Does everything physical need a cause?

[Gorgias]

CEN is not change in the Aristotelian analysis

I disagree that this is a valid analysis. Aristotle claimed that there was no such thing as CEN; therefore, you cannot say that he included it in the consideration of his definition of ‘change’. (In other words, if I believe that unicorns do not exist, and I believe that all meat tastes good on the grill, it does not mean that I believe that grilled unicorn tastes good. )

 

[BlackFriar]

Of course he denied CEN because it was impenetrable to his established philosophic principles.

That is what I have been saying ab initio.

If people want to talk about CEN please dont bring Aristotle to the dinner table. That also seems to rule out much of his friend Aquinas

I am quite sure that unicorn meat tastes great and I will like it if you can get me some (because I like all meat).

But I am equally sure you will never provide me any because unicorns do not exist.

 

[Gorgias]

If people want to talk about CEN please dont bring Aristotle to the dinner table. That also seems to rule out much of his friend Aquinas

Yet, I think it’s unreasonable to say that we cannot use Aristotelian constructs because he saw things in a way different than we see them. If you do that, then you’re right – we have to throw out all of Aquinas (not to mention much of philosophy prior to, perhaps, 1800 or so)! That’s just not reasonable. Rather, if we take Aristotelian frameworks and extend them (in a Christian context) to CEN, we find some really interesting things can be discussed…

 

[Kei]

I’ve already agreed it is not a physical change if indeed creation is ex nihilo.

 

[BlackFriar]

That’s just not reasonable.

That is hardly the meaning of “reasonable” in a philosophy forum.
What you really mean is that throwing out Aquinas’s philosophy in so far as it based on Aristotle wrt CEN has exceeded your credibility/comfort limits.

For me its eminently reasonable to do so from the aspect of pure reason.
Nor would it affect my faith.

I still believe in CEN.
It just means we cannot explain it with much certainty from reason anymore.
No big deal, it was always a matter of revelation for early Christians.

Rather, if we take Aristotelian frameworks and extend them (in a Christian context) to CEN, we find some really interesting things can be discussed…

Of course we do.
Unfortunately the “extension” has not been proven valid because Aquinas has done a slight of hand on Aristotle and Aristotle wasn’t there to correct him that it doesn’t work.

Aquinas provides no other basis to justify his “extension” … other than he knows that the alleged required cause is true by revelation.
But he purports to assert his interesting finding according to pure reason.

It doesn’t seem to work.
I do accept its harmoniously analogous.
But that isn’t logical certitude.

 

[BlackFriar]

I’ve already agreed it is not a physical change if indeed creation is ex nihilo.

I understand.
But you also said: " the argument is that which begins to exist has a cause"
We only know, from physical phenomenon, that a “change” requires a cause.

Why does “no physical change” require a cause?

 

[Gorgias]

What you really mean is that throwing out Aquinas’s philosophy in so far as it based on Aristotle wrt CEN has exceeded your credibility/comfort limits.

I’m comfortable with utilizing it.

Unfortunately the “extension” has not been proven valid because Aquinas has done a slight of hand on Aristotle and Aristotle wasn’t there to correct him that it doesn’t work.

By that definition, nearly all of philosophy must be thrown out – after all, if a philosopher dies, he can no longer defend his thought against what 3rd parties consider “intellectual encroachment”!

 

[Kei]

Take a breath, close your eyes.

Now, I want you to consider for a moment that an orderly universe doesn’t pop into existence without cause.
Surely, this thing (creation ex nihilo) is utterly unlike anything else we know. It is a unique thing, an utterly amazing thing. However, it just doesn’t make sense that it would occur without reason, simply because it is unlike anything else.
The universe is not necessary. It has not always been.

 

[BlackFriar]

I’m comfortable with utilizing it.

Obviously, but the issue is not religious or the comfort of traditional use…but whether use of Aristotles own principles as he defined them is reasoned as applicable. They do not seem to hold, and you agreed. Yet you still want to use them because it is uncomfortable as a religious person to let them go.

By that definition, nearly all of philosophy must be thrown out – after all, if a philosopher dies, he can no longer defend his thought against what 3rd parties consider “intellectual encroachment”!

Pro philosophers defend the extension. I have not yet seen a reasoned defence against my challenge to Aquinas’s over extension of Aristotle. Wink icons and being “comfortable” is a faith argument not one of reason.

Clearly an argument outside of Aristotelianism is required…Aristotles framework simply cannot be extended to cover the change of CEN … you also seem to agree he sees no physical change there.

The only way to make the case of extension is to accept that CEN is indeed a physical change. But Aquinas denies this…and rightly.

 

[BlackFriar]

So lets get back to Aristotle’s framework, which Aquinas uses to speak of CEN.

Would Aristotle say there has been a physical change?
If so then there must be a cause, for all change is an effect which requires a cause.

If there is no change, no movement, then there is no effect to be explained so far as Aristotle is concerned?
That is likely why he was not interested in CEN.

By all means justify CEN with some other philosophic system if faith requires that. Just dont roll in Aristotle until above is answered.

And if Aristotle is used, then it seems we must agree with the use of Prime Matter as eternally existing even in CEN. Which asks the question, is PM nothing?

 

[Gorgias]

Yet you still want to use them because it is uncomfortable as a religious person to let them go.

No, it’s because I’m unwilling – as you, apparently are quite willing – to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I have not yet seen a reasoned defence against my challenge to Aquinas’s over extension of Aristotle.

I think that might make a great thread on its own.

 

[Kei]

You were the one who brought up Aristotle.
My comment that I recall was something like, “Imagine you say words that bring forth a table, will it happen? No, but if it does, it is because of what you have said”

 

[BlackFriar]

No, it’s because I’m unwilling – as you, apparently are quite willing – to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I am willing to follow the logical consequences of reasoning wherever that may lead.

You have stopped coming back with reasoned comments but now make appeals to emotion and credibilty limits due to concerns over consequences.

When you can respond to my simple observations and questions with reason I would be interested to discuss further.

 

[BlackFriar]

You may have forgotten how we started.
You asserted CEN was change.

I am simply observing that if you are a Catholic you have just denied the philosophic edifice which the post medieval Church rests on to explain its metaphysics…including CEN.

Thats fine if you deny both Aristotle and Aquinas. I am simply making sure of that and am interested if you have a credible alternative philosopher to justify the allegedly intuitive assertions that CEN is a change, all change involves cause and effect and all effects require causes.

 

[Kei]

You asked me if it was change.

I said yes, as nonexistence to existence is a change in common nomenclature.

Then you said it wasn’t change as depicted by Aristotle.

Then I said I agreed with the analysis that creation ex nihilo is not physical change.

Ex nihilo creation is unlike anything else we experience and as such is not applicable to the normative understanding of Aristotle’s physical change.

No rejection of the bedrock of medieval metaphysics is necessary for me to hold these opinions.

 

[BlackFriar]

It comes down to what the poster is actually asking.

Does everything physical need a cause?

Yes, physical motion or change we agree requires a cause.

But CEN of a physical object?
That only requires a cause, so far as Aristotelian principles are concerned, if it can be demonstrated such a thing adheres to the principles of change inducted from looking at physical motion and change.

If you do not posit the necessity of an underlying formless substratum in CEN then Aristotle’s logic does not apply to justify the alleged effect requires a cause. He may even deny the possibility of CEN if prime matter is not posited.

Aquinas would disagree with you. CEN is not change.

So either way you do seem to have difficulties if you want to argue from a Catholic philosophic perspective.

 

[Gorgias]

When you can respond to my simple observations and questions with reason I would be interested to discuss further.

Hence my request: start a thread. Then, I might be interested to discuss further. Until then, well…

 

[BlackFriar]

Strange way to save face…you regard CEN and use of Aristotles cause effect principles foreign to this thread.
Ok, i get it you are unable to argue further so am happy to let it go.