Existence of God and the Five proofs?

[Questioning_1]

Two questions basically.

1.) I looked over the Existence of God in the Summa, and I really don’t get it. I looked of Kreeft’s explanation of it in his shorter summa and i just don’t get it. How can you prove God from causality-motion-unmoved mover etc.

For one who is having many difficulties believing in a Divine Creator, can you simplify this for me?

2.) Any other suggestions on simple–(and i stress simple) works by other authors on the existence of God. Outlines? Essays? I am ot a academic and the simpler the better. (like i said i have the summa of the summa and handbook of Christian apologetics.)

 

[dmelosi]

Two questions basically.

1.) I looked over the Existence of God in the Summa, and I really don’t get it. I looked of Kreeft’s explanation of it in his shorter summa and i just don’t get it. How can you prove God from causality-motion-unmoved mover etc.

For one who is having many difficulties believing in a Divine Creator, can you simplify this for me?

2.) Any other suggestions on simple–(and i stress simple) works by other authors on the existence of God. Outlines? Essays? I am ot a academic and the simpler the better. (like i said i have the summa of the summa and handbook of Christian apologetics.)

C.S. Lewis has a book Mere Christianity that has some chapters on the existence of God. I think it is only a couple hundred pages long. (have not read it in awhile)

 

[cpayne]

Two questions basically.

1.) I looked over the Existence of God in the Summa, and I really don’t get it. I looked of Kreeft’s explanation of it in his shorter summa and i just don’t get it. How can you prove God from causality-motion-unmoved mover etc.

For one who is having many difficulties believing in a Divine Creator, can you simplify this for me?

2.) Any other suggestions on simple–(and i stress simple) works by other authors on the existence of God. Outlines? Essays? I am ot a academic and the simpler the better. (like i said i have the summa of the summa and handbook of Christian apologetics.)

The idea behind causality / motion / and so on, is that all things in the universe, including the universe itself, are contingent in their existence; that is, the universe is changeable and could be otherwise than what it is, as is proven by its motion / change / cause-effect relationships, etc. Anything that comes into existence or changes is contingent.

If something’s existence is contingent, it cannot cause itself to exist; it has to depend on something outside of itself for its existence. (My own existence, for example, is contingent; I depend on my parents and many other outside factors for my own continued existence.)

If the natural universe itself is contingent, it cannot have a “natural” cause for its existence, since it cannot cause itself to exist; its cause has to exist outside of itself.

Aquinas concludes that the cause of the natural universe, existing outside of the natural universe and logically prior to the natural universe, is what we are talking about when we say “God.” This is the basic idea behind the first three of the “Five Proofs.”

Hope this helps some.

 

[michael_legna]

The answer is you cannot prove God’s existence from physical evidence or logic. Modern science has answers to all of Aquinas’ arguments, they may be rather deep for the non-scientist but they do exist.

But the Catechism does not speak of these arguments as proofs, at least not in the sense science or logic would think of as a proof, but more as converging and convincing arguments.

CCC
31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

 

[john_doran]

The answer is you cannot prove God’s existence from physical evidence or logic. Modern science has answers to all of Aquinas’ arguments, they may be rather deep for the non-scientist but they do exist.

not sure if you’re catholic or not, but the church has proclaimed as a dogmatic (de fide) truth, that knowledge of god’s existence can be achieved by the light of ntural reason.

and, as a matter of fact, modern science does not have answers to all of aquinas’ arguments (not least of all because not all of aquinas’ arguments are scientific…).

still, though, i’d love to see the answers of modern science to which you’re referring…

 

[Ahimsa]

not sure if you’re catholic or not, but the church has proclaimed as a dogmatic (de fide) truth, that knowledge of god’s existence can be achieved by the light of ntural reason.

“Knowledge of God’s existence via reason” is different from mathematical-type proof of God’s existence.

 

[john_doran]

“Knowledge of God’s existence via reason” is different from mathematical-type proof of God’s existence.

by some definition of “knowledge” and “proof”, sure - but there is an obvious colloquial sense and use of those terms according to which one can have knowledge of something only if one can prove that thing; i assumed (perhaps incorrectly, but i suspect not) michael_legna was using that colloquial…

 

[punkforchrist]

Questioning?:

For one who is having many difficulties believing in a Divine Creator, can you simplify this for me?

William Lane Craig has a book, “Reasonable Faith”, that you might like.

Aquinas’ first way is my personal favorite. It can be summed up in just three short premises, which if true, necessarily infer the conclusion that God exists.

1. We observe things that are in motion.
2. Whatever is in motion is moved by another.
3. This cannot proceed to infinity.
4. Therefore, there must be an unmoved Prime Mover.

This Prime Mover, Thomas Aquinas says, is what we call God. Let’s take a look at each premise.

(1) is highly certain, since if things are not in motion (motion = “change”, not just movement from one location to another), then all observation is illusory. In fact, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation right now without motion!

(2) is also almost indubitably true. Think of it this way. No one who denies this premise actually believes it. While everyone is reading this thread, no one expects that a bear might pop into existence in their kitchen and start going through their refrigerator! Such a thought would be irrational. The fact is that we have such a strong intuition that things have causes that to deny it is virtually to say that our senses are fundamentally flawed. Rain falls from clouds, plants grow from seeds, and Democrats raise taxes (okay, that last one was just joke).

(3) is usually the most controversial premise, but again, I think it is highly probable. A number of arguments are presented in support of it, but let’s just focus on one for now. Imagine that a prospector is collecting gold. He has an infinitely deep bag, into which he is dropping gold coins. Here’s the question: will he ever fill up the bag? It would seem not, since before he could ever do so, there would always and indefinitely be more space to fill. Likewise, if there were an infinite chain of movers, then we would never arrive at the present state of motion. But since we have arrived at the present, then we must conclude that the chain of movers is finite and that there is an unmoved Prime Mover.

Hope this helps!

Blessings

 

[michael_legna]

john doran:

not sure if you’re catholic or not, but the church has proclaimed as a dogmatic (de fide) truth, that knowledge of god’s existence can be achieved by the light of ntural reason.

Yes, I am a cradle Catholic and I am in agreement with the Church that we can know of God’s existence from these very same converging and convincing arguments the Catechism distinguishes from rigorous logical proofs. But knowledge does not always come from proofs in the formal logical sense. I see other posters have already answered for me and expressed this in terms of the difference between formal and colloquial senses and that is a sufficient answer I think.
john doran:

and, as a matter of fact, modern science does not have answers to all of aquinas’ arguments…

Are you a high energy Physicist? Because the claim as to what science does and does not have could really only be made by someone with those credentials (at least with regard to the arguments I am thinking of). I am trained in nuclear physics and have seen arguments that address the issues Aquinas raises.
john doran:

(not least of all because not all of aquinas’ arguments are scientific…)

True they are philosophical, but they rest on observations of nature and how it behaves, which means they rest on his scientific understanding of the world around us, which in his day was a very simplistic pre-Newtonian view.

Here is an example of how a philosophical argument gets beyond its reach by relying on the arguers knowledge of physical reality. I choose it because it is common enough that we have all heard it before.

The philosopher attempt to prove the universe is infinite and say that all one has to do in this thought experiment is go to the edge of the universe to see what is there and shoot an arrow. If it hits something, some sort of wall or something else, one need simply drill a hole in the wall and shoot the arrow through the wall. Obviously the surface of the wall cannot be the edge of the universe and even if you have to dig and dig to get through the wall, at worst (for his argument) all you are doing is finding a new deeper surface to the wall and thus extending the universe from what was originally thought to be the limits before hand. Since you can do this ad infinitum you can claim the universe to be infinite. All sound reasoning in a Euclidian universe. But all you have to do to shatter this argument is ask what happens if you shoot the arrow and it hits you in the back of the head. See the fault with the argument lies with the limited understanding of the philosopher’s grasp of physical reality, not with the form of the argument. The same problem exists in each of Aquinas’ arguments due to issues like quantum fluctuations, deSitter space and other principles of high energy physics.

 

[michael_legna]

john doran:

still, though, i’d love to see the answers of modern science to which you’re referring…

1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can’t be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn’t itself moved by another). This is God.

Unfortunately because there exists even in a complete vacuum, in completely empty space, a constant fluctuation of the quantum potential. It is similar to the pair production and annihilation we see in one of the shielding effect of dense materials. This fluctation of potential can impact, as any potential does, any thing around it and thus cause motion. This quantum fluctuation does not have a underlying cause other than it being the nature of the instability of space. I don’t think anyone wants to equate either this instability or the quantum fluctuation itself with God.

2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can’t be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn’t itself caused by another). This is God.

There is a postulated form of space called deSitter space which is a possible underlying cause of the Big Bang and in fact makes possible the existence of many separate big bangs and many separate universes. Once again it is the mere nature of space and time in this deSitter space that causes these spontaneous generations of universes. It is an inherent characteristic of the space time continuum, that inherent characteristic certainly is not God.

3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing – and so there would be nothing now – which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

This also goes back to the issue of deSitter space because it can be nothing but empty space and whole universes can arise out of it.

4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.

This one relies less on the concepts of nature than any of his others, but it still relies on the idea of greatness and that is a term of evaluation; and an evaluation is only possible if one understands worth and that is linked to usefulness and that relates to our environment. We first have to ask how one is expected to determine in an absolute sense somethings greatness and how that greatness is to be transfered from the greatest thing to those of lesser greatness? But beyond that we should realize that if whole universes can come into existence from the nothingness of space and the inherent characteristics of mathematical space times it is impossible that the greatness of anything is passed onto to these spontaneously formed bodies, and they each contain their own self identifying characteristics.

5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.

This one has been disproven by so many arguments it is hardly worth covering again. The watch maker and the watch idea is patently absurd, since there are many known complex items which can come together by chance. In terms of it acting towards an end that is only based on our judgment as to what an end is. If something acts so as to reach a conclusion we see no need for, it may appear chaotic or entirely random to us, (much as the weather or eclipses appeared to primatives) but to a superior intelligence it might appear to be a valid end (as most of us see weather formations or eclipses today). So acting towards an end is a relative concept and it can in some sense occur by random events or even as the result of chaos and needs no intelligent designer.

Please note that I am not implying these issues prove there is no God. I firmly believe in God. But it comes from faith. I am also not trying to say that these arguments are of necessity formally sufficient to disprove Aquinas’ assertions or arguments. That would require years of philosophical debate. I am just saying that there are enough bizarre concepts in modern science, (that Aquinas could never have know and taken into account), that his arguments are not convincing to a modern scientist, in much the same way as the shooting arrow argument I laid out in the post above.

 

[john_doran]

Yes, I am a cradle Catholic and I am in agreement with the Church that we can know of God’s existence from these very same converging and convincing arguments the Catechism distinguishes from rigorous logical proofs. But knowledge does not always come from proofs in the formal logical sense. I see other posters have already answered for me and expressed this in terms of the difference between formal and colloquial senses and that is a sufficient answer I think.

fair enough. but i disagree that the arguments for the existence of god are not rigorous logical arguments: they (or at least the successful ones) are in fact sound.

your passage from the CCC does not actually say that the theistic arguments are not “logical” - it merely distinguishes them from the methodology of proving hypotheses in the natural sciences.

 

[michael_legna]

john doran:

but i disagree that the arguments for the existence of god are not rigorous logical arguments: they (or at least the successful ones) are in fact sound.

Ah, but what is a successful logical argument. It is one that is both completely sound in its formulation and does not rely on any logically fallacious form (a point which can be argued for years and years in many cases) AND it must not be based on an erroneous postulate or premise. All of Aquinas’ arguments are of the form of simile, as in the universe behaves this way, so we can conclude that God must be thus and so. This is standard Catholic teaching, that God is revealed through His creation. However, if you misunderstand His creation and how it behaves you misunderstand God, and your proof may not apply any longer.
john doran:

your passage from the CCC does not actually say that the theistic arguments are not “logical” - it merely distinguishes them from the methodology of proving hypotheses in the natural sciences.

Do you think that the natural sciences do not use rigorous logic in their application and extensions of observation? If these arguments don’t qualify as proofs in the natural sciences they are not going to qualify as logical proofs either.

But the point is that faith is so much a better way of knowing, just as Christ taught us through Thomas’ attempt at requiring physical proof.

Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

[john_doran]

1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can’t be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn’t itself moved by another). This is God.

Unfortunately because there exists even in a complete vacuum, in completely empty space, a constant fluctuation of the quantum potential. It is similar to the pair production and annihilation we see in one of the shielding effect of dense materials. This fluctation of potential can impact, as any potential does, any thing around it and thus cause motion. This quantum fluctuation does not have a underlying cause other than it being the nature of the instability of space.

quantum fluctuations have no cause that we know of. which, of course, isn’t the same thing as there not being a cause.

your claim that there isn’t a cause is based on canonical QM interpretation, which is itself a piece of philosophy, not science; there are those who disagree, for example, hidden variables theorists.

on a more basic level, it strikes me as nonsensical to jettison the causal principle based on a highly speculative piece of scientific philosophy; the entire scientific endeavour is based on the causal principle, after all.

michael_legna:

2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can’t be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn’t itself caused by another). This is God.

There is a postulated form of space called deSitter space which is a possible underlying cause of the Big Bang and in fact makes possible the existence of many separate big bangs and many separate universes. Once again it is the mere nature of space and time in this deSitter space that causes these spontaneous generations of universes. It is an inherent characteristic of the space time continuum, that inherent characteristic certainly is not God.

again, this is a rejection of the causal principle in favor of a highly speculaive bit of scientific theorizing - this hardly constitutes a disproof of either the first cause argument or the causal principle.

but that is as may be: exactly how does a de sitter space (a GR space with a positive vacuum energy density) “cause” the big bang?

michael_legna:

3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing – and so there would be nothing now – which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

This also goes back to the issue of deSitter space because it can be nothing but empty space and whole universes can arise out of it.

the quantum vacuum is not “nothing”. and even if it was, simply saying “the universe can just come into being out of empty space” does not constitute a refutation of aquinas’ reasoning, logical, scientific, or otherwise.

michael_legna:

Please note that I am not implying these issues prove there is no God. I firmly believe in God. But it comes from faith. I am also not trying to say that these arguments are of necessity formally sufficient to disprove Aquinas’ assertions or arguments. That would require years of philosophical debate. I am just saying that there are enough bizarre concepts in modern science, (that Aquinas could never have know and taken into account), that his arguments are not convincing to a modern scientist, in much the same way as the shooting arrow argument I laid out in the post above.

whether or not they are convincing has got little to do with their logical characteristics as “proofs” or “good arguments”; there are plenty of scientists that are convinced by bad arguments (e.g. von neumann’s “proof” that hidden variables theories are impossible), and unconvinced by good ones (e.g. the corpuscular theory of light).

 

[john_doran]

Do you think that the natural sciences do not use rigorous logic in their application and extensions of observation? If these arguments don’t qualify as proofs in the natural sciences they are not going to qualify as logical proofs either.

of course they use logic, but they also necessarily rely on empirical observation in a way that pure logic and math do not. that is the only point i was making: you can have rigorous logical proofs that are not scientific (i.e. not empirical).

michael_legna:

But the point is that faith is so much a better way of knowing, just as Christ taught us through Thomas’ attempt at requiring physical proof.

i don’t require physical proof - it’s just that it happens to be there…

the bible also talks about knowing god through the marvels of his creation: the theistic proofs are just examples of this kind of knowing.

 

[vz71]

1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can’t be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn’t itself moved by another). This is God.
Unfortunately because there exists even in a complete vacuum, in completely empty space, a constant fluctuation of the quantum potential. It is similar to the pair production and annihilation we see in one of the shielding effect of dense materials. This fluctation of potential can impact, as any potential does, any thing around it and thus cause motion. This quantum fluctuation does not have a underlying cause other than it being the nature of the instability of space. I don’t think anyone wants to equate either this instability or the quantum fluctuation itself with God.

2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can’t be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn’t itself caused by another). This is God.
There is a postulated form of space called deSitter space which is a possible underlying cause of the Big Bang and in fact makes possible the existence of many separate big bangs and many separate universes. Once again it is the mere nature of space and time in this deSitter space that causes these spontaneous generations of universes. It is an inherent characteristic of the space time continuum, that inherent characteristic certainly is not God.

3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing – and so there would be nothing now – which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.
This also goes back to the issue of deSitter space because it can be nothing but empty space and whole universes can arise out of it.

4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.
This one relies less on the concepts of nature than any of his others, but it still relies on the idea of greatness and that is a term of evaluation; and an evaluation is only possible if one understands worth and that is linked to usefulness and that relates to our environment. We first have to ask how one is expected to determine in an absolute sense somethings greatness and how that greatness is to be transfered from the greatest thing to those of lesser greatness? But beyond that we should realize that if whole universes can come into existence from the nothingness of space and the inherent characteristics of mathematical space times it is impossible that the greatness of anything is passed onto to these spontaneously formed bodies, and they each contain their own self identifying characteristics.

5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.
This one has been disproven by so many arguments it is hardly worth covering again. The watch maker and the watch idea is patently absurd, since there are many known complex items which can come together by chance. In terms of it acting towards an end that is only based on our judgment as to what an end is. If something acts so as to reach a conclusion we see no need for, it may appear chaotic or entirely random to us, (much as the weather or eclipses appeared to primatives) but to a superior intelligence it might appear to be a valid end (as most of us see weather formations or eclipses today). So acting towards an end is a relative concept and it can in some sense occur by random events or even as the result of chaos and needs no intelligent designer.

At the risk of having someone claim I cannot weigh in on this because I’m not one of the educated few…

All that these answers do is move the prime mover back a step.
None eliminate the need.

1. quantum fluctuation - Great. Where’d that come from?
   Prior to creation, there was *nothing. *

*2) *deSitter space - Again, where is this? It apparently exists (is theorized anyway), but it had to come from somewhere.

1. “goes back to the issue of deSitter space” - right…my response goes back a couple of lines.
2. Well, I concede a point there. This seems to argue a necessity of God simply from a need.
3. “there are many known complex items which can come together by chance” - Except a watch? Sorry, but this does not address the argument either. Naturally occurring complex systems do not indicate that ALL systems occurr naturally; nor do they indicate that God cannot have played a part.

smile.

 

[michael_legna]

john doran:

quantum fluctuations have no cause that we know of. which, of course, isn’t the same thing as there not being a cause.

Ah but once again we get back to the form of argument Aquinas used, that of simile. If there exists the possibility even of a self generating or propagating event which can generate movement, it can in principle be recognized as a potential candidate within nature for this prime mover and Aquinas’ simile (basing theology on observed nature and its behavior) falls apart.
john doran:

your claim that there isn’t a cause is based on canonical QM interpretation, which is itself a piece of philosophy, not science; there are those who disagree, for example, hidden variables theorists.

True but you really don’t want to try to bring hidden variables and many worlds theory into a discussion of God as originator as it will only hurt the approach of Aquinas to use similarities as justification for his conclusions.
john doran:

on a more basic level, it strikes me as nonsensical to jettison the causal principle based on a highly speculative piece of scientific philosophy; the entire scientific endeavour is based on the causal principle, after all.

I don’t think identifying a possible first cause is a jettisoning of the casual principle, otherwise identifying God as the first cause would also be jettisoning the casual principle. Instead I am saying that this possible first cause, that does not fit Aquinas’ claimed characteristics of a first cause would not be recognized as God by anyone, so Aquinas’ proof does not satisfy.
john doran:

again, this is a rejection of the causal principle in favor of a highly speculaive bit of scientific theorizing - this hardly constitutes a disproof of either the first cause argument or the causal principle.

I said these were not disproving Aquinas, they are merely showing that his argument, being based on similarness as it is, does not cover all the aspects of nature it needs to in order to come to the conclusion it does.

It is as if I argue that
john doran:

but that is as may be: exactly how does a de sitter space (a GR space with a positive vacuum energy density) “cause” the big bang?

I am not an expert in this area, so I could not tell you exactly how, but have seen the talks by those capable of doing the applicable mathematics . It has a positive cosmological constant which cause inherent, unavoidable expansion which results in the generation of mass.
john doran:

the quantum vacuum is not “nothing”.

Oh really, then what is it? What is the media you propose as an ether to support this quantum fluctuation?
john doran:

and even if it was, simply saying “the universe can just come into being out of empty space” does not constitute a refutation of aquinas’ reasoning, logical, scientific, or otherwise.

No it is showing that the similarness he depends on for the basis of his arguments is not present and so his conclusions are not rigorous and should not be seen as such or as logical proofs. It is much better to accept them as the Catechism describes them - “converging and convincing arguments.”
john doran:

whether or not they are convincing has got little to do with their logical characteristics as “proofs” or “good arguments”;

Sure it does if the reason they are not convincing is because Aquinas has describe nature incorrectly or inadequately and then developed similes on those false understandings. His conclusion cannot help but be unconvincing to those who have a deeper understanding of how God’s creation really behaves.

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi Michael,

michael_legna:

This quantum fluctuation does not have a underlying cause other than it being the nature of the instability of space. I don’t think anyone wants to equate either this instability or the quantum fluctuation itself with God.

I suppose I would make two observations about this. 1) The word, “cause”, may need a very precise definition. If all you mean is that some things can be causeless in the sense that they are random, then I agree. However, that is not to say that things can pop into being out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit: out of nothing comes nothing. 2) Quantum vacuums (at least as I have understood the relevant literature discussing them) are not devoid of being, or even just simply empty space. Rather, they are “energy minima”, as Barrow and Tipler point out, which means that they only have less energy than what is expected (i.e. in Dirac’s equation). But they still have rich physical properties, however subtle they may be.

Blessings

 

[michael_legna]

vz71:

All that these answers do is move the prime mover back a step.
None eliminate the need.

Sure they do if these answers are in anyway inherently self generating.

vz71:

1. quantum fluctuation - Great. Where’d that come from?
   Prior to creation, there was *nothing. *

No quantum fluctuations come into existence spontaneously from the vacuum. It is an inherent characteristic of them and thus of nature, one Aquinas could not account for since it was unknown to him and because his arguments are based on the concept of simile between nature and God’s role in nature he comes to a conclusion that cannot be supported once you know nature may not behave as he claimed as a premise in his argument.

vz71:

*2) *deSitter space - Again, where is this? It apparently exists (is theorized anyway), but it had to come from somewhere.

1. “goes back to the issue of deSitter space” - right…my response goes back a couple of lines.

It is a solution to the mathematics of General Relativity and can arise from nothing to generate its own space time sections which would be individual isolated universes. Again this is an inherent characteristic of the solutions to the equations, and represents a characteristic of nature that does not fit into Aquinas’ approach of arguing from similars.

vz71:

1. Well, I concede a point there. This seems to argue a necessity of God simply from a need.

A need that may not even be provable given our modern understanding of the “nature” of nature for lack of a better way to put it.

vz71:

1. “there are many known complex items which can come together by chance” - Except a watch? Sorry, but this does not address the argument either. Naturally occurring complex systems do not indicate that ALL systems occurr naturally; nor do they indicate that God cannot have played a part.

It does address the argument because since he is arguing this is true about God, since it is true about nature, then he has to be arguing that it is always true about nature. Otherwise one could postulate that God was not involved in the creation of these chance occurances. Aquinas’ argument from similars must be all inclusive or it does not stand.

 

[michael_legna]

Hi Michael,

I suppose I would make two observations about this. 1) The word, “cause”, may need a very precise definition. If all you mean is that some things can be causeless in the sense that they are random, then I agree. However, that is not to say that things can pop into being out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit: out of nothing comes nothing. 2) Quantum vacuums (at least as I have understood the relevant literature discussing them) are not devoid of being, or even just simply empty space. Rather, they are “energy minima”, as Barrow and Tipler point out, which means that they only have less energy than what is expected (i.e. in Dirac’s equation). But they still have rich physical properties, however subtle they may be.

You make a good but very technical point. The discussion of minima is a postulating of what is going on below our absolute threshhold of observation. Can we do that? Do we say that virtual particle exist then? Do we end up willing to claim that the Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle applies only to us, but God can see these particles? Does that even help us in this discussion?

The problem comes then as to whether Aquinas could argue as he does given this new view of the world. See God’s creation is suppose to reveal Him to us. If we have to accept virtual particles as not being observable to us and thus quantum fluctuations as being not just a minimum but actually arising from nothing (from our point of view) then we have to say Aquinas argument from the similarities with nature fails due to a bad premise. If we accept that these are real things with an underlying cause (one we can never observe because of limits on sensitivity of instruments) then we have to admit that God is not truly revealed in His creation (at least not the part we can ever see). Since I believe the Church I do not accept that God cannot reveal Himself to us in His creation. I just understand that to mean what the Catechism says - that these are not true proofs, but more converging and convincing arguments.

 

[Ghosty]

This quantum fluctuation does not have a underlying cause other than it being the nature of the instability of space.

I think this statement misses the point of the First Mover argument. The quantum fluctuation is NOT the source of its own being, and can’t be. The entire point of the First Mover argument is that something must be able to account for its own being, it’s own “movement of existence”, unless it’s God. Quantum fluctuations are not the source of their own being, are not the source of their own existence, do not “move themselves from potential existence to actual existence” because they can’t exist before themselves and therefore can’t make themselves. Likewise a vacuum can’t account for itself, as it’s not a true “nothingness” since it has laws and a nature of its own. This nature must either account for itself, or it must be created. True void can’t even be spoken of, as it lacks any defining characteristics unlike the vacuum you’re describing. Since the vacuum has defining characteristics, it has a real (if immaterial) substance, and this substance must either account for itself or be a creature. Until you can explain how utter vacuum can account for itself you have no ground to stand on in saying that it “simply exists”. Vacuum is either being in itself, or it is not. Is it your argument that vacuum is indeed being in itself?Your arguments against the next 3 proofs fall into similar errors.Your argument against the Fifth Proof is totally unrelated to Aquinas’ actual argument. The “argument from Design” has nothing to do with irreducible complexity like the watch and the watchmaker. The real Fifth Proof is actually closely related to the First in that it points out that “natural laws” operate according to a kind of mechanical certainty rather than a guided will. Since objects without a will can’t operate freely, but according to set laws, and only a will can craft laws then there must be an “ultimate will” behind the natural movements of the universe. Laws don’t just “happen”, unless of perhaps you can somehow prove that utter vacuum is the true foundation of being in the universe.Peace and God bless!