Eternalism Destroys Thomistic Metaphysics

[Veritas6]

What do you think about his argument against libertarian free will:

“Libertarian free will requires at least 3 things: (1) We are in control of our will; (2) Our mind is causally effective; (3) In the same situation we could have done otherwise. But logically that’s impossible, because:

P1: Our thoughts (mind or will) is either caused or uncaused, no other option is available
P2: If our thoughts (or whatever caused them) are caused we cannot be in control of them
P3: If our thoughts (or whatever caused them) are uncaused we cannot be in control of them
P4: It is logically impossible to choose our thoughts
P5: Being in control of our thoughts (mind or will or whatever caused them) is a requirement of libertarian free will
C: Therefore libertarian free will is logically impossible”

I heard “in the same situation we could have done otherwise“ is the wrong way to define free will. What are your thoughts?

 

[Ana_v]

Aside from the question of whether Thomas is correct in his view that God’s existence is his essence, there is another question that is relevant to the topic of this thread: The medieval dispute about the eternity of the world.

@Veritas6, I think you would find this topic very interesting.

The medieval scholastics had differing opinions on whether it is possible for God to have made the universe eternal.

(Note: They agreed that – as a matter of fact-- the world is not eternal; but this is different from asking "Could God have made the world eternal?)

Thomas believed that we knew that the world is non-eternal and had a beginning in time only because of Divine Revelation and the doctrine of Creation. He didn’t think we could know it through reason. Furthermore, he thought that God could have made the world eternal if had wanted to.

Bonaventure disagrees with Thomas in regards to the latter. He thinks that an eternal universe is impossible and therefore we can know through reason that the universe is not eternal.

It’s a VERY interesting topic.
Because one of the ideas considered is whether and act of Creation and the eternity of the world are mutually exclusive.

(This boggles the mind but, like is said, it’s a fascinating topic.)

And we should point out to our atheist friends that this topic of the relationship between God and the universe, eternity and time, is nothing new…

 

[Wesrock]

What do you think about his argument against libertarian free will:

“Libertarian free will requires at least 3 things: (1) We are in control of our will; (2) Our mind is causally effective; (3) In the same situation we could have done otherwise. But logically that’s impossible, because:

P1: Our thoughts (mind or will) is either caused or uncaused, no other option is available
P2: If our thoughts (or whatever caused them) are caused we cannot be in control of them
P3: If our thoughts (or whatever caused them) are uncaused we cannot be in control of them
P4: It is logically impossible to choose our thoughts
P5: Being in control of our thoughts (mind or will or whatever caused them) is a requirement of libertarian free will
C: Therefore libertarian free will is logically impossible”

P2 is wrong.
P3 is correct, I believe.
P4 is a baseless assertion.

On 3, I agree it is wrong. Free will is to have the capacity to choose. I have the capacity for multiple choices, and those choices are made based on our knowledge and desires. If our knowledge and desires are exactly the same, why would we expect our choice to be different if we repeated it multiple times? What makes it free will is that it’s my knowedge and my desires which influence the decision. The decision comes from principles intrinsic to me. I’m not being moved about like a puppet. I’d be more worried if the outcome was different in repeated situations where I have the same exact knowledge and desires, because that implies there’s something other than me determining the outcome.

 

[STT]

So god’s nature is both necessary and not necessary. Since Thomists argue that god’s will is identical to his substance, it’s therefore identical to his essence. And since they claim god’s essence is necessary, and yet it isn’t necessary for god to will this particular universe, god’s nature entails a contradiction for being both necessary and not necessary.”

I think you are correct with your observation.

 

[STT]

P1: Our thoughts (mind or will) is either caused or uncaused, no other option is available

Our thoughts are caused.

P2: If our thoughts (or whatever caused them) are caused we cannot be in control of them

That is not correct since we cause our thoughts and have control on them. For example I can stop thinking whenever I want. It is however not clear to me that how a thought is initiated.

P3: If our thoughts (or whatever caused them) are uncaused we cannot be in control of them

Our thoughts are certainly caused and this has no relevance.

P4: It is logically impossible to choose our thoughts

This is incorrect.

P5: Being in control of our thoughts (mind or will or whatever caused them) is a requirement of libertarian free will

This is correct.

C: Therefore libertarian free will is logically impossible”

This doesn’t follow.

 

[Veritas6]

Here’s his argument against souls existing. He states: bosons (force fields), fermions (make up objects of matter), protons, neutrons, electrons, and gravity make up the Core Theory which makes up everything we experience in our everyday lives. He argues:

1. Any non-metaphoric version of a soul requires a force that has to be able to effect the atoms that make up your body (lest our bodies and behavior be fundamentally explained purely physically)
2. Core Theory rules out any possibility of particles or forces not already accounted for within it that can have any effect on things made of atoms (like people).
3. Core Theory is true.
4. Therefore, no non-metaphoric versions of a soul that have effectiveness on things made of atoms exist.
5. Naturalism entails that there be no souls that have effectiveness on things made of atoms.
6. Almost every version of theism does claim human beings have such souls, including every major religion.
7. Therefore, the probability of Core Theory and naturalism is greater than the probability of Core Theory and theism. All things being equal, this makes naturalism more likely than theism.

My question is, how would the soul interact with the body? Is it something outside of science that cannot be detected? If so, how would we know it to be true? This guy is assuming naturalism, and as a result everything is nicely aligning with his worldview; easily debunking anything outside naturalism.

 

[IWantGod]

easily debunking anything outside naturalism.

If it assumes naturalism, then that is hardly a refutation of the existence of souls. It’s a circular argument and therefore fails before it even begins. You have to prove the primacy of physical reality before you can say that all things are subject to it.

My question is, how would the soul interact with the body?

In a manner that transcends physical laws.

If so, how would we know it to be true?

If you accept freewill or intentionality or the goal direction intrinsic to the activity of the intellect, then that is one way of disproving a materialistic definition of a person.

 

[IWantGod]

“1. The traditional notion of god in classical theism is that of a timeless, changeless, immaterial mind, who also must be infinitely good, infinitely wise, and can do anything logically possible.

True. However what might be possible for us might not be possible for God. For example God cannot change. God’s nature is the ground of all possibility and can do everything that is true to God’s nature.

1. All of god’s will and desires must exist timelessly and eternally in an unchanging, frozen state.

It is incorrect to describe God as existing in a frozen state as that would imply something arbitrary as if God just so happens to be frozen.

God has the fullness of reality. This means that everything that could possibly be true about God’s nature is fully or eternally actual. God does not lack any actuality. You cannot add more reality to God. This is why God does not change because God is not potentially more of anything. God’s being is complete. In other-words God perfectly exists.

1. That would mean that god timelessly and eternally had the desire to create our particular universe, and not some other universe, or no universe.

We don’t exactly know what God has or has not created. But it is true that God timelessly created something, including our universe. Also, it is incorrect to say that God had a desire as that would imply a lack of what one desires.

1. Our universe is not logically necessary; it didn’t have to exist, and god didn’t have to create it.

God is not forced to create anything. This is true since God is ultimate reality and therefore there is nothing other than God to force him.

1. The theist would have to show that it was logically necessary for god to create

No. A theist only has to prove that God created our reality. A theist does not have to know why God created anything. It does not follow necessarily that in proving God’s existence we would comprehend his reasons for creating. It’s not unreasonable to suggest that such things are not in our intellectual powers to discern given that we are only finite beings. If there is any brute fact at all as a consequence, then it is an epistemological brute fact, not an ontological brute fact. In other-words it’s simply beyond our comprehension.

There is no way to answer this question, even in principle, with something logically necessary.

Theologically speaking, we already have the answer. God’s nature is love, and God created out of his eternal love.

This idea is consistent with the metaphysical argument for God since in the act of causing physical reality to exist, including ourselves, God is essentially sharing reality with us.

1. Thus at least one brute fact must exist even if god exists.”

Wrong. If for nothing more than the fact that brute facts are an ontological impossibility.

 

[Wesrock]

1. Any non-metaphoric version of a soul requires a force that has to be able to effect the atoms that make up your body (lest our bodies and behavior be fundamentally explained purely physically)

He says “any” version but then seems to only consider a neo-cartesian version of the soul. It has no bearing on the Thomist concept of the soul, for example.

1. Core Theory is true.

The Standard Model seems like our best model yet, but to declare it absolutely comprehensive and without questions is inaccurate.

 

[STT]

I agree with his argument. I think that each human being is a collection of agents: Society of Mind - Wikipedia

 

[Veritas6]

What do you think of his argument against God as pure act:

“A timeless god cannot actualize a potential because that would require time. A changeless god cannot actualize a potential because that would require change. Thus the very notion of a creating and intervening god as ‘pure act’ makes no sense…

A timeless, unchangeable being of pure act and no potential ‘whatsoever’ cannot become a physical being (as the Christian god does) or a creator. Going from a potential creator to an actual creator actualizes a potential; it requires change. I’ve heard a lot of what seems like special pleading from theists trying to respond to this. They’ll simply just assert that god is a creator, even when he hasn’t created anything. That’s like me asserting I’m a father without having a child. Or, some Thomists will argue that this isn’t a change in god’s nature , which they define as pure act and existence. They might distinguish between active and passive potency.

Active potency is ‘the principle of change or of acting upon another inasmuch as it is another thing; a power; the capacity to do or make; a principle of action.’ Passive potency is ‘the principle which receives change from another inasmuch as it is another being. 2. the capacity to receive, to be acted on, to be modified. 3. the material cause; the modifiable (determinable) principle in a being.’

God lacks passive potency, Thomists claim, but how can god create or become Jesus and not change? If all change is changed by another, god cannot just have active potency. Becoming a physical man represents an ontological change in god and a potential that he has, and to say that god’s nature is pure ‘act and existence’ doesn’t avoid the problem because act and existence are a part of what ontology is. So to have the potential to acquire a physical form, would represent an ontological change, which is a change in nature. Thus, I can’t see how the Christian notion of god is incoherent with the notion of god as ‘Pure Actuality, lacking any potentiality whatsoever.’”

 

[Veritas6]

He also argues against how God can cause the universe into existence if the universe had no time before for a cause to happen:

“But even on the A-theory of time, to apply causality to the universe assumes there was nothing, and then — poof — god created the universe. That’s not what the standard big bang model says. The big bang model says there was a first moment of the universe; there never was a time before it for a cause to happen. Given that the beginning of the universe was the beginning of time and not a beginning in time, the universe did not ‘pop’ into existence out of nothing, and the fallacy of composition applies.“

“Under eternalism, the universe never truly ‘comes into existence.’ It’s impossible to conceive of an eternal universe being created or not existing, because to imagine it being created or not existing is to be forced to imagine it not being eternal. But even under the A-theory, to imagine a cause of the universe outside of space and time is incoherent. All causes require time and space.“

I’d really appreciate your help on these posts, I’m having a small crisis of faith and it’s difficult for me to fully trust in God.

 

[Neithan]

A timeless god cannot actualize a potential because that would require time.

Whoever is writing this is working really hard to confuse themselves. Don’t fall into the quagmire with them. God does not need to “actualize a potential” because God is pure act as CAF posters above have already stated. [The attempted argument against this is begging the question and misunderstanding the concept of eternal act in nearly every sentence.]

Perhaps you should stop reading this turgid prose and meditate: “Be still and know that I am God.” (Psalm 46:10). This is not meant to be fideist or obscurantist, but to clear your mind and respond from a place of peace. I suggest reading the book of Job. All this Internet sophistry is agitating you.

Intellectual arguments are not enough to sustain faith; but I do sympathize that they can seem convincing sometimes, although the root of a crisis of faith is always in our will, and not in our intellect. I will pray for you, and please pray for me, too. Let’s also pray for this person who has no faith and is clamouring against the very source of existence.

I just want to add I’m impressed with the logical precision of responses in this thread.

 

[STT]

A timeless god cannot actualize a potential because that would require time. A changeless god cannot actualize a potential because that would require change. Thus the very notion of a creating and intervening god as ‘pure act’ makes no sense…

I have to say that I agree with him. In fact I had several threads on the same topic.

 

[Neithan]

Okay. Our imaginations get in the way, and we assume unnecessary constructs. What is time? A measure of change. What is change? A measure of potency. Timeless, changeless, means there is no measure, no space-time delay. Think of eternal act more as “all at once,” and not just “one act.”

 

[STT]

Was there a point that only God existed? If yes, then God is subject to time. Otherwise the concept of creation is problematic since the creation exists eternally with God.

 

[Neithan]

False dilemma. God eternally creates ex nihilo. Time is the experience of a finite creature.

 

[STT]

False dilemma. God eternally creates ex nihilo . Time is the experience of a finite creature.

It is a correct dilemma. Was there a point that only God existed?

 

[Neithan]

Was there a point that only God existed?

This is begging the question. You’re assuming that God is in time. There is no “point in time” in eternity.

 

[STT]

How do you define the act of creation from God’s perspective?

If God was never alone then the creation exists eternally with God.