Need help with Aquinas' proofs

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Um, see this

not a very impressive article, i’m afraid; if nothing else, i become enormously leery of individuals who call others with differing scientific opinions, “crackpots”…

i can tell you that his analysis of what so-called “anti-relativists” are doing when they question the compatibility of relativity theory with the results of sagnac experiments is definitively not what is being done by the individuals with whom i am familiar.

for example:

The speed of light, according to the first relativity postulate, must be measured the same by any observer, under any conditions. Keeping the first postulate in mind, consider the following thought experiment involving an observer fixed to the rotating disk of Figure 2 who measures the speed of light. The observer shown has already laid meter sticks along the rim circumference and determined the distance around that circumference. As part of his experiment, he has also set up a cylindrical mirror, reflecting side facing inward, all around the circumference. He takes a clock with him and anchors himself to one spot on the disk rim. When his clock reads time

T = 0 (left side of Figure 2) he shines two short pulses of light (the mini sine waves in the figure with accompanying arrows indicating direction) tangent to the rim in opposite directions.

The mirror will cause these light pulses to travel circular paths around the rim, one clockwise (cw) and one counterclockwise (ccw). From the ground we see the cw and ccw light pulses having the same speed c, the usual value for the speed of light. Note, however, that as the pulses travel around the rim, the rim and the observer fixed to it move as well. Hence, a short time later, as illustrated in the right side of Figure 2, the cw light pulse has returned to the observer, whereas the ccw pulse has yet to do so. A little later (not shown) the ccw pulse will have caught up to the observer.

For the observer, from his perspective on the disk, both light rays travel the same distance, the same number of meters around the circumference. But his experience and his clock readings tell him that the cw pulse took less time to travel the same distance around the circumference than the ccw pulse.

What can he conclude? It appears he can only conclude that, from his point of view, the cw pulse traveled faster than the ccw pulse. Hence, it seems the speed of light as measured on the rotating disk does not always have the same value. It appears different in different directions, and different from that measured on the ground.

This thought experiment makes it plain that any explanation for the Sagnac experiment, from the point of view of the disk reference frame, must account for different arrival times for the cw and ccw light pulses. Analyses based on Doppler shifts or wave length changes are simply not sucient to explain this. This conclusion accords with GPS and other data for the rotating frame of the earth.
read the article here:

arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0206/0206033.pdf

here’s another:

ba.infn.it/~selleri/R10%20-%20FP.pdf

these are serious academic papers with boatloads of math to go with the fairly lucid explanations, so be warned…

 

[neophyte]

AnAtheist:

Still this not-knowable nothing (the “outside”) has no **influence **whatsoever, otherwise it would be observable through this influence and its existance would be proven. If there is no influence whatsoever, it can be treated as non-existing.

Again, this begs the question; we’re not taking about the normal physical laws of the universe, we’re talking about the existance of a person.

I see that oriel36 is hijacking the thread - please don’t let him.

oriel, we’re all quite aware of your ideas about relativity. While they’re very interesting, they’re quite off topic. Please start your own thread.

 

[AnAtheist]

Philthy:

This is probably a stupid question, but when you say “finite but boundless”, the “finite” refers to the actual space it currently occupies and the “boundless” refers to the limitless capability for it to a) continually expand spacially and b) exist, even in a fixed spacial dimension, boundless in the temporal dimension? Is that right?

Not quite, finite means, as you said, the volume of the universe is limited (at least in one direction → 0). Same applies for the time, it is limited at least in one direction (meaning, it started “somewhen”). “Boundless” means it has no boundary, you won’t find a border sign anywhere that says “you are leaving the universe now”. Think for a moment, you were a 2-dimensional being living on the Earth. You won’t find a 2-dimensional border anywhere on its surface, but you could measure the square-miles it occupies.

I thought we believed that the universe underwent significant spatial expansion following the big bang? If we ask the question "Does the universe contain more space now than it did immediately following the “big bang” ? What is the answer? If the answer is yes, then you believe that the universe expanded into the “nothing” that isn’t there for it to expand into. The alternative is to say that there was in fact “nothing” but that it became “something” simply because the universe expanded.

I wish we would know that exactly, but as long we do not a quantum theory of space and time, that will stay unclear. But out of my head, I’d say the universe does not contain more “space” (in terms of space quantums) but the distances have increased. Which is of course a bit gibberish, as distance is a spatial term. As I said, we do not know yet.

We don’t when it comes to the limits of space and the “outside”. We just don’t know if the mathmatical models continue to perfectly represent the realities we’re discussing, do we?

Yes, that’s right.

 

[AnAtheist]

Philthy:

Again, our observations are limited to the “accidentals” of life and not it’s “essence” per se. You are trying to limit life to these observable accidentals simply because that is your only means of measurement.

I know it seems so, but the opposite is the case. My view is not the 19th century reductionism, but contains a holistic approach towards life (boy, I hope those words exist in English ).

That does not mean, however, that the sum total of all the measurable accidentals of a living being constitute it’s “life”.

That is exactly, what I said. A living organism is more than its sum of molecules. A great deal of what makes up life is contained in the way those molecules are organised.
A picture is more than just the sum of colored spots. Exactly the same number and kind of spots could make a completely different picture. But that is no reason to assume some supernatural essence (“imageness” ?) that makes the difference.

 

[AnAtheist]

neophyte:

Again, this begs the question; we’re not taking about the normal physical laws of the universe, we’re talking about the existance of a person.

Do you think, a person and his existance is not subject to normal physical laws?

 

[neophyte]

AnAtheist:

Do you think, a person and his existance is not subject to normal physical laws?

Not when the person in question is a non-corporeal being who nominally exists entirely outside of normal space and time, but who can enter it at any point he sees fit. The very nature of the questions precludes the use of scientific methods in coming to any conclusions about the answer.

The questions include:
“Is there a reality that is not physically detectable?”
“Are all causes observable?”

It is irrational to try to answer these questions by scientific means.

Aquinas’ argument, at the very least, demonstrates that it’s logical to assume that such a being may exist. If he does, then either he’s interested in us or he’s not. If not, we can ignore him. If he is, then the only way we can know about it is if he contacts us.

The proper way to look for evidence of that contact is to use the methods of historical and legal evidence, which use a completely different methodology and have completely different standards of proof than those used in science.

 

[adnauseum]

AnAtheist - your gentility and cordiality in debate is refreshing. You are to be praised.

You touched on the concept of organization and form earlier, and maybe this wasn’t your challenge, but you seemed to be saying that essence - or maybe form - adds nothing to explaining a thing.

Let me give you a standard neo-Thomistic answer; I’m just learning so forgive me if it’s clumsy but I find it pretty valid.

Your point, that form or essense is superfluous, is valid only when you *already have statistical data on a sample of things, * that such and such a species will tend to grow up in this manner, and will attain these characteristics.

In other words, you only know that an organized biological structure will develop into a bird, or a dog because that is what has been observed before.

But suppose you were observing just one instance of a thing without any statistical norms or background knowledge. The challenge arises: exactly what in the organization of matter explains that it will become such-and-such? As a scientist, you have no basis for claiming to understand the nature of that thing; you have to wait-and-see and then retrofit your explanation once you see what it becomes.

St. Thomas, on the other hand, submits that the form of the thing explains and determines what it is to become, the growth process that will unfold. The form is present, but not well understood in the case of the first instance of a thing. But a materialist must admit total ignorance of the nature of the thing until the answer is already whispered in their ear.

I hope this makes sense. I’m sure many modern Thomists can explain it better than I can.

 

[Theodred]

BibleReader:

Just remember what Aquinas purports to do – look at reality, and climb-up to God’s existence from there.

Do you really think this is what Saint Thomas Aquinas was trying to do?

On the contrary… “Because we cannot know what Gos is, but rather what Gos is not, our method has to be mainly negative… what kind of being Gos is not can be known by eliminiat9ng fcharacteristics which cannot apply to Him, like composition, change, and so forth” (ST, Ia, 3).

Human reason can only know what God is not, according to Saint Thomas Aquinas. This is very different from what you are attempting to say about Saint Thomas. What Saint Thomas does with his demonstrations (not proofs) is to show that God is intelligible (can be known) and that the existence of God is rational.

He does not purport to know anything about God from the created the world, as you argue, but quite the opposite. He states that what we know about creation can NOT be God.

When Saint Thomas says “God is infinite”, what he is saying is that “God is not finite”. Both say essentially the same thing. When Saint Thomas says “God is simple”, what he is saying is that “God is not a composition of parts.” I think you should go back and study some simple commentaries on Aquinas, such as Farrell or Copleston.

 

[oriel36]

neophyte:

Again, this begs the question; we’re not taking about the normal physical laws of the universe, we’re talking about the existance of a person.

I see that oriel36 is hijacking the thread - please don’t let him.

oriel, we’re all quite aware of your ideas about relativity. While they’re very interesting, they’re quite off topic. Please start your own thread.

ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP007.html#FPQ7OUTP1

I give a gift of the correct astronomical appreceation of the Equinox and I have to suffer this accusation of hijacking again !.

With Newton and relativists it is imnpossible to enjoy this astronomical spectacle due to the way they tampered with astronomical methods ,one of which was Newton’s use of Aquinas and you nuthink this is off topic !!!.

As part of a Catholic community which I hold dear even in its dwindling state I see this rubbish day after day with no substantial reply from Catholics and I assure you that it is dissapointing.

It now appears that there indeed a new religion born of empiricalism where everyone is happy to be stuck in the dismal hell of circular arguments.In this respect I am not hijacking the thread,I am trying to smash the circulart arguments that go nowehere,do nothing and are anti-Christian.

 

[oriel36]

neophyte:

Again, this begs the question; we’re not taking about the normal physical laws of the universe, we’re talking about the existance of a person.

I see that oriel36 is hijacking the thread - please don’t let him.

oriel, we’re all quite aware of your ideas about relativity. While they’re very interesting, they’re quite off topic. Please start your own thread.

ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP007.html#FPQ7OUTP1

I give a gift of the correct astronomical appreceation of the Equinox and I have to suffer this accusation of hijacking again !.

With Newton and relativists it is imnpossible to enjoy this astronomical spectacle due to the way they tampered with astronomical methods ,one of which was Newton’s use of Aquinas and you think this is off topic !!!.

As part of a Catholic community which I hold dear ( even in its dwindling state) I see this rubbish day after day with no substantial reply from Catholics and I assure you that it is dissapointing.

It now appears that there indeed a new religion born of empiricalism where everyone is happy to be stuck in the dismal hell of circular arguments.In this respect I am not hijacking the thread,I am trying to smash the circular arguments that go nowhere,do nothing and are anti-Christian.

 

[adnauseum]

Théodred:

He states that what we know about creation can NOT be God.

Right.

The theological or philosophical term for this kind of knowing is apophatic.

 

[Philthy]

john doran:

if the universe is actually without beginning, then an actually infinite amount of time must already have expired,so this solution fails to avoid the absurdities of positing an existent actual infinite.

what’s more, it runs afoul of another basic principle: an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition. in other words, it is impossible to complete an actual infinite series by “passing through” each member of the series. but this is exactly what would have to have happened if the universe extended into the infinite past.

for one thing, it makes no intuitive sense to propose that one can actually finish counting to infinity, since no matter what number one reaches, one can simply add one more. in the same way, an actual infinite number of moments is being added to each passing second without increasing the cardinality of the set of those moments. which is absurd. in other words, no greater a number of seconds will have elapsed one million years from now as have elapsed up to the current point in time - namely, http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/aleph.gif.

as another illustration, take bertrand russell’s tristram shandy example, a man who writes his autobiography so slowly that it takes him one year just to record the events of a single day of his life. now, if tristram could write for an actually infinite amount of time, it would follow that shandy could actually complete his autobiography, since the number of days and the number of years would stand in a one-to-one correspondence, and both would be infinite. but this, too, is plainly absurd, since it is self-evident that tristram would just get farther and farther behind with each passing day, until, at some point in the infinitely distant future, he would be infinitely far behind.

furthermore, if an actually infinite number of moments has passed, then it has passed at every point in the past, no matter how far back you go. and if that’s true, then tristram should have completed his writing at every point in the past, which would mean that you would never be able to observe him finishing his book, since he would already have finished. and that’s absurd, too.

anyway. this is just a long-winded way of observing that,a beginningless universe entails the existence of an actually infinite number of past moments of time. which is impossible.

therefore, the universe has a beginning. QED.

SWEET! Thanks for covering my behind - I was still trying to figure out what an actual infinite is…

Phil

 

[Philthy]

AnAtheist:
“Boundless” means it has no boundary, you won’t find a border sign anywhere that says “you are leaving the universe now”. Think for a moment, you were a 2-dimensional being living on the Earth. You won’t find a 2-dimensional border anywhere on its surface, but you could measure the square-miles it occupies.

Good analogy - thank you for “stepping outside” of the math to get your point across. Im still a little confused though. If a 2 dimensional object existed on a finite, 2 dimensional, boundless plane (such as the earth’s surface) and it began travelling in a straight line from a fixed point on the surface, it could only travel so far before it began returning to it’s original location. Are you proposing this may also be true for 3 dimensional space?

AnAtheist:

I wish we would know that exactly, but as long we do not have a quantum theory of space and time, that will stay unclear. But out of my head, I’d say the universe does not contain more “space” (in terms of space quantums) but the distances have increased. Which is of course a bit gibberish, as distance is a spatial term. As I said, we do not know yet.

I understand what you are trying to articulate: the universe is essentially like a gas that has been allowed to expand. Nothing has been added or subtracted, but it’s less dense. Not a perfect analogy, but I think I know where you are going with it. Bolt from the blue: do you think that it would take any more or less time for light to travel through the “increased distance” of space even though the space quantums have remained constant?

Phil

 

[AnAtheist]

Philthy:
If a 2 dimensional object existed on a finite, 2 dimensional, boundless plane (such as the earth’s surface) and it began travelling in a straight line from a fixed point on the surface, it could only travel so far before it began returning to it’s original location. Are you proposing this may also be true for 3 dimensional space?

Yes, you got it! Exactly that would be the case, if the universe would not be expanding. We could reach our starting point by flying straight ahead. Because the universe keeps expanding with lightspeed, and nothing can go faster than that, that journey is practically impossible. Same would apply for the 2-dim beings, if the surface would be blown up like a ballon.

Hm, that could be a philosophical reason, why the universe *must *expand.

Bolt from the blue: do you think that it would take any more or less time for light to travel through the “increased distance” of space even though the space quantums have remained constant?

Yes. Because space and time are essentially the same, if space expands, time does likewise. We would perceive the decreased density of time quantums as longer periods of time needed to reach one point in the space-time-continnum from another. (Haven’t thought of that this particular way yet, thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, this has been a most interesting discussion so far.)

 

[AnAtheist]

adnauseum:

Your point, that form or essense is superfluous, is valid only when you *already have statistical data on a sample of things, * that such and such a species will tend to grow up in this manner, and will attain these characteristics.
…]
St. Thomas, on the other hand, submits that the form of the thing explains and determines what it is to become, the growth process that will unfold. The form is present, but not well understood in the case of the first instance of a thing.

I am not quite sure about that. Form in living organisms is inherited from the ancestors, so the unfolding of it is somewhat determined. The question there is, why did all these forms change over time, if they did. But that’s more of a creation/evolution debate.

But a materialist must admit total ignorance of the nature of the thing until the answer is already whispered in their ear.

I can agree to that, as my point of view is not materialistic, though the line is slim and the shades of gray are vast, but aren’t they always?
A pure materialist would say, a piece of coal and a diamond are the same, they are both entirely made of carbon. I say, that’s nonsense. A diamond has a different crystal structure, that makes the (HUGE) difference. But no further essence is needed, there is no such thing as “diamondness”, or at least it is not neccessary to explain why diamonds are different from coal.
The same may (I say it does) apply to life. Life is build from exactly the same materials than non-life. The carbon atoms in our bodies do not differ from those in coal or diamonds. They do not have a special signature, saying “hey, I am a living carbon atom”. A diamond cannot be described on the atomic level, neither can life. Life is at least two levels above the raw material. When it comes to behaviour and the human mind, that is at least three levels above it I dare say. A materialistic view of life must fail, because it is looking at the wrong place. But having realised that, that does not *automatically *call for a supernatural explanation.

 

[BibleReader]

Théodred:

Human reason can only know what God is not, according to Saint Thomas Aquinas. This is very different from what you are attempting to say about Saint Thomas. What Saint Thomas does with his demonstrations (not proofs) is to show that God is intelligible (can be known) and that the existence of God is rational.

He does not purport to know anything about God from the created the world, as you argue, but quite the opposite. He states that what we know about creation can NOT be God.

I have several comments on this package.

First, you are being over-broad in your characterization of St. Thomas. You maintain, “He does not purport to know anything about God from the created the world, as you argue, but quite the opposite.” I disagree. Thomas would agree with me if your statement were true. To know that God “is” is to know something about God – that He “is.” Thomas maintained that we can know that God “is” from the natural order.

Second, although we – myself included – have largely framed this conversation in terms of what “Thomas” says, that’s not really the point, is it? Isn’t the point what the Church says?

Your Church says that we can know that God exists “with certainty” by looking at the natural order.

So, when you write, “What Saint Thomas does with his demonstrations (not proofs) is to show that God is intelligible (can be known) and that the existence of God is rational,” your Church, and the energetic Scholastics here, would say, “YOU ARE WRONG! THEY AREN’T MERE ‘DEMONSTRATIONS’! THEY ARE PROOFS LEADING TO CERTAINTY.”

I actually agree with your limitation, of “demonstrations, not proofs” – in other words, that that is all Thomas’ arguments really do; they really generate no “certainty” at all.

But the Catechism really does use the word “certainty.”

 

[adnauseum]

AnAtheist:

I can agree to that, as my point of view is not materialistic, though the line is slim and the shades of gray are vast, but aren’t they always?
…A materialistic view of life must fail, because it is looking at the wrong place. But having realised that, that does not *automatically *call for a supernatural explanation.

I just assumed you were advancing a materialist position. I was wrong.

You and I are probably in very close agreement. It’s a dead end to try to explain life on a material basis. As you said, it has to be explained from a higher viewpoint, which you might call pattern and I call form. But my explanation based on form carries too much metaphysical baggage, in your view? If that’s your position, let me say I held the exact same view for most of my adult life! I really did have an intellectual conversion when I studied Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas; they convinced me that the metaphysical baggage served a purpose. I wish I could articulate their proposal in a straightforward way because even though I can grasp it, I can’t put it in my own words yet. At least not without doing more of a disservice than a service.

But I think I would agree with 95% of what you have to say on this matter, as well as on the topic of evolution.

Again, it is so refreshing to find such an authentic person arguing here on this topic. Hope to hear more from you on these boards.

 

[Theodred]

BibleReader… you are missing the subtly of the Catholic position. Look at what Holy Mother Church teaches:

“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.”

The first requirement on the part of man, then, is to seek God. It quite logically follows that the person who does not seek God will hardly be convinced by any argument, demonstration or proof. Certainity, therefore, requires a desire to know God. Without this desire and seeking, there is no certain knowledge of God. Do you understand how the Catechism is using the word “certianity”?

The Catechism continues:

“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.”

The Catholic Church teaches quite clearly that these are not proofs from or of the same order as the natural sciences.

The Catechism provides us with two subjects that lend the seeker knowledge concerning God: the world and man. From what we know of movement, becoming, contingency, order and beauty we can conclude that the universe requires an origin and end. It can be concluded that this origin and end is God, as did Saint Thomas, Saint Augustine and scores of other seekers and believers. Due to man’s openness to truth and beauty, his capacity for and desire of the inifinet, sense of morality, freedom of will and the voice of his conscience we can conclude that man’s origin and end satisfies all these desires and capacities of the human person. It can be concluded that this origin and end is God, as did Saint Thomas, Saint Augustine and scores of other seekers and believers.

Is this a circular argument? If one must seek God to have certainity, does that mean that certainity is really not attainable?

Lets look at this in another way. A biologist is searching for a new species of insect in the Amazon river basin. As he studies his journals one morning he realizes that the existence of this particular species of insect is a bilogical impossibility for whatever biological reason. Would he continue to trudge through the Brazialian jungles in search of an insect he is convinced does not exist? Of course not.

Now consider this. The same biologist wakes up to study his journals after six months of fruitless searching through the jungle. He is running short of supplies, eaten alive by insects, half his hired hands have quit, and he is starting to come down with maleria. There is nothing in him that desires to find this new species of insect, and suddenly he realizes that by reading the data in his journal a certain way, the existence of this new species of insect would be a biological impossibility.

Now consider this. If no one desires to discover this new species of insect, will it ever be found? Can there be knowledge of that species? Coming to a knowledge of God is no different. The point that the Church is making is that, if one sincerely seeks God one can come to certain knowledge because that which we experience is a participation in being itself. They do not contain their origin or end, but bear the mark of their origin and end because, simply speaking, they exist. One who does not seek God, can avoid that origin and end all together, and since these proof or demonstrations are not of the order of natural science, the non-seekers and non-believers are quick to depend on the silence of natural science to appease their desire for there not to be a God.

At best, these demonstrations can be nothing more than a predisposition to faith (CCC, para 35). What is more important is what these demonstrations say about man’s ability to know God (CCC, para 39), not necessarily to prove God’s existence like we are engaged in some sort of childish schoolyard “I told ya so”.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy:

Bolt from the blue: do you think that it would take any more or less time for light to travel through the “increased distance” of space even though the space quantums have remained constant?

AnAtheist:

Yes. Because space and time are essentially the same, if space expands, time does likewise. We would perceive the decreased density of time quantums as longer periods of time needed to reach one point in the space-time-continnum from another. (Haven’t thought of that this particular way yet, thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, this has been a most interesting discussion so far.)

I don’t know what’s being said here. Will we know that space has expanded and therefore time has also? Will it be perceptable or measureable? Seems like we’re limited by a relativistic viewpoint to me. It seems you are considering time as having an inexpandable characteristic while you are allowing space quanta to expand and you therefore conclude that the time element involved in traversing a fixed space quanta will increase. If space and time are truly inseprable, I’m not sure how we would ever know if the “time quanta” expanded proportionately with the “distance quanta”. How weird. If everything were expanding simultaneously and proportionately we would have no clue would we? we’re very much off topic! I will stop…

Phil

 

[neophyte]

neophyte:

Not when the person in question is a non-corporeal being who nominally exists entirely outside of normal space and time, but who can enter it at any point he sees fit. The very nature of the questions precludes the use of scientific methods in coming to any conclusions about the answer.

The questions include:
“Is there a reality that is not physically detectable?”
“Are all causes observable?”

It is irrational to try to answer these questions by scientific means.

Aquinas’ argument, at the very least, demonstrates that it’s logical to assume that such a being may exist. If he does, then either he’s interested in us or he’s not. If not, we can ignore him. If he is, then the only way we can know about it is if he contacts us.

The proper way to look for evidence of that contact is to use the methods of historical and legal evidence, which use a completely different methodology and have completely different standards of proof than those used in science.

As I expected - dropped like a hot potato. Happens every time.