the universe.

post 678 is really no definition of cause. You say it is either a necessary or sufficient condition of an effect. But what is an effect? Also, you did not say what causes lung cancer. If lung cancer has a cause, what is it?

 

[Tomdstone]

Perhaps I can clarify. The universe is a closed system because energy is not able to flow in or out of it. I will give the example of a balloon to demonstrate the concept of an increase in entropy (chaos) in a closed system (which is what the 2nd law seeks to define):

Imagine that you are blowing air into a balloon. As the air particles initially flow into the balloon, the path of the particles can be easily predicted. As time goes on and air continues to flow into the balloon, however, the paths of the particles within the balloon become increasingly difficult to predict. Thus, the “entropy” or chaos in the system increases because the balloon is a closed system.

In the same way, the energy within the universe is being converted into forms that we do not easily perceive, such as friction, sound, and heat. These forms of energy eventually dissipate and are spread into practically nothing. If energy is not flowing into the universe from an exterior source, and energy is not mysteriously leaving the universe, then the decline of the universe’s energy is predictable. Most physicists are certain that the universe will eventually “wear out” because of a complete lack of kinetic energy (absolute zero). This means>>>> **The Universe will eventually die. ** Another important implication of this law is that the universe is not capable of sustaining itself, and can therefore not be responsible for its own existence.

I hope this brought some clarity!!

Why could not the current expansion of the universe end and lead to a collapse into a singularity and subsequently another big bang?

 

[Tomdstone]

Premise 2: The universe is a closed system

Are you saying that the universe is a closed system or an isolated system? In any case, the multiverse theory, which has been postulated due to evidence of cosmic bruising, would allow for an exchange of energy from one universe to another. Also, you have to take into account that the universe is expanding. As the universe expands, the value of maximum entropy increases, so that it becomes suspect as to whether or not the expanding universe will attain heat death or maximum allowed entropy.

 

[Tomdstone]

1. For everything that exists a sufficient reason for its existence is necessary.

What is the sufficient reason for the existence of God?

 

[inocente]

Baptist Guy
Are you sure that motion is physics? How about this:

Suppose you imagine every particle in the entire universe frozen in place. Now imagine that every particle in the universe is simultaneously incremented to a new position. Then just as a the motion on the screen in the cinema results from the sequential projection of a fixed image on each frame of a film strip as it is incremented through the motion picture projector, scientists inside the universe would observe change of all sorts, some of which they call motion and some of which they call growth, etc.

Because no incremental change is observed, scientists assume that the motion is continuous. Furthermore they observe that certain motion occurs in such consistent and repeatable patterns that they can be described with mathematical equations. However, in order to derive such equations they had to abstract the elements that formed the patterns, thus we have “mass” that causes a “gravitational force” that causes bodies of matter to move towards each other.

Newton was the guy that first applied abstraction to the observation of natural phenomena. Others followed his lead so that we now can describe continuous motion and other change with a host of abstractions such as gravity, energy, momentum, charge, mass, inertia, etc. But these elements of physics are merely manifestations of what occurs at the ground of reality.

If, however, motion is incremental (discrete) and not continuous, then the question is: what causes the incrementation?

I contend that it is God that causes one cosmic frame to increment to the next cosmic frame, a Divine Impetus. This is evident when we consider the Big Bang that was initiated without the presence of any of the known forces or of energy. There had to be an impetus to create the space, time, energy, and matter and it had to be non-physical.

God creates and sustains at the implicate level that which science describes at the explicate level.

I don’t know that such a scenario would be in keeping with Thomas’ thoughts, (Linus might comment on that), but I believe that the scenario I just sketched would arrive at the same conclusion, namely that all motion and change is the result of the unmovable mover, God. I merely am describing God’s direct involvement as the Divine Impetus.

So, motion, as I define it, is metaphysical or even theological but surely not “physics”.

Note. I do have a master’s degree in physics, a subject I love. I just love God more.

Yppop

QM Guy,

The First Way begins with “It is certain, and evident to our senses”, in other words Thomas is specifying that he is here making an a posteriori rather than a priori argument, he is saying this is an empirical hypothesis, so however you want to define motion, the argument is about the physical universe.

As regards your digital universe hypothesis, I know you are still developing it and think you need to do three things to avoid it being called pseudoscience.

The first is to make it falsifiable. For instance, if it is correct then all wave values must be stored at each increment, which in turn requires a “frame buffer” to store them. But since a wave can take values which cannot be stored in a finite number of bits, there will be a discontinuity at each increment due to truncation/rounding. We will notice that (in the same way that the first CD players produce a lot of spurious square wave harmonics). So you need to work out a maximum value for the increment and minimum value for the bit resolution to explain why we haven’t noticed and never will.

Then you also need to say how your hypothesis explains anything beyond just adding a layer of mystery to squirrel away your … (forgive me) Cinema Projector Guy in the Sky.

Lastly I’m not a physicist but have loads of questions about how it all hangs together. Could you get yourself a free blog site and present the whole thing, math and all? At the moment, without any detail, it sounds like Matrix IV : The Return Of The Einstein Denier. I want to know how you get the speed of light to be constant while keeping gravity while having your “every particle in the universe is simultaneously incremented to a new position” and so on.

 

[inocente]

Parcing again, another sophism. Well, let’s start with Galileo and Newton and go from there. Perhaps you should read a little on the history of the Philosophy of Science, would you like some references. How about some of the works of Fr. Stanley Jaki, Dr. Wolfgang Smith, Fr. William A. Wallace. Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius X, Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Dr. Anthony Rizzi, Dr. Peter Kreeft, Fr. Robert Spitzer, and your personal favorite, Dr. Edward Feser - just for starters.

I didn’t ask for a hit parade of dudes you have read, I asked you to name these supposed hoards of naughty philosophers. I had a feeling you couldn’t. Prove me wrong.

You mean to tell me that I must receive a blessing from some scientist before I can point out the obvious? That is utter nonesense. If any scientist says that seriously, please find a quotation. And if you find one, I’ll show you a scientist who knows as little about science as you do. And Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas, and the Muslim and Jewish philosophers would disagree with you. So would any farmer out in the pasture chasing down his cows. I have never heard such a rediculous statement. It does you seriious discredit…

Bluster. Thomas himself says he is making an a posteriori argument based on observation - “It is certain, and evident to our senses” = evidence and observation = science. What’s in a name anyway? Are you’re frightened of exacting standards? Frightened of evidence? Then get out of the kitchen, be off with you, or you’ll have Pope Francis talking of decadent Thomists again.

Did I say anything any different. Your problem is that you cannot draw distinctions. Science indeed studies these things but it first accepts them as self-evident facts of reality, the same reality that is accepted by unscientific folks in their everday lives. And science has no monopoly on self-evident facts. What you don’t recognize or refuse to recognize or are unable to recognize, because of your native prejudices, is that any one, including ST. Thomas, can make perfectly true statements about motion and other aspects of daily life without making scientific statements. Call it common sense judgment or whatever. It is not scientific.

Que? Que? Thomas says it is evident to our senses and then develops an a posteriori theory. Call it an empiricist argument if you prefer.

btw I love you guys who say “your problem is that…”. What was that Jesus? Eyes and planks you say?

Science can indeed apply its methods on these things, but it does so using the scientific method. And that method is well defined. Its decision to make a scientific study, according to the scientific method, separates its object from the ordinary judgments and experiences of life. It does not void these judgments and experiences as long as they are true in themselves, i.e. that they are self-evidently true…

Thomas lived before the modern scientific method was developed. That doesn’t mean people didn’t do science before. Isn’t metaphysics so called because they were Aristotle’s writings which come after his physics?

 

[inocente]

Thomas did not deny that " all " things are moving. He said, it is self-evident that some things are moving. Perhaps he thought some things didn’t move. I don’t know that. But even if he might have thought that, so what. Today, thanks largely to science, we know better. However, everything also has a stable element, its nature, which remains the same throughout its life span or its term of existence as an identifiable being or substance.

Yes, of course he thought some things don’t move, he thought the Earth stood still in the center of the universe. But “so what” you say, let’s just ignore inconvenient facts and pretend there are things which don’t change, let’s just ignore Teresa de Ávila, let’s ignore reality. To what purpose? Who gets to decide what to ignore and what not to ignore?

And if you say that it is evident to your senses that " all things " are moving, then your sense of observation is faulty, to put it politely. It certainly is not evident to the vast majority of folks. Shall we do a poll?

Might is right? How decadently relativist.

Sorry I don’t read Spanish. But I applaud your ability. And with as much as you translated, I agree totally. Glad you are reading her. She can’t do you anything but good.

Yes, first thing she did was teach me that the first way is dead wrong.

*Enlighten me. You might be right, and it wouldn’t surprise me. *

Teresa realized that all things pass, that everything changes. Only God never changes, all things must change. If all things must change (as they must), they change of themselves and no external mover is needed. I think that’s one of Dr. Magee’s objections.

Just discussed that. Science can make it an object of study under the conditions stated above. It can prove common knowledge incorrect, but to make the blanket statement that movement is not true to common experience is unscientific. It is also false.

I have no idea what you mean, science isn’t confined to some ghetto, every cook does science when she tastes to decide whether to add more salt. You appear to be arguing for terminal ignorance. Anyway, I doubt the Church would agree with you, it sounds just a bit, well, decadent.

Nonsense, you haven’t proved a single thing yet but how prejudiced you are in your judgments.

Well, you’re not going to get an Christmas present are you?

Don’t need to. Many Catholics are blissfully ignorant about many things, as are non-Catholics. They have been lulled to sleep by the constant barrage of propaganda and ideological information put out by the media and which covers college and university campuses. Yes, we are beginning to wake up. For the sake of the world I hope it isn’t too late, because if Catholicism is reduced to the backwaters of culture, the whole world will suffer greatly. There is certainly is nothing outside of Catholicism which shows even the mildest hope of meeting the current challenges.

Hang on, what, now you’re arguing for a specific kind of ignorance? The kind that likes dark conspiracy theories and indoctrination? Then go to North Korea.

I think you’ll find you’re talking about a certain specific brand of American internet Catholicism and in the wider world Catholics don’t need to be put on CCTV by any Ministry Of Truth. I am going to play my holier than thou card here as I’m actually in a Catholic country that’s just a day trip from the Vatican.