My Theory: Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Petergray
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Petergray

Guest
There are plenty of theoriests in the world, John Hick to name one of many. Many past ones include Philippa Foot, Thomas Aquinas, all the way abck to Aristotle and Socrates etc. This may sound really silly, but I also want to be a modern scholar.

I have been thinking and I have developed Aquinas’ creationism theory. This is meant seriously and I would like comments on this so that I can improve it.

Thomas Aquinas
  • God created the universe and matter, Ex nihilo.
  • He does not argue against the universe having a beginning
  • God is needed to create the world
  • Creationism is still happening, God is responsable for the universe existing
  • An arrow is guided by an archer, an intellectual being exists to direct all natural things to an end or purpose, this being is God.
  • Primum movens and uncaused cause
  • First cause
Aristotle

There is an unmoved mover. This is the designer and is needed to start the movements in the world. This designer exists outside the universe so does not get affected by the laws in the universe and is the undesigned designer.

Me

If you walk around, you can see that the world is laid out in such a way that everything works on it’s own. The sun comes up and goes down, giving daylight to one side of the world, then the other. There are fish deep down in the sea with lights attatched to them to aid them.

There are things in the world that cannot be created by humans:
Air. If I asked someone to create me some air, when nothing existed, it would not be possible. In fact, if I asked someone to create me some air from nothing now, they could not. You need ingredients to make things, there must have been a time when none of these ingredients existed, but they do now. Therefore they must have been created by an intelligent designer

Water. Again, you can make it now, but could you make an ocean? No. But there is one, and also land. This is obviously created. You can say that water is easily created but what I am saying is, I accept that but what about when the ingredients to make them did not exist? Also, you could not make me an ocean.

You can argue for or against. Please make your arguments well thought out though.
 
Petergray,

Your point about creation ex nihilo sounds fine to me. Let me caution you though that the word “Creationism” tends to mean more than just belief in the Creation, despite how the word sounds. It generally refers to a particular group of theories of exactly what the early history of the universe was, following a fairly “literal” interpretation of Genesis and rejecting certain unnamable (on CAF) mainstream scientific theories. The term “intelligent designer” is also loaded these days, associated with certain specific theories regarding what they claim is evidence of design in the anatomy of biological organisms and so forth. Personally I would avoid these terms unless you want to advance those theories.
 
Aelred makes a good point.

The mere existence of something does not prove that it was designed by an intelligent being. Nor is it a valid argument to say, “I cannot make an ocean; therefore someone more powerful and intelligent than I made it.” The ocean could have come about through the action of physical laws with no guiding hand at all behind it. Those who believed in a First Cause (including Aquinas, I believe) referred to these as “secondary causes.” There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these explain every observable phenomenon, and whether there is any need for a first cause at all, but as Aelred mentioned, such discussions are banned in any meaningful sense by our Fearless Leaders. Why, if the Pope himself does not ban such discussions, except for the immediate creation of the human soul by God, do the Forum Masters ban it? Are they afraid of what might be said? Have they no answers for the questions it raises? Does that subject generate more heat than light? Does the mention of "IDvolution"and link to its website violate the ban? It certainly discusses the issue. Inquiring minds want to know.
 
im saying my opinion, which is a human right…there is nothing wrong here
 
Petergray said:
You can say that water is easily created but what I am saying is, I accept that but what about when the ingredients to make them did not exist?
Click to expand...
I third the comments made about the terminology creationism and design.

But what you say here where I quoted you doesn’t seem to take into account what Aquinas says, that you cannot prove whether the universe had a beginning or not. So perhaps it was the case that the ingredients always existed. They are still created, as you say, however.
SGWessells said:
There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these explain every observable phenomenon, and whether there is any need for a first cause at all, but as Aelred mentioned, such discussions are banned in any meaningful sense by our Fearless Leaders.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that much of the conversations were getting ugly and not everyone could keep it civilized. But I’ve had no problem discussing Aquinas’ arguments in a meaningful way on this sub-forum.
 
Shike said:
I third the comments made about the terminology creationism and design.

But what you say here where I quoted you doesn’t seem to take into account what Aquinas says, that you cannot prove whether the universe had a beginning or not. So perhaps it was the case that the ingredients always existed. They are still created, as you say, however.

I think the problem is that much of the conversations were getting ugly and not everyone could keep it civilized. But I’ve had no problem discussing Aquinas’ arguments in a meaningful way on this sub-forum.
Click to expand...
Actually, cosmologists have found convincing evidence that the universe as we know it began about 13 billion years ago in what is called the “Big Bang”; we know this because the original radiation left over from it has been detected from when the universe was only 300,000 years old. Also, the galaxies have been expanding away from us at an accelerating rate, indicating a time in the past when all matter was concentrated in a very small, hot, dense state, from which it rapidly expanded. What happened 10-47 seconds before that is still an open question, but unless Aquinas can provide evidence explaining the red-shift effect of distant galaxies and so on which shows that an eternal universe is a better explanation, the origin question is pretty much settled, pending new evidence. Since the Church has not decided either way, as far as I know, Catholics can trust science on this one.

Incidentally, the original element present was hydrogen, one of the two elements that water is made of. The other, oxygen, was created from within stars after they began to burn through nuclear fusion. This is just elementary science; we don’t have to argue from outmoded philosophies written when everyone thought the sun, stars, and planets all orbited the earth on crystalline spheres. Scientific observation can provide answers if we will just learn them. Seek, and you shall find. I did; you can, too.
 
SGWessells said:
Actually, cosmologists
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that you were only presenting a strict philosophical argument, this being the philosophy sub-forum and all.

I have no problem with what you say and am somewhat already familiar with the scientific findings.
This is just elementary science; we don’t have to argue from outmoded philosophies written when everyone thought the sun, stars, and planets all orbited the earth on crystalline spheres.
Click to expand...
You make it sound like Thomistic philosophy is obsolete. That is hardly the case. Aquinas seems to be correct in this regard, namely, that one cannot prove through strict philosophical demonstration that the world had a beginning in time.

Sure, science has come a long way since the time of Aquinas… but metaphysics and science are different. And many of the metaphysical arguments that Aquinas gives are as true today as they ever were (or will be).
 
Shike said:
I was under the impression that you were only presenting a strict philosophical argument, this being the philosophy sub-forum and all.

I have no problem with what you say and am somewhat already familiar with the scientific findings.

You make it sound like Thomistic philosophy is obsolete. That is hardly the case. Aquinas seems to be correct in this regard, namely, that one cannot prove through strict philosophical demonstration that the world had a beginning in time.

Sure, science has come a long way since the time of Aquinas… but metaphysics and science are different. And many of the metaphysical arguments that Aquinas gives are as true today as they ever were (or will be).
Click to expand...
But that’s just the question: how true are they? If they were totally false, they would be as true today as they ever were. Metaphysics cannot trump empirical observation and scientific experiment. That is what got Aristotle into trouble, and Western culture after him for over 1,000 years. Metaphysics told Aristotle that the orbits of the planets had to be circular, since the circle was the most perfect geometrical form and the heavens were perfect. This was philosophically satisfying; the only problem was that physics (in the branch of astronomy) proved it wrong. It doesn’t matter how perfect your metaphysical syllogisms are if science shows them to be incorrect.
 
SGWessells said:
But that’s just the question: how true are they? If they were totally false, they would be as true today as they ever were. Metaphysics cannot trump empirical observation and scientific experiment. That is what got Aristotle into trouble, and Western culture after him for over 1,000 years. Metaphysics told Aristotle that the orbits of the planets had to be circular, since the circle was the most perfect geometrical form and the heavens were perfect. This was philosophically satisfying; the only problem was that physics (in the branch of astronomy) proved it wrong. It doesn’t matter how perfect your metaphysical syllogisms are if science shows them to be incorrect.
Click to expand...
Sure, he might have made conclusions from his metaphysical arguments that went into the domain of science… but that’s just the point: it would then be in the realm of science and not metaphysics.

Much of Aristotle’s metaphysics remains sound.

I think we are in much more trouble nowadays than anyone upholding the theory of spheres ever was. Just look at the philosophical confusion out there.
 
Petergray said:
There are plenty of theoriests in the world, John Hick to name one of many. Many past ones include Philippa Foot, Thomas Aquinas, all the way abck to Aristotle and Socrates etc. This may sound really silly, but I also want to be a modern scholar.

I have been thinking and I have developed Aquinas’ creationism theory. This is meant seriously and I would like comments on this so that I can improve it.

Thomas Aquinas
  • God created the universe and matter, Ex nihilo.
  • He does not argue against the universe having a beginning
  • God is needed to create the world
  • Creationism is still happening, God is responsable for the universe existing
  • An arrow is guided by an archer, an intellectual being exists to direct all natural things to an end or purpose, this being is God.
  • Primum movens and uncaused cause
  • First cause
Aristotle

There is an unmoved mover. This is the designer and is needed to start the movements in the world. This designer exists outside the universe so does not get affected by the laws in the universe and is the undesigned designer.

Me

If you walk around, you can see that the world is laid out in such a way that everything works on it’s own. The sun comes up and goes down, giving daylight to one side of the world, then the other. There are fish deep down in the sea with lights attatched to them to aid them.

There are things in the world that cannot be created by humans:
Air. If I asked someone to create me some air, when nothing existed, it would not be possible. In fact, if I asked someone to create me some air from nothing now, they could not. You need ingredients to make things, there must have been a time when none of these ingredients existed, but they do now. Therefore they must have been created by an intelligent designer

Water. Again, you can make it now, but could you make an ocean? No. But there is one, and also land. This is obviously created. You can say that water is easily created but what I am saying is, I accept that but what about when the ingredients to make them did not exist? Also, you could not make me an ocean.

You can argue for or against. Please make your arguments well thought out though.
Click to expand...
Re: your Me section here.

Sounds very very Bill O’Reilly to me with the whole tides go in and tides go out thing.
I would prune that whole section up a bit so it does not look so untidy.
 
Petergray said:
There are plenty of theoriests in the world, John Hick to name one of many. Many past ones include Philippa Foot, Thomas Aquinas, all the way abck to Aristotle and Socrates etc. This may sound really silly, but I also want to be a modern scholar.

I have been thinking and I have developed Aquinas’ creationism theory. This is meant seriously and I would like comments on this so that I can improve it.

Thomas Aquinas
  • God created the universe and matter, Ex nihilo.
  • He does not argue against the universe having a beginning
  • God is needed to create the world
  • Creationism is still happening, God is responsable for the universe existing
  • An arrow is guided by an archer, an intellectual being exists to direct all natural things to an end or purpose, this being is God.
  • Primum movens and uncaused cause
  • First cause
Aristotle

There is an unmoved mover. This is the designer and is needed to start the movements in the world. This designer exists outside the universe so does not get affected by the laws in the universe and is the undesigned designer.

Me

If you walk around, you can see that the world is laid out in such a way that everything works on it’s own. The sun comes up and goes down, giving daylight to one side of the world, then the other. There are fish deep down in the sea with lights attatched to them to aid them.

There are things in the world that cannot be created by humans:
Air. If I asked someone to create me some air, when nothing existed, it would not be possible. In fact, if I asked someone to create me some air from nothing now, they could not. You need ingredients to make things, there must have been a time when none of these ingredients existed, but they do now. Therefore they must have been created by an intelligent designer

Water. Again, you can make it now, but could you make an ocean? No. But there is one, and also land. This is obviously created. You can say that water is easily created but what I am saying is, I accept that but what about when the ingredients to make them did not exist? Also, you could not make me an ocean.

You can argue for or against. Please make your arguments well thought out though.
Click to expand...
… my dear friend ,

… i want to wish you every success on becoming a great scholar and will pray for you , can i offer a little tip though : the biggest hindrance to man is the fallen human mind – and nature , but the loss of the preternatural gifts has really ruined his mind very badly , you can get these preternatural gifts back to a degree and more and more as you achieve higher degrees of sanctity , so i’d suggest you really strive to become a saint if you want to be the greatest scholar you can be , and the sky is the limit , sanctity profoundly increases the abilities of the mind by accelarating your problem solving skills with higher levels of understanding and appreciation …

… the fallen mind can and oft does have great knowledge and one may even have a photographic memory but the knowledge is not much use unless you understand and appreciate it , and this keeps growing with higher sanctity as you regain these lost preternatural gifts to higher degrees , you may already be a saint , i don’t know you , but we can all become greater and greater saints regardless dear friend , and an improved mind is useful in all sciences and noble fields of human endeavour – not just religious subjects , hope thyis helps and good luck with it all …

… may god bless and love you 👍🙂 ,

… john …
 
SGWessells said:
Aelred makes a good point.

The mere existence of something does not prove that it was designed by an intelligent being. Nor is it a valid argument to say, “I cannot make an ocean; therefore someone more powerful and intelligent than I made it.” The ocean could have come about through the action of physical laws with no guiding hand at all behind it. Those who believed in a First Cause (including Aquinas, I believe) referred to these as “secondary causes.” There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these explain every observable phenomenon, and whether there is any need for a first cause at all, but as Aelred mentioned, such discussions are banned in any meaningful sense by our Fearless Leaders. Why, if the Pope himself does not ban such discussions, except for the immediate creation of the human soul by God, do the Forum Masters ban it? Are they afraid of what might be said? Have they no answers for the questions it raises? Does that subject generate more heat than light? Does the mention of "IDvolution"and link to its website violate the ban? It certainly discusses the issue. Inquiring minds want to know.
Click to expand...
Careful there. Saying that kind of stuff about the moderators/administrators of this site could probably get you kicked out.
 
SGWessells said:
Metaphysics told Aristotle that the orbits of the planets had to be circular,
Click to expand...
Thats absolute nonesense. You do not understand metaphysics. Even if Aristotle presented his scientific arguement as a metaphysical arguement, which he didn’t, anybody who understands metaphysics today can see by its own rules of rational demonstration that aristotle would be drawing a false conclusion.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Thats absolute nonesense. You do not understand metaphysics. Even if Aristotle presented his scientific arguement as a metaphysical arguement, which he didn’t, anybody who understands metaphysics today can see by its own rules of rational demonstration that aristotle would be drawing a false conclusion.
Click to expand...
I apologize if my post lead to any confusion. In my defense of metaphysics I may have been a bit too rash in saying that Aristotle might have concluded the theory of spheres from his metaphysics. But I do doubt that he would have confused science and metaphysics.

So question: Aristotle’s theory of spheres was not a conclusion from his metaphysics into the realm of science (mistakenly) but rather merely an endeavor in science?
 
Aelred_Minor said:
Careful there. Saying that kind of stuff about the moderators/administrators of this site could probably get you kicked out.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the warning. I’ll keep that in mind. Though I still think it’s an honest question. But it’s their forum and they have every right to run it as they please.
 
Petergray said:
There are plenty of theoriests in the world, John Hick to name one of many. Many past ones include Philippa Foot, Thomas Aquinas, all the way abck to Aristotle and Socrates etc. This may sound really silly, but I also want to be a modern scholar.

I have been thinking and I have developed Aquinas’ creationism theory. This is meant seriously and I would like comments on this so that I can improve it.

Thomas Aquinas
  • God created the universe and matter, Ex nihilo.
  • He does not argue against the universe having a beginning
  • God is needed to create the world
  • Creationism is still happening, God is responsable for the universe existing
  • An arrow is guided by an archer, an intellectual being exists to direct all natural things to an end or purpose, this being is God.
  • Primum movens and uncaused cause
  • First cause
Aristotle

There is an unmoved mover. This is the designer and is needed to start the movements in the world. This designer exists outside the universe so does not get affected by the laws in the universe and is the undesigned designer.

Me

If you walk around, you can see that the world is laid out in such a way that everything works on it’s own. The sun comes up and goes down, giving daylight to one side of the world, then the other. There are fish deep down in the sea with lights attatched to them to aid them.

There are things in the world that cannot be created by humans:
Air. If I asked someone to create me some air, when nothing existed, it would not be possible. In fact, if I asked someone to create me some air from nothing now, they could not. You need ingredients to make things, there must have been a time when none of these ingredients existed, but they do now. Therefore they must have been created by an intelligent designer

Water. Again, you can make it now, but could you make an ocean? No. But there is one, and also land. This is obviously created. You can say that water is easily created but what I am saying is, I accept that but what about when the ingredients to make them did not exist? Also, you could not make me an ocean.

You can argue for or against. Please make your arguments well thought out though.
Click to expand...
Discussions of the belief in Divine Creation and its relationship to the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection is banned on this forum. Unfortunately. It is a key topic.
 
Shike said:
Sure, he might have made conclusions from his metaphysical arguments that went into the domain of science… but that’s just the point: it would then be in the realm of science and not metaphysics.

Much of Aristotle’s metaphysics remains sound.

I think we are in much more trouble nowadays than anyone upholding the theory of spheres ever was. Just look at the philosophical confusion out there.
Click to expand...
Every confusion of today’s philosophy was anticipated, at least in a less elaborate form, by philosophers of Aristotle’s day. Nor did the ancient Greeks make the rigid distinction we do between metaphysics and science. That distinction is a relatively recent development.
Molecular science makes Aristotle’s distinction between “substance” and “accidents” meaningless. Once the measurable components of something are eliminated – all its molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, and so on – what you have left is nothing. No invisible “substance” or “essence” that makes the thing what it is, because with no atoms, what is it? Quantum potentiality? No potentiality can actualize itself (joke here).
Every atom in my body was once at the heart of a star; since being blasted out into the universe, it became part of innumerable bodies before mine, and will continue to do so after mine dissolves. That, plus the E-word, makes the concept of “Form” problematic at best. What is the “Form” of “horse”? Their current bodily structure is no more final than those of their ancestors. If the “form” is some yet unrealized future ideal, where does the current version come from? If it is the current version, then forms are not unchanging; in a few million years, it could well be different. Since 1859, Plato and Aristotle are interesting and influential parts of the history of philosophy, but no longer fit our current knowledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top