How does God move the world?

[Linusthe2nd]

Is it at all reasonable to talk about “movement” with regards to existence? Our intuition about movement is built on things which move in a continuum. If we imagine someone walking from their home to the local library, they occupy lots of places in between their house and the library in succession. It is while they are in those successive intermediate states that we say that they are moving. However, existence is not a continuum, it is binary. You can’t half-exist; you either do or you don’t. There are no intermediate states to occupy in succession.

Now, perhaps you mean move in a different sense. Perhaps you are referring to movement as a “reason why.” Then I must ask the question “why would we use the word movement when we mean ‘reason why’?” I suspect it is partly for historical reasons and partly to make people bring intuition about “movement” into a discussion about “reasons why” where it may not apply.

Certainly all change and movement are from something to something else, not only in the sense of going from home to the grocery store, but in the senses of growing older, growing fatter, getting white haired, being born, dying, etc. And at every point in the process of change " something " exists. What exists are the things that are undergoing change.

There is a big difference between causes and movement/change. The father and mother are the causes of the son. The son is the result of the change that results between the seed and the egg. That is a huge difference.

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

The notion that Earth is at the center of the universe surrounded by celestial spheres moved by angels was thoroughly debunked several centuries ago.

It is easy to understand how a person can believe that the earth is the center of the material universe. How often do we hear people say “What a beautiful sunset” (does the sun ever set?) The senses are incapable of lying, but the mind can misinterpret what the senses sense . Thus there is “subjective (relative) reality or truth”. Later by scientific methods it is discovered that the objective truth is just the opposite. This fact does no necessarily negate the truth of other convictions. Is thinking that the earth is the center of the material universe far fetched. Eg. As far as we know, planet earth is the only planet that is inhabited by intelligent, rational creatures we call humans. Some of us understand that humans are composed of body and soul, matter and spirit. If this is true,and some of us believe it is true for many reasons, than the fact that man inhabits Earth, makes earth the center of the universe because of man, not because of being physically central to other planets, or being the origin of other planets. The spirit of man inhabits the body, and lifts the physical to a spiritual level which makes man’s nature superior to any material object, so it appropriate that man himself is at the center of the material universe, making Earth central. In this light, Aristotle is not far from the truth.

Heb. 2:6-7 What is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you care for him? You make him for a little while lower than angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, “subjecting all things under his feet.”

 

[inocente]

I don’t think this post deserves a serious response. Have a nice day.

Everything in my post deserved a serious response. Next time you realize you can’t fight your corner, consider admitting it honestly and openly rather than trying to retreat by throwing insults at others.

 

[inocente]

It is easy to understand how a person can believe that the earth is the center of the material universe. How often do we hear people say “What a beautiful sunset” (does the sun ever set?) The senses are incapable of lying, but the mind can misinterpret what the senses sense . Thus there is “subjective (relative) reality or truth”. Later by scientific methods it is discovered that the objective truth is just the opposite. This fact does no necessarily negate the truth of other convictions. Is thinking that the earth is the center of the material universe far fetched. Eg. As far as we know, planet earth is the only planet that is inhabited by intelligent, rational creatures we call humans. Some of us understand that humans are composed of body and soul, matter and spirit. If this is true,and some of us believe it is true for many reasons, than the fact that man inhabits Earth, makes earth the center of the universe because of man, not because of being physically central to other planets, or being the origin of other planets. The spirit of man inhabits the body, and lifts the physical to a spiritual level which makes man’s nature superior to any material object, so it appropriate that man himself is at the center of the material universe, making Earth central. In this light, Aristotle is not far from the truth.

Heb. 2:6-7 What is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you care for him? You make him for a little while lower than angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, “subjecting all things under his feet.”

Yes, we can certainly think poetically as well as philosophically, we can certainly speak of poetic truth as well as logical truth. We still talk of outer space as the heavens, and Schiller, in his Ode to Joy, still uses the celestial spheres as poetry - “Be embraced, millions! / This kiss to the entire world! / Brothers, above the starry canopy / Must a loving Father reside.”

But this isn’t a forum for poets and the OP doesn’t present a poem, it presents what is supposed to be a rational philosophical proof. Aquinas didn’t write SCG as a poem, and we don’t respect him by re-categorizing him as a poet. He made a philosophical argument based on a posteriori knowledge and that knowledge was comprehensively wrong.

If you want to reframe SCG as an interesting anthropological example of how a medieval European culture intuited the human condition, fine, but it still doesn’t fly as a philosophical argument.

I don’t see the big deal in admitting that plainly his argument is wrong. It because he’s not just a philosopher but a saint? Are Catholics required to believe that your saints were superhuman and incapable of ever making any mistakes?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Everything in my post deserved a serious response. Next time you realize you can’t fight your corner, consider admitting it honestly and openly rather than trying to retreat by throwing insults at others.

I think you should read your last post carefully before you accuse me of " throwing insults at others. " If you would observe this simple rule perhaps I would be inclined to give a response.

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

God moves anything by an act of His will.

Everything moves at the molecular level unless it is at absolute zero.

-Tim-

Interesting, because as I understand it, one can not reach absolute zero because they can not stop motion in molecules, they can slow it down, but not completely stop it. Creation is always moving, Potency and Act

 

[ynotzap]

Yes, we can certainly think poetically as well as philosophically, we can certainly speak of poetic truth as well as logical truth. We still talk of outer space as the heavens, and Schiller, in his Ode to Joy, still uses the celestial spheres as poetry - “Be embraced, millions! / This kiss to the entire world! / Brothers, above the starry canopy / Must a loving Father reside.”

But this isn’t a forum for poets and the OP doesn’t present a poem, it presents what is supposed to be a rational philosophical proof. Aquinas didn’t write SCG as a poem, and we don’t respect him by re-categorizing him as a poet. He made a philosophical argument based on a posteriori knowledge and that knowledge was comprehensively wrong.

If you want to reframe SCG as an interesting anthropological example of how a medieval European culture intuited the human condition, fine, but it still doesn’t fly as a philosophical argument.

I don’t see the big deal in admitting that plainly his argument is wrong. It because he’s not just a philosopher but a saint? Are Catholics required to believe that your saints were superhuman and incapable of ever making any mistakes?

No, Catholics are not required to believe that saints are infallible, but they are required to believe that saints lived lives of heroic sanctity, and in so doing, lived lives led by the Holy Spirit in the practice of virtue. Humility is the foundation of virtue, when one is humble he is disposed to being in tune, and in harmony with the Holy Spirit , the faithful recognize this fact. God communicates through such individuals more abundantly for the sake of the faithful. We do believe that Jesus Christ gave the Pope the gift of infallibility when teaching from the Chair on matters of faith and morals. the Pope is fallible like the rest of us. You see that’s a major difference between the beliefs of a Baptist and a Catholic, but I thank God that we can agree that Jesus Christ is God, and that the Bible is the inspired word of God. We as Catholics do our best to show that Faith is reasonable. St. Thomas synthesized reason and faith to show this. Not all can make this intellectual approach, but those that can to the best of their ability are urged to try to help others in understanding why we believe as we do. Incidently, Angels inspire one to the truth, whether in science or faith, as all belongs to God

 

[ynotzap]

Yes I am. I don’t think you’ll find many Christians who believe God has to micromanage every detail of the entire universe like a demented plate juggler. God is almighty. Surely to think otherwise, in the words of a certain philosopher, is straw.

Linusthe2nd on post #l8 stated: You certainly are not suggesting that the universe moves and changes without any (name removed by moderator)ut by God?

In ontology(the study of being) we learn that man’s dependency is total, it is the condition of his nature. From this total dependency we can arrive to the existence of God. To be independent in our nature we would have had to exist always, self-sufficient, and subsistent This would mean that existence would have to be our nature, but our nature has a beginning, a time and a place. This also applies to our universe which had a beginning. We learn that we are matter and spirit, essence and existence, potency and act. This is the composition of man, and we are subjects of the composer, the Creator. All of this knowledge is gotten from the use of man’s reason.

This is also confirmed by our Catholic Christian Faith. Mat.l0:29 “Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your Father’s knowledge, Even all the hairs of your head are counted” Again John. l:3 “All things came to be through Him and without Him nothing came to be.” John l5:5 “Whoever remains in Me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without Me you can do nothing.” So one can understand how metaphysics (ontology) can show that our faith is reasonable. Truth be it from science, philosophy, or religion should never conflict because it comes from the same source, God. This is what St.Thomas did, to synthesize reason with Faith, to show that it is reasonable to believe. The reference to"straw" made by St.Thomas was made that all his work compared to what he experienced supernaturally was nothing. His works were spiritually commended by God. And he also was a composer of sacred hymns.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Interesting, because as I understand it, one can not reach absolute zero because they can not stop motion in molecules, they can slow it down, but not completely stop it. Creation is always moving, Potency and Act

Yes, entropy can beat [given billions of years] the universe down to a smidgeon over zero degrees absolute, but cannot go that extra bit - without God’s overruling of His law of thermodynamics.

 

[Richca]

In proving the existence of God, Thomas Aquinas teaches that the way of motion is the most manifest way by which the existence of God may be proven and he points to Aristotle as his authority, because this is the way that Aristotle proved the existence of God.

So, it is only natural to ask how exactly God does move the world? Surely, God is not directly pushing everything around as a man would be pushing a rock, causing it to move? For Thomas tells us God does not deprive natural things of their natural causality. So how does God move things. which Thomas tells us move themselves and also move other things? It seems like a contradiction. But Thomas also tells us that God uses creatures as instrumental causes of motion/change. Thus God is the Prime Mover, creatures are secondary or instrumental causes. So, how does this work?

First of all God creates all creatures, everything that exists, that ever existed, or which will exist, both the material creatures, animate and inanimate, and the spiritual. This itself is a movement, a movement from a potentially existing world and an actually existing world. But it is a movement without change, it is a creation. And when God creates them he gives them a nature through which creatures move both themselves and other creatures. both to their natural and their supernatual ends. In other words God has a plan which we call his Providence and he has designed the nature of creatures to carry out this plan. So God moves his creatures, first by creating them, and, secondly, by giving them the power to move both themselves and others.

What about the heavenly bodies or the natural forces of the universe, the weather systems, the echo systems? The answer is the same. Either they move themselves according to God’s Providential Plan or they are moved by angels. If not that, then they are moved directly by God. Book 3, Part 1, of the Summa Contra Gentiles, chapters 16 - 25 explains the various ways God moves creatures to their proper end.

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/ContraGentiles3a.htm

And even if a creature is not moving, it is being sustained in existnece directly by God. And this in itself is a kind of movement. For God is acting directly on every creature, sustaining it in existence, causing it ’ to be, ’ and the creature is exercising its act of existence. and to act is type of motion.

And these are the ways God moves the world.

Linus2nd

God moves the entire universe as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. The example of the motion of the staff which is moved by the hand which St Thomas gives at the end of the proof from motion in the Summa Theologica, though a very simple example, (in fact, so simple that I think one can miss the point of the argument and St Thomas’ thought), it contains in essence, I think, his thought and conclusion on the matter if understood correctly. If we take the hand as representing God, the First Mover, and the staff as representing the entire universe with all its intermediate and secondary movers, then the entire universe moves only because it is put in motion by God and not at just some distant time in the past but at every instant. All movement and change in the universe is reduced to God, the First Mover.

 

[inocente]

I think you should read your last post carefully before you accuse me of " throwing insults at others. " If you would observe this simple rule perhaps I would be inclined to give a response.

Linus2nd

You’re right, I shouldn’t have answered your insult with an insult. Let’s agree to play nice. Now please be inclined.

 

[inocente]

No, Catholics are not required to believe that saints are infallible, but they are required to believe that saints lived lives of heroic sanctity, and in so doing, lived lives led by the Holy Spirit in the practice of virtue. Humility is the foundation of virtue, when one is humble he is disposed to being in tune, and in harmony with the Holy Spirit , the faithful recognize this fact. God communicates through such individuals more abundantly for the sake of the faithful. We do believe that Jesus Christ gave the Pope the gift of infallibility when teaching from the Chair on matters of faith and morals. the Pope is fallible like the rest of us. You see that’s a major difference between the beliefs of a Baptist and a Catholic, but I thank God that we can agree that Jesus Christ is God, and that the Bible is the inspired word of God. We as Catholics do our best to show that Faith is reasonable. St. Thomas synthesized reason and faith to show this. Not all can make this intellectual approach, but those that can to the best of their ability are urged to try to help others in understanding why we believe as we do. Incidently, Angels inspire one to the truth, whether in science or faith, as all belongs to God

You started by saying that Catholics are not required to believe that saints are infallible, but went on to say you are required to believe they lived lives of heroic sanctity led by the Spirit, which to me amounts to the same thing - the Spirit would not lead them in error. But this I think must prevent you from treating Thomas simply as a philosopher, without any overtones of believing he is a latter-day prophet, revealing messages from the Spirit.

But to give just two examples from many, the Spirit was obviously not with him in his views on women or when he wrongly concluded that light is instantaneous, and so on. He was human, not infallible.

In any event, revelation ended with Christ, and to me the notion that “not all can make this intellectual approach” is elitist, and Christ is not just for an elite, although I assume that’s not what you intended.

 

[inocente]

Linusthe2nd on post #l8 stated: You certainly are not suggesting that the universe moves and changes without any (name removed by moderator)ut by God?

In ontology(the study of being) we learn that man’s dependency is total, it is the condition of his nature. From this total dependency we can arrive to the existence of God. To be independent in our nature we would have had to exist always, self-sufficient, and subsistent This would mean that existence would have to be our nature, but our nature has a beginning, a time and a place. This also applies to our universe which had a beginning. We learn that we are matter and spirit, essence and existence, potency and act. This is the composition of man, and we are subjects of the composer, the Creator. All of this knowledge is gotten from the use of man’s reason.

This is also confirmed by our Catholic Christian Faith. Mat.l0:29 “Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your Father’s knowledge, Even all the hairs of your head are counted” Again John. l:3 “All things came to be through Him and without Him nothing came to be.” John l5:5 “Whoever remains in Me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without Me you can do nothing.” So one can understand how metaphysics (ontology) can show that our faith is reasonable. Truth be it from science, philosophy, or religion should never conflict because it comes from the same source, God. This is what St.Thomas did, to synthesize reason with Faith, to show that it is reasonable to believe. The reference to"straw" made by St.Thomas was made that all his work compared to what he experienced supernaturally was nothing. His works were spiritually commended by God. And he also was a composer of sacred hymns.

Yes, I share the same understanding of his reference to straw. On the one hand we have his unmoved mover, which has to keep every quark and every photon in motion across the entire universe. Trillions of them in the tip of your finger alone requiring constant (name removed by moderator)ut from that machine-like god.

On the other hand we have a relationship with Christ. I don’t see how we can have a relationship with an unmoved mover, or why we would ever want one, when we can know Christ. Paul says garbage rather than straw here:

‘But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith’.

youtube.com/watch?v=oxpPIa-BskY is an anthem by Graham Kendrick, who I think is English, sung by Robin Mark, who is Irish, possibly at a Mandate event in Belfast, hence the all-male congregation. Try finding a hymn about the surpassing worth of knowing an unmoved mover.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You’re right, I shouldn’t have answered your insult with an insult. Let’s agree to play nice. Now please be inclined.

I’m truly mystified, where did I insult you?

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

You started by saying that Catholics are not required to believe that saints are infallible, but went on to say you are required to believe they lived lives of heroic sanctity led by the Spirit, which to me amounts to the same thing - the Spirit would not lead them in error. But this I think must prevent you from treating Thomas simply as a philosopher, without any overtones of believing he is a latter-day prophet, revealing messages from the Spirit.

When I say required to believe, only when the Church officially through an intensive review of the saint’s life, and confirmed usually by (in the past) two confirmed miracles, now the Church in the authority granted by Christ (the power to bind and loose) has reduced it to one. They even have the :devil’s advocate" to discredit, or look for faults that would block the canonization. Once declared, we are obligated to acknowledge and venerate this saint. The Pope makes this solemn pronouncement. We then believe that the saint is actually enjoying the “Beatific Vision” seeing God face to face. The Church uses these saints as good examples of people who follow Jesus in word and act to encourage and to edify. Many miracles have been granted through the medium of these saints. This can be verified by information contained in the Archives of the Church. We also believe everyone who is baptized is an adopted child of God, a saint, but one that has to be seasoned (grow spiritually by practicing virtues by the means of sanctifying grace (the Holy Spirit) ) This is not saying saints are infallible
Iam clear (as I can be) that the fact that St.Thomas is a saint, does not mean that he is infallible But at the same time I know that one who practices heroic degrees of sanctity (the practice of the virtues, which can only be possible by the work of the Holy Spirit, it is He who is the Sanctifying Spirit of God) is disposed to hearing the word of God better than others. When one is to know the truth, we must avoid bias and prejudice in our thinking. Also we must be sincere, and live good moral lives. But then this is based on my Catholic Christian belief, and I don’t expect others to understand coming from another viewpoint.
Innocente:

But to give just two examples from many, the Spirit was obviously not with him in his views on women or when he wrongly concluded that light is instantaneous, and so on. He was human, not infallible

If you have read some of my other posts, I have insisted on the fallibility of mankind…
and I have never insisted or stated that anyone is infallible. but I also stated that we as members of the Catholic Church, as long as we are consistent with the Church’s teaching share in passive infallibility, the Church when teaching is “active infallibility” I agree St.Thomas was human, and no doubt made mistakes. But does this discredit the truth of his works? I don’t hear you acknowledging any or much of this. You somehow feel or think that we idolize saints, to do so that is to worship them (adoration) and that is a no no, even regarding the Blessed Mother, we venerate them. This is another hang-up I have experienced from my Baptist friends. As a matter of fact, one of my friends who wasn’t a Catholic but had a statue of Mary in his backyard, found it beheaded. They suspected a protestant neighbor, which seemed very likely, but I have encountered this reality at work with many who were Baptist. Many of different faiths do not understand our faith and practices. I fear many do not care to understand.
Innocente:

In any event, revelation ended with Christ, and to me the notion that “not all can make this intellectual approach” is elitist, and Christ is not just for an elite, although I assume that’s not what you intended.

When I said that no all can make this intellectual approach, I am only acknowledging the fact that many people do not understand metaphysics and it’s branches. This forum proves that. And if we do have some knowledge does that make us elitists? You assumed right. Christ is for all mankind

 

[ynotzap]

Yes, I share the same understanding of his reference to straw. On the one hand we have his unmoved mover, which has to keep every quark and every photon in motion across the entire universe. Trillions of them in the tip of your finger alone requiring constant (name removed by moderator)ut from that machine-like god.

On the other hand we have a relationship with Christ. I don’t see how we can have a relationship with an unmoved mover, or why we would ever want one, when we can know Christ. Paul says garbage rather than straw here:

‘But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith’.

youtube.com/watch?v=oxpPIa-BskY is an anthem by Graham Kendrick, who I think is English, sung by Robin Mark, who is Irish, possibly at a Mandate event in Belfast, hence the all-male congregation. Try finding a hymn about the surpassing worth of knowing an unmoved mover.

Sometimes the best place to hide something is in the most obvious place When you worship God in hymns, you are worshiping “The Un-Moved Mover”, you may not like it, but you can’t deny it. What presents a curiosity to me is that you live in Spain, a country rich in Catholic Christian belief and tradition, what is going on over there? Of course we in this country are also experiencing a lot of materialism, and secularism, and we do have a lot of nominal Catholics. I would think that Spain needs a lot of evangelizing as we do. When I learned you were Baptist I was somewhat surprised. It is true that “Christianity” can’t be past on through just knowledge, and action, but through an encounter with Christ, it is after all “A supernatural gift”, we must pray that the Lord sends workers into His vineyard.

 

[oldcelt]

Perhaps, all motion is a result of original creation and its subsequent movements.

 

[hasantas]

You are absolutely right. Still, that does not detract from the argument. All that happens is that we move directly from the things of this world directly to God as the cause of their being and the cause of their motion/change through the natures he created them with. And of course, we cannot disallow that God may, probably does, take a direct hand in some instances. That is as far as philosophy can take us.

However once we have access to faith, it is not far fetched that angels could be playing a real part in the governance of the universe, moving planets, weather systems, etc. We do know by faith that angels serve as God’s messanges and the Catholic Church has always taught that each of us has a good angel, and probably a bad one as well, and it is even thought that nations have their own angels ( witness the angels trying to convince Cyrus to invade Babylon.)
Linus2nd.

Linus2nd

God operate everything by Himself. There is not a creature power except infinite power of God. All powers and effects like gravity are the power of God. Gravity is the power of God which become manifest in order as a law.

Human has a power and God allow humanbeing to be cause to become manifest. But humanbeing cannot effect the laws of God with that power. For instance human cannot change or effect the gravity with power. Or human cannot animate something with that power. Human is allowed to move matter with that power. But indeed the power is belong to God and God allow human to use that in definite circumstances.

Like that Angels do not have a self power. Angels do not create gravity or move planets or atoms etc. Angels only observe actions of God. For instance if there were not angels yet worlds or atoms or subatomic molecules would move in order with power of God.

There are one each angels for every human whom record bad and good deeds. And also there are angels who save humans in some circumstances. There are angels by the every alives. There are angels by all worlds and stars. The duty of these angels are to observe the acts of God and to glorify God. Because worlds or atoms have no speech to glorify God so the angels do that work for them. Otherwise angels cannot intermeddle into God’s work.

Remark: When a man kill other God create that act but the responsibility is belong to man who decide to kill other. All evil acts can be recognised in that manner. And also God may give some disasters or ills but these bad circumstances are to be advantage for those people because if those people will be patient and do not rebel against God then God forgive their sins.

 

[Nixbits]

Tom Baum:

Without the “With the possible exception of the initial creation of all matter”, there is no creation whatsoever, or whatever you wish to call what physically is, so the “observations of the universe” would never have been observed since there would be nothing to observe and no one to observe it.

Tom, you’ve chosen a clause from one sentence and claimed that it contradicts a sentence further on. But you can’t remove that clause from the context of its sentence. Obviously, without the initial creation of all matter there would be nothing to observe or be observed. But that’s not what I said.

My point was that scientific observations show that the universe keeps going without (as far as science can determine) the need for (a) God to keep it going. Matter behaves in the way it does due to the nature of the matter. Arguably, scientific investigation has not yet (conclusively) explained the initial creation of all matter. So that is something for which (a) God can be offered as the cause. Similarly, when something is observed that seems to disobey our understanding of the physical laws of the universe, God is sometimes offered as the cause.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God operate everything by Himself. There is not a creature power except infinite power of God. All powers and effects like gravity are the power of God. Gravity is the power of God which become manifest in order as a law.

What I said does not detract from the power of God. Even your own ancient philosophers ( Avicenna, Averroes ) would agree with what I said. But the so called " scientific laws " were unknown to them or to Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, or the Jewish philosophers. So what we need to do is apply the perennial philosophy of our ancients to these scientific laws.

Of the ancients only Thomas Aquinas was aware of the power modern science calls gravity. But they all taught that earthly bodies had an inner nature by which they moved and achieved their proper ends. This movement causes and involves active relationships between other bodies. These relationships modern science has measured and codified into scientific laws. In other words, these scientific laws are nothing but the mathmatical expression of the effects of the inner natures of interacting bodies, gravity, radiation, etc.

In addition, the ancients taught that God moved the heavenly bodies through separate, eternal souls ( angels ) , which were moved hierarchically. But eventually this movement was traced to the creative causality of God. But it is also possible that God.moves the heavenly bodies directly. There is no philosophical or scientific way to determine which is the case.

Human has a power and God allow humanbeing to be cause to become manifest. But humanbeing cannot effect the laws of God with that power. For instance human cannot change or effect the gravity with power. Or human cannot animate something with that power. Human is allowed to move matter with that power. But indeed the power is belong to God and God allow human to use that in definite circumstances

That is correct, and the philosophers I mentioned above would basically agree with that. Human beings cannot change the laws of motion and change which God wrote into the natures of the bodies he created. And you are correct that humans can harness the manifestations of the inner natures of these bodies, which we identify as powers ( i.e. electro magnitism, strong-weak forces, gravity, etc. )l. And the ancient philosophers, mentioned above, would agree to that.

Like that Angels do not have a self power

That would be incorrect. God created them with the power of self-movement. Just as he created man with an intellectual soul by which man moves himself.

Angels do not create gravity or move planets or atoms etc

As I said above, it is possible that angels do move the heavenly bodies and even earthly systems like the weather. But it would seem that gravity and the inner activities of atoms are manifestations of the inner nature of created bodies or creatures which God created so that they could act and behave according to God’s Plan for creation.

Angels only observe actions of God

Of course they act according to God’s will, they are his ministers, yet they act under their own power of self-movement, which God has given to their natures.

For instance if there were not angels yet worlds or atoms or subatomic molecules would move in order with power of God.

Yes that is true. But the " power of God " is the inner power God has placed in the natures of the things he created. It is not likely that angels interfer with the inner natures of things. But they can and have on the command of God. That is where we get miracles. And of course, God can always act directly on the inner naturss of his creatures and has done so from time to time. But that is not his usual method of governing. But we also must recognize that God can, and does most frequently, move the human soul by giving us inspirations or inhancing the power of our intellect to understand certain things. And we must also understand that both the good and bad angels can influence us intellectually and physically and emotionally… .

There are one each angels for every human whom record bad and good deeds. And also there are angels who save humans in some circumstances. There are angels by the every alives. There are angels by all worlds and stars. The duty of these angels are to observe the acts of God and to glorify God. Because worlds or atoms have no speech to glorify God so the angels do that work for them. Otherwise angels cannot intermeddle into God’s work.

I would agree with that. Angels are God’s ministers. But we do not know precisely the extent of their governing ministery. God has not revealed that. But you must remember that the bad angels are constantly trying to frustrate God’s governance. And we do not know the extent of their power.

Remark: When a man kill other God create that act but the responsibility is belong to man who decide to kill other. All evil acts can be recognised in that manner. And also God may give some disasters or ills but these bad circumstances are to be advantage for those people because if those people will be patient and do not rebel against God then God forgive their sins.

Yes, I would agree with that. But I would say that God allows these evils for reasons of his own. He does not cause them. Generally, we can say he allows them so that he may show his Glory by using these evils to bring about a greater good.

Sorry for being so late.

Linus2nd