Need help with Aquinas' proofs

[AnAtheist]

Sherlock:

I didn’t think that the universe could be both finite and eternal—is that correct? I’m not a physicist.

“Eternal” is a temporal term. Time and space cannot be separated, that is why scientists speak of a space-time continuum. The universe can be unbounded but finite. Like the Earth’s surface. In two dimensions it has no boundaries, but the surface is finite because it is bend into the third dimension. The same may apply for the universe in higher dimensions.

The universe is clearly expanding and thus it had a beginning. It seems that the space-time continuum itself started, when the univesre came into existence, in other words there was no “before”. Cause and effect can only happen in a temporal context. If there is no time, cause and effect are meaningless terms.

 

[AnAtheist]

Philthy:

If they agree that the universe is finite (which they objectively have no proof for, by the way)and that it is expanding, what exists outside of it? Is there matter? Yes or no? Is there time in this region outside of the universe? Yes or no?

There is no “outside”.

 

[Exporter]

St Thomas didn’t know about atoms and elements.

The question is if the universe is composed of atoms and energy, where did these atoms and energy come from?

 

[Sherlock]

AnAtheist,

You wrote: “The universe is clearly expanding and thus it had a beginning.”

Well, that’s what I thought too: indeed I recall reading a news article not too long ago that discussed new scientific findings that supported the concept of an expanding universe in general and the “big Bang” theory in particular. However, these folks are claiming otherwise, and they claim that science shows that the universe is NOT expanding, and has no beginning. This appears to be an essential, foundational belief with these folks.

 

[BibleReader]

neophyte:

Perhaps you could quote your source. My copy of the Summa is the translation by Anton C. Pegis, (University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), from which I quote:This translation is consistent with the others that I’ve seen, although I don’t know Latin and haven’t read the untranslated text. Again, it appears that you have mis-stated the argument.

In order to answer this question, the first thing to do is to define what belief, faith and proof are; it can hardly be boot-strapping to do so.

The translation of the Summa was from Fordham University’s Medieval Sourcebook website.

The question is not the accuracy of the translation down to the scintilla. The question is, Structurally, in all of Aquinas’ arguments for God’s existence, does God fit in the premise?

Not once.

Aquinas’ arguments “pull a rabbit out of the hat.”

They aren’t valid as arguments.

Reason does not “look down upon,” and so can not see, even God’s existence.

In other words, if we “prove” a god, it isn’t God.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sherlock:

Hello all,

I am having a discussion with a batch of atheists, and have presented Aquinas’ proofs to show that the existence of God can be reached by reason (they do not accept anything that smacks of faith, and contend that God is an “arbitrary concept” that can only be ascertained by weak minds using faith.

They are Objectivists, a particular variety of atheists. They believe that the universe is eternal, though they agree with me that it is finite. They do not accept that finite entities necessarily have to have a cause. I didn’t think that the universe could be both finite and eternal—is that correct? I’m not a physicist.

Anyway, I would greatly appreciate some help here–these are the arguments being thrown at me by a number of atheists:

“The universe is a finite entity with no cause. It has always existed and always will.”

“Why can only the infinite be eternal?”

“The two statements above (these were: ‘the universe is not eternal because it is finite’; and: ‘to argue against this, you need to provide evidence of a finite entity having no cause’) are merely new attempts to justify the same unsupported assertion: namely, that the universe must have a cause, but god does not.”

“In your last post, you attempted to support this by asserting that the universe is an effect and therefore requires a cause, but god is not an effect and therefore requires no cause. I pointed out that this is also an unsupported, arbitrary assertion.”
“So now you switch to the equally arbitrary, and equally unsupported, assertion that the universe is not eternal and therefore must have a cause, but god is eternal and therefore does not have to have a cause.”
“Do you see a pattern here? You are defining the universe as: that which must have a cause. You define god as: that which does not have a cause. You provide no support for either notion.”
“The assertion that the universe must have a cause, but god does not, is utterly arbitrary – there is not a shred of evidence to support it. Formulating additional arbitrary assertions changes nothing.”

I was also given this link, though I have not had any time to read it: The Unbounded, Finite Universe @ geocities.com/rationalphysics/U…nded_Finite.htm

 

[JimG]

Sherlock:

JimG, actually, the universe IS finite. I just finished reading a booklet by physicist/Catholic priest Stanlry Jaki (a brilliant thinker), in which he points out that if the universe were infinite, then we would not have a dark sky

Yes, I have read this as well. Assuming a spatially infinite universe, and a uniform distribution of stars throughout space, the sky would be continually ablaze with light 24 hours a day.

Still, I suppose that if one were to assume a relative scarcity of stars all concentrated in our region of space, that would not hold. It would however, break with the assumed uniformity of the universe. Some physicists now believe that most of the stuff of the universe consists of dark matter rather than stars. (I personally find a non-finite universe to be more plausible in any case.)

It’s been a long time since I’ve studied Aquinas. I do seem to recall one professor though, making the point that Aquinas did mean that a temporal series of causes was impossible; but rather that an infinite series of immediate–here and now–efficient causes was impossible. I think it went something like this:

I exist as a physical being right now because I am held together my my component parts–skin, bones, etc. Those parts, here and now, continue to exist because of the chemicals of which they are composed. And while Aquinas didn’t carry it this far–we can carry on the ‘here and now’ immediate causes all the way to the molecular, atomic, and subatomic levels. Those immediate here and now causes cannot be an infine series. But a temporal series is theoretically possible.

 

[AnAtheist]

Sherlock:

However, these folks are claiming otherwise, and they claim that science shows that the universe is NOT expanding, and has no beginning. This appears to be an essential, foundational belief with these folks.

Then ask them, where they get that idea from. The universe IS expanding, even the velocity of that expansion can be measured. Not very accurate though, but anyway…

It makes no sense to ask what was before the big bang, if time started to exist with it too, as before is a temporal term. It is however possible, that the universe keeps expanding and contracting forever, but that concept has two problems. First, there is not enough matter observable to stop the expansion. There nmight be enough “dark matter” though. Second, space-time itself would restart at every big bang in a singularity, and there would be no physical connection to the former universe whatsoever. Hence there is no measurable difference between a unique or a “restarted” universe. How quantum physics influences the big bang is not precisely known yet, afaik.

You folks will like this one: St. Augustine wrote back in the 5th century, that it is ridiculous to assume that God waited for an infinite period of time and then created the universe. He wrote, God created time itself in the beginning and exists somewhat outside of it. Which is quite remarkebly consistent with modern cosmology. Unfortuntely later in the 12 century the Church adopted the Greek view of a Eukleadian space and time frame, that is somekind of background stage on which reality happens. Today we know (again one might say), that that is wrong.

 

[john_doran]

BibleReader:

This is why I say that Aquinas’ “proofs” aren’t proof. God, the “conclusion,” always contradicts the premises.

i think you said something like this before, only last time i’m pretty sure you claimed that aquinas’ proofs were circular, not self-contradictory.

can you explain?

BibleReader:

If the argument could prove God’s existence – to that extent, “look down on” God – then the argument would be greater than God.

you’re going to have to explain this one, too, because this makes no obvious sense to me.

BibleReader:

We Catholics kill a lot of faith by claiming that God’s existence can be “proven.”

i’m not sure if you’re making a pastoral or a philosophical point, but this is what Ott says about the knowability of god in his seminal “the fundamentals of catholic dogma”:

God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things. (De fide)

 

[john_doran]

BibleReader:

Argument One from Aquinas…

Premise: “Everything, therefore, is moved by something else.”

Conclusion: “Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing—and this all men know as God.”

Each of the arguments either expressly or impliedly violates language, or plays with language to hide the violation of language.

that is your precis of the argument, and is **NOT **what aquinas himself says:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

a more accurate syllogizng of the argument is, therefore:

1. there are things in the world which are in motion;
2. everything which is in motion (i.e. is being reduced from potential to actual) is caused to move (i.e. is actualized) by something else;
3. there cannot be an infinite regress of movers and things moved;
4. therefore there is a first mover who is itself unmoved - that is, there is a first pure act.

where’s the contradiction?

BibleReader:

It’s not a “trap.” They are mutually exclusive.

again, i point you toward dr. ludwig ott’s compendium of catholic dogmas:

God’s existence is not merely an object of natural rational knowledge, but also an object of supernatural faith. (De fide)

 

[BibleReader]

john doran:

i think you said something like this before, only last time i’m pretty sure you claimed that aquinas’ proofs were circular, not self-contradictory.

can you explain?

you’re going to have to explain this one, too, because this makes no obvious sense to me.

i’m not sure if you’re making a pastoral or a philosophical point, but this is what Ott says about the knowability of god in his seminal “the fundamentals of catholic dogma”:

Re “circular” versus “self-contradictory,” I thought, “He’s CORRECT! I DID say ‘circular’ before!” So, you’re right. Good memory. I should have said “self-contradictory” before.

Re “looking down on God,” I immediately saw what confused you. I didn’t mean “look down upon” in the pejorative sense. I meant “look down upon” in the logical sense, like this.

No human can see all of the transcendental number pi all at once. God can. So, God can see infinity – He is master of it, and “looks down upon it.” We can not see all of infinity all at once. So, we are NOT master of it, and do NOT “look down upon it.”

Every single unproven geometric postulate is like this – it is a point where analysis by the human brain stops, because we are limited.

God is not so limited.

Well, for the same reason that we can’t see all of pi at once, but only shorter approximations, and can’t prove postulates, we can’t prove God.

If we can’t prove a postulate in math, how the heck could we possibly prove almighty God, the higher source of postulates, Who “looks down upon” them?

Regarding your “de fide” pronouncement, IF ONE BELIEVES IN GOD, which of course I do, then there’s no doubt about it, the created stuff in front of my eyes says, “THERE IS A GOD. HE MADE THIS STUFF.”

If one does NOT believe in God, do the created things prove that there is a God?

Well, let me ask you this: Does God’s Own existence prove that there is a HIGHER god?

 

[john_doran]

“Eternal” is a temporal term. Time and space cannot be separated, that is why scientists speak of a space-time continuum.

that’s what herman minkowski said, but it is not a necessary concommitant of einstein’s relativity.

AnAtheist:

Cause and effect can only happen in a temporal context. If there is no time, cause and effect are meaningless terms.

why do you believe that? the causal principle which motivates the cosmological arguments for god’s existence (as well as empirical science) is “whatever begins to exist has a cause”. where exactly does temporal priorty enter the picture?

in fact, there’s very strong reason to believe that causes have to exist simultaneously with their causes…

 

[john_doran]

BibleReader:

Re “circular” versus “self-contradictory,” I thought, “He’s CORRECT! I DID say ‘circular’ before!” So, you’re right. Good memory. I should have said “self-contradictory” before.

Re “looking down on God,” I immediately saw what confused you. I didn’t mean “look down upon” in the pejorative sense. I meant “look down upon” in the logical sense, like this.

No human can see all of the transcendental number pi all at once. God can. So, God can see infinity – He is master of it, and “looks down upon it.” We can not see all of infinity all at once. So, we are NOT master of it, and do NOT “look down upon it.”

Every single unproven geometric postulate is like this – it is a point where analysis by the human brain stops, because we are limited.

God is not so limited.

Well, for the same reason that we can’t see all of pi at once, but only shorter approximations, and can’t prove postulates, we can’t prove God.

If we can’t prove a postulate in math, how the heck could we possibly prove almighty God, the higher source of postulates, Who “looks down upon” them?

Regarding your “de fide” pronouncement, IF ONE BELIEVES IN GOD, which of course I do, then there’s no doubt about it, the created stuff in front of my eyes says, “THERE IS A GOD. HE MADE THIS STUFF.”

If one does NOT believe in God, do the created things prove that there is a God?

Well, let me ask you this: Does God’s Own existence prove that there is a HIGHER god?

i don’t understand what you’re saying here. sorry.

when you say “prove god”, are you saying something different than “proving god exists”?

i think you should be understanding theistic arguments in terms of propositions; what i believe is that the proposition “god exists” can be demonstrated to be likely to be true - as likely as any other proposition which we believe.

the postulates of geometry you mention are, i can only assume, the *axioms *of the vaious geometric theories for which they provide the theoretical underpinnings. as such, they are unprovable, you’re right.

but the proposition “god exists” is not axiomatic, so it is straightforwardly susceptible to standing in entailment relations with other propositions. and that’s all that is meant by “proof”: the proposition “god exists” is capable of evidential and logical support from logically prior propositions.

and doing so has got nothing at all to do the (in)effability of god’s infinity.

 

[john_doran]

Sherlock:

“The universe is a finite entity with no cause. It has always existed and always will.”

“Why can only the infinite be eternal?”

“The two statements above (these were: ‘the universe is not eternal because it is finite’; and: ‘to argue against this, you need to provide evidence of a finite entity having no cause’) are merely new attempts to justify the same unsupported assertion: namely, that the universe must have a cause, but god does not.”

“In your last post, you attempted to support this by asserting that the universe is an effect and therefore requires a cause, but god is not an effect and therefore requires no cause. I pointed out that this is also an unsupported, arbitrary assertion.”
“So now you switch to the equally arbitrary, and equally unsupported, assertion that the universe is not eternal and therefore must have a cause, but god is eternal and therefore does not have to have a cause.”
“Do you see a pattern here? You are defining the universe as: that which must have a cause. You define god as: that which does not have a cause. You provide no support for either notion.”
“The assertion that the universe must have a cause, but god does not, is utterly arbitrary – there is not a shred of evidence to support it. Formulating additional arbitrary assertions changes nothing.”

this is the kalam cosmological argument:

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause;
2. the universe began to exist;
3. therefore the universe has a cause.

premise 1 is a statement of the causal principle on the basis of which all science proceeds. it is an initial assumption about which we are as certain as we are anything.

when the inevitable “but quantum mechanics has shown that there are acausal events, like radioactive decay” comes up, you can point out that what has been witnessed by scientists are events for which no cause is known. to say more than that is to go beyond the actual data of the experiments and to start ***interpreting ***them.

at that point, i would observe simply that, as between the causal principle and an interpretation of scientific data, you reject the less certain. and since, as i say, the causal principle lies at the very foundation of the scientific endeavour, i would reject any particular interpretation in conflict with it. i mean, if you reject the idea of causality, what’s the point of doing science, which is, ultimately, looking for causes?

but that is as may be. there are, at any rate, other competing interpretations of the experimetal data of quantum electrodynamics, most notably what are known as hidden variables theories. according to these, the so-called “causeless” events are ***not ***without a cause, and are actually caused by a further level of reality about which we currently have no knowledge. if we did (and when we do), we will be able to see how these events follow from their causes.

as for supporting premise 2, that the universe began to exist:

1. an actual infinite cannot exist;
2. a beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite;
3. therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist;
4. but the universe exists;
5. therefore the universe began to exist.

this is obviously a philosophical argument, but the current science also supports this.

i’m sure this isn’t going to convince anyone over there, and i’m also sure you’re going to get a lot of other objections, perhaps quotes from grunbaum or linde or quentin smith; there are rebuttals to all of them, but i have neither the time nor the inclination to anticipate them all here.

hope this helps.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

that’s what herman minkowski said, but it is not a necessary concommitant of einstein’s relativity.

In the presence of a gravitational force or when moving, Time and space are bend simultaneously. They cannot be described as separate phenomenons.

why do you believe that? the causal principle which motivates the cosmological arguments for god’s existence (as well as empirical science) is “whatever begins to exist has a cause”. where exactly does temporal priorty enter the picture?

You name it - “whatever begins”. No time - no beginning. No time - no before. No before - nothing that exists influences something that does not exist before.

in fact, there’s very strong reason to believe that causes have to exist simultaneously with their causes…

There is? And what reason might that be?

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

In the presence of a gravitational force or when moving, Time and space are bend simultaneously. They cannot be described as separate phenomenons.

i’m afraid you’re wrong about this. you should examine special relativity more closely, as well as read einstein’s other works, as well as the work of minkowski; there is just nothing about special relativity that entails four dimensional space-time geometry.

now, relativity theory is certainly consistent with minkowskian space-time geometry, but it is not the only consistent model.

take, for example, the work of e.a. milne and w.h. mccrea, who developed a newtonian cosmological model of the big bang that is formally equivalent to the friedman-lemaitre GTR model, and is, in fact, simpler. this model demonstrates that it is completely consistent to understand the big bang as originating and expanding in classical space and time.

AnAtheist:

You name it - “whatever begins”. No time - no beginning. No time - no before. No before - nothing that exists influences something that does not exist before.

of course there’s no “before” the first moment of time - i’m not suggesting that god needs to exist “before” the big bang. but that’s not the point. why does causal priority entail temporal priority?

what’s more, why does time have to begin with the big bang? why can’t there be an undifferentiated time prior to the big bang? the first moment of creation would then simply become the first empirical measure of time. dismissals of this supposition are typically based on an unsupportable verificationist epistemology, which stipulates that the only propositions which are meaningful are those which are empirically verifiable in principle.

AnAtheist:

There is? And what reason might that be?

for starters, if cause and effect do not simultaneously exist, how, exactly can the cause be said to cause the effect? what would make non-simultaneous causes and effects distinguishable from other causally unrelated sequences of events? how would a cause cause something that exists only after it?

and keep in mind here that i am not using “cause” transitively in the sense that A can be said to cause D if A causes B which causes C which causes D; i am talking about proximate, or efficient causes.

but at any rate, i do not need to provide proof that the only causal relations that exist are simultaneous, but only that some are simultaneous, or even less: that it is possible that they be simultaneous.

you would need to demonstrate that it is impossible that (god’s) causal priority not involve temporal priority…

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

i’m afraid you’re wrong about this. you should examine special relativity more closely, as well as read einstein’s other works, as well as the work of minkowski; there is just nothing about special relativity that entails four dimensional space-time geometry.

I was talking about general relativity as well, which relies on a five-dimensional space-time geometry to be precise. And is very well proven too btw.

If there is nothing in special relativity that entails a 4-dim geometry, then why do you need a 4-dimensional vector space to construct Lorentz-invariant equations?
A Newtonian frame of reference with absolute time and space well separated is not Lorentz-invariant, and thus it does not sufficiently describe reality in a frame of reference that is moving with a high velocity. If you can prove otherwise, I am interested.

 

[Philthy]

AnAtheist:

There is no “outside”.

Yes you need to believe this to continue with your argument, but you have no “observation” to prove it. I believe that was the demand of the original posters, the observationists.

Even if what you say is true, then you have to explain how nothingness (no “outside”) becomes something, no? And when you do this, you have to do it for all of the universe because our best “observations” are that this is what happened: from nothingness space and time expanded into all we can observe.

Also, I’ll take your lack of response to the rest of my post as encouragement! You continue to view the entire universe without regard to the life it contains. Is that because science can only observe the “accidentals” of life and not it’s “substance” or essence?

Philthy

 

[Philthy]

BibleReader:

The translation of the Summa was from Fordham University’s Medieval Sourcebook website.

The question is not the accuracy of the translation down to the scintilla. The question is, Structurally, in all of Aquinas’ arguments for God’s existence, does God fit in the premise?

Not once.

Aquinas’ arguments “pull a rabbit out of the hat.”

They aren’t valid as arguments.

Reason does not “look down upon,” and so can not see, even God’s existence.

In other words, if we “prove” a god, it isn’t God.

Could you please separate what your premises are and what your conclusions are from the above?

For your first contention that God does not fit in the premise of Aquinas’ proofs and that he “pulls a rabbit out of a hat” I disagree. Aquinas arrives at conclusions and defines God as the entity that those conclusions represent. How is that pulling a rabbit out of a hat?

As for your later statements, Is it like this:

Reason cannot reveal the existence of God
Reason has revealed many things
Therefore, none of these things are God

Sorry, but premise number one is an opinion until you prove otherwise, and if so your conclusion is to be regarded as an opinion as well. It contradicts the notion of God revealing himself. Why can’t God reveal himself to our reason?

Phil

 

[Philthy]

john doran:

this is the kalam cosmological argument:

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause;
2. the universe began to exist;
3. therefore the universe has a cause.

premise 1 is a statement of the causal principle on the basis of which all science proceeds. it is an initial assumption about which we are as certain as we are anything.

when the inevitable “but quantum mechanics has shown that there are acausal events, like radioactive decay” comes up, you can point out that what has been witnessed by scientists are events for which no cause is known. to say more than that is to go beyond the actual data of the experiments and to start ***interpreting ***them.

at that point, i would observe simply that, as between the causal principle and an interpretation of scientific data, you reject the less certain. and since, as i say, the causal principle lies at the very foundation of the scientific endeavour, i would reject any particular interpretation in conflict with it. i mean, if you reject the idea of causality, what’s the point of doing science, which is, ultimately, looking for causes?

but that is as may be. there are, at any rate, other competing interpretations of the experimetal data of quantum electrodynamics, most notably what are known as hidden variables theories. according to these, the so-called “causeless” events are ***not ***without a cause, and are actually caused by a further level of reality about which we currently have no knowledge. if we did (and when we do), we will be able to see how these events follow from their causes.

as for supporting premise 2, that the universe began to exist:

1. an actual infinite cannot exist;
2. a beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite;
3. therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist;
4. but the universe exists;
5. therefore the universe began to exist.

this is obviously a philosophical argument, but the current science also supports this.

i’m sure this isn’t going to convince anyone over there, and i’m also sure you’re going to get a lot of other objections, perhaps quotes from grunbaum or linde or quentin smith; there are rebuttals to all of them, but i have neither the time nor the inclination to anticipate them all here.

hope this helps.

I like this post! Can I make some minor clarifications to your argument?

1. an actual infinite cannot exist;
2. a beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite;
   Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist;
3. A beginningless series of events in time cannot exist
4. The universe exists;
   Therefore the universe is not a beginningless series of events in time
5. The universe is not a beginningless series of events in time
6. The universe is a series of events in time
   Therefore the universe is not beginningless
   Therefore the universe began (positive restatement of conclusion)

One little problem for me - what’s an "actual infinite’ and how do we know it can’t exist?

Phil