Objective substance of macroscopic physical objects does not exist

[blase6]

Everything physical is made of chemicals, chemicals are made of compounds of elements, elements are composed of protons, neutrons, electrons, which can be broken down into other stuff that I don’t know well.

In short, we can keep looking deeper into the composition of physical objects and break the boundaries of substance we perceive in those objects. If you look at a tree with a bird in it, you are basically just seeing the reflection of light from chemicals. The bird’s body has no objective difference in substance from the tree. The tree and the bird just have a different arrangement of matter.

So physical objects (except the smallest particles, if scientists can ever find them) have no objective substance which belongs to it in and of itself; they only have substance as far as we impose on them perceived substance which our mind creates in order to make sense of the world.

For instance, your body is constantly emitting matter and taking in new matter, to rebuild itself. If that matter which was part of your body leaves you, is it still your body? If an animal or bacterium eats it and assumes it as part of its body, is it still your body? If another human being eats that animal and the matter which was originally part of your body, then became part of the animal’s body, and finally becomes part of that person’s body, is it part of your body or part of their body?

So your body itself does not have objective substance. It is only “your body” because your soul experiences the physical world through the specific chemical composition which supports bodily life.

 

[Ceddd99]

I would like to add that there are no atoms, molecules, electrons, quarks, ect either.

The old fashioned view is perceive something, say, an atom and then to assume that that thing is real and has objective existence apart from you and is actually even more real than you (think about scientists have no trouble believing atoms exist but they struggle to believe their own soul exists).

But lets take a look at our actual experience. From an experiencial perspective (which the only perspective, even the so called scientific method relies solely on experience to work. The results of experiments are recorded through experience. Otherwise, why would we even need to perform the experiment, if not to experience it?) but from an experiencial perspective, soul or spirit rather is the most fundamental thing, the one and only thing we know exists because we experience it all the time.

Now atoms are simply what Spirit looks like like when perceived through the human senses (and of course microscopes and things like that are simply machines which extend the natural ability of the senses).

 

[blase6]

Now atoms are simply what Spirit looks like like when perceived through the human senses (and of course microscopes and things like that are simply machines which extend the natural ability of the senses).

Everything you said up until this was fine.

 

[religioussoup]

I would just like to add that if you are talking about matter on a very small scale, the word is microscopic, and not macroscopic.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Everything physical is made of chemicals, chemicals are made of compounds of elements, elements are composed of protons, neutrons, electrons, which can be broken down into other stuff that I don’t know well.

In short, we can keep looking deeper into the composition of physical objects and break the boundaries of substance we perceive in those objects. If you look at a tree with a bird in it, you are basically just seeing the reflection of light from chemicals. The bird’s body has no objective difference in substance from the tree. The tree and the bird just have a different arrangement of matter.

So physical objects (except the smallest particles, if scientists can ever find them) have no objective substance which belongs to it in and of itself; they only have substance as far as we impose on them perceived substance which our mind creates in order to make sense of the world.

For instance, your body is constantly emitting matter and taking in new matter, to rebuild itself. If that matter which was part of your body leaves you, is it still your body? If an animal or bacterium eats it and assumes it as part of its body, is it still your body? If another human being eats that animal and the matter which was originally part of your body, then became part of the animal’s body, and finally becomes part of that person’s body, is it part of your body or part of their body?

So your body itself does not have objective substance. It is only “your body” because your soul experiences the physical world through the specific chemical composition which supports bodily life.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

…snip…]

Now atoms are simply what Spirit looks like like when perceived through the human senses (and of course microscopes and things like that are simply machines which extend the natural ability of the senses).

That is false and contrary to Catholic Dogma. You cannot " see " or " detect " or " measure " the soul, angels, or God, which are spirits. Spirits are non-material and only the material can be seen, detected, or measured.

It is also false according to Thomistic philosophy/theology. Even in philosophy spirits are non-material.

How old are you?

Linus2nd

 

[Gorgias]

That is false and contrary to Catholic Dogma. You cannot " see " or " detect " or " measure " the soul, angels, or God, which are spirits. Spirits are non-material and only the material can be seen, detected, or measured.

It is also false according to Thomistic philosophy/theology. Even in philosophy spirits are non-material.

How old are you?

245 years old, by all accounts. If you interpret “Spirit” as Geist, this is exactly what the German idealist philosopher Hegel asserted. If you prefer a Kantian framework, use noumena in place of “Spirit”.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

245 years old, by all accounts. If you interpret “Spirit” as Geist, this is exactly what the German idealist philosopher Hegel asserted. If you prefer a Kantian framework, use noumena in place of “Spirit”.

I don’t know anything about these philosophers and don’t care to since the Catholic Church depends on the realist philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Spirit in the eyes of the Church and Thomas aquinas are by definition non-material. And spirit cannot be detected. Period.

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

LinusThe2nd, did something happen? You quoted my OP but didn’t say anything.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Everything physical is made of chemicals, chemicals are made of compounds of elements, elements are composed of protons, neutrons, electrons, which can be broken down into other stuff that I don’t know well…snip…]

This is wrong on two accounts.

First it is contrary to Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation and Creation. In Transubstantiation, the substance of the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ and only the accidents remain.

The doctrine of creation the Church teachs the God created the world, in time, out of nothing, both the material and the spiritual.

And he created man out of the materials of the world and breathed into him a living soul.
Man and soul here are substances.

In other words, God created substances, he did not create ultimate particles specifically. Read Genesis. You don’t hear it talking about atoms, etc. It talks about about living and non-living things, substances.

Philosophically it is incorrect because it is only substances that exist, and these are divided in to ten categories, substances which exist on their own account and accidents which exist in substances or which condition substances or are related to substances in a relationship of dependency.

You are falling into the trap of scientism. I think Imelahn and others have tried to explain where you are wrong.

It is true that all physical reality is composed ultimately of atoms, electrons, etc. But these are not free roaming actors. Aristotle and Thomas, though they did not live in our age, would have said that atoms, electrons, etc are accidents of substances and their activity is determined by the particular natures in which they exist and coordinate their activity for the good of the substance in which they exist. Taken individually as accidents of a substance, they do have their own individuality and functionality, and this is according to their nature. But their over all functionality is to preserve the well being of the substances of which they are the material element.

P.S. post # 5 was an error. This post was intended.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

This is wrong on two accounts.

First it is contrary to Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation and Creation. In Transubstantiation, the substance of the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ and only the accidents remain.

The doctrine of creation the Church teachs the God created the world, in time, out of nothing, both the material and the spiritual.

And he created man out of the materials of the world and breathed into him a living soul.
Man and soul here are substances.

In other words, God created substances, he did not create ultimate particles specifically. Read Genesis. You don’t hear it talking about atoms, etc. It talks about about living and non-living things, substances.

Philosophically it is incorrect because it is only substances that exist, and these are divided in to ten categories, substances which exist on their own account and accidents which exist in substances or which condition substances or are related to substances in a relationship of dependency.

You are falling into the trap of scientism. I think Imelahn and others have tried to explain where you are wrong.

It is true that all physical reality is composed ultimately of atoms, electrons, etc. But these are not free roaming actors. Aristotle and Thomas, though they did not live in our age, would have said that atoms, electrons, etc are accidents of substances and their activity is determined by the particular natures in which they exist and coordinate their activity for the good of the substance in which they exist. Taken individually as accidents of a substance, they do have their own individuality and functionality, and this is according to their nature. But their over all functionality is to preserve the well being of the substances of which they are the material element.

P.S. post # 5 was an error. This post was intended.

Pax
Linus2nd

As far as I know the definition of Transubstantiation is not a dogmatically defined process, it remains a mystery. I specifically read the catechism for that and did not find the definition that you put.

My point is that a substance is just a spiritual idea. It has no physical counterpart except for the foundation of matter. We infer on perception of the world that certain “locations” have specific substances. But it is plain to me that this is just an illusion used to make sense of the physical world.

You could say that when God creates the world, he “sees” individual physical substances. But all physical things are just matter.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t know anything about these philosophers and don’t care to since the Catholic Church depends on the realist philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.

LOL… “what has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”, indeed!

(And, to be perfectly honest, the Catholic Church doesn’t depend on Thomas Aquinas, per se. I’m thinking that you’re confusing the Angelic Doctor with Jesus Christ. )

 

[Linusthe2nd]

As far as I know the definition of Transubstantiation is not a dogmatically defined process, it remains a mystery. I specifically read the catechism for that and did not find the definition that you put.

From the Catechism on Transubstantiation

1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."199 ( Council of Trent 1551; DS 1651], Defide ] In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained. ( Council of Trent 1551; DS 1651], Dogmatic ) “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.” ( Paul Vl, MF 39 )

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.” ( Council of Trent 1551; DS 1642] Dogmatic )

Catechism on Creation
293
This one, true God, of his own goodness and “almighty power”, not for increasing his own beatitude, nor for attaining his perfection, but in order to manifest this perfection through the benefits which he bestows on creatures, with absolute freedom of counsel “and from the beginning of time, made out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal. . .” ( Vatican Council 1, Dei Filius, 1; DS 3002, Dogmatic ) And then there is Genesis itself, which speaks only of creatures, fully formed; that is individual existing natures like man, animals, fishes, birds, the seas, the solid land, etc.

Perhaps you should read the Catechism again. It’s pretty sad when one must constantly battle not only atheists, agnostics, and cultist ideologues but people from one’s own faith who have little knowledge of or little regard for the teachings of that faith and its historical philosophical handmaidens in philosophy and theology.

Linus2nd

 

[TarkanAttila]

On the other hand, a particular arrangement of quarks and subatomic particles makes atoms. Particular arrangements of atoms make molecules. Of molecules, cells. Of cells, flesh and organs. Of flesh and organs, bodies. Of bodies and souls, people.

You can break the world apart infinitesimally. And you can then put it back together like Legos. All macroscopic material has substance based on only on what it is made of, but how it is arranged. Does this make any sense?

 

[blase6]

From the Catechism on Transubstantiation

1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."199 ( Council of Trent 1551; DS 1651], Defide ] In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained. ( Council of Trent 1551; DS 1651], Dogmatic ) “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.” ( Paul Vl, MF 39 )

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.” ( Council of Trent 1551; DS 1642] Dogmatic )

Catechism on Creation
293
This one, true God, of his own goodness and “almighty power”, not for increasing his own beatitude, nor for attaining his perfection, but in order to manifest this perfection through the benefits which he bestows on creatures, with absolute freedom of counsel “and from the beginning of time, made out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal. . .” ( Vatican Council 1, Dei Filius, 1; DS 3002, Dogmatic ) And then there is Genesis itself, which speaks only of creatures, fully formed; that is individual existing natures like man, animals, fishes, birds, the seas, the solid land, etc.

Perhaps you should read the Catechism again. It’s pretty sad when one must constantly battle not only atheists, agnostics, and cultist ideologues but people from one’s own faith who have little knowledge of or little regard for the teachings of that faith and its historical philosophical handmaidens in philosophy and theology.

Linus2nd

The only understanding I could have of objective physical substance would be a kind of “soul” that that object has. But that raises a bunch of problems, such as, if a manmade figurine has objective substance, it has a sort of “soul”, but did God make the soul or the craftsman?

 

[mikekle]

This is an interesting topic, Ive been watching some documentaries that delve into this subject, but will admit, its somewhat hard to understand, as the science is at the quantum level, and that in itself is difficult to fathom, but from what I understand, and I think this is the road where mainstream science theory is heading…

Everything we see around us, in our world, whether it be HUGE pieces of steel for skyscrapers, down to the pencil on our desks, do not really exist as a ‘solid’ object, give you have the science down and understand this, its possible for you to ‘manipulate’ anything and everything, however you like for that matter!

I know it sounds crazy, but some have described it in a way that does make sense, but still, trying to look at a huge steel I beam and say, ‘its not really what it appears to be’, is extremely difficult to do, but I think as we progress in this area, eventually, ( Im talking about decades here), we may reach a level of ability/ technology, that any living person can manipulate any object in this world, however they like, with no effort at all.

I think down the road, this will lead to discoveries that will literally change the world we live in, and we will never look at things like we used to, I cannot imagine how this new world will even look! It is very interesting though, plus, I think on the way to understanding this, we will also make some other discoveries, probably by accident, but those will also be major, world-changing type discoveries as well!

 

[blase6]

On the other hand, a particular arrangement of quarks and subatomic particles makes atoms. Particular arrangements of atoms make molecules. Of molecules, cells. Of cells, flesh and organs. Of flesh and organs, bodies. Of bodies and souls, people.

You can break the world apart infinitesimally. And you can then put it back together like Legos. All macroscopic material has substance based on only on what it is made of, but how it is arranged. Does this make any sense?

You’ve ruled out the possibility of the Eucharist undergoing “objective substantial” change, if physical substance is based on physical form.

 

[TarkanAttila]

You’ve ruled out the possibility of the Eucharist undergoing “objective substantial” change, if physical substance is based on physical form.

Who said the Eucharist changed physical form? Actually, wouldn’t that be transformation, as physical forms are just that, forms?

Atoms and subatomic particles are physical, and therefore have a form, for a form is not but a measurable or sensible quality.

But do you think God has no substance, although the Father and the Spirit are entirely non-material Beings? If the Eucharist changes substance, it need not be on the physical level, nor need it merely be on the spiritual.

From what I understand, Calvinists teach the Eucharist is still bread, but merely infused with the Spirit of Our Lord. Hm. You’re making me think. So what, then, is the change of transubstantiation if not physical change of form, and not merely a spiritual infusion?

I’m going to make a wild guess: let’s say that, in God’s mind, there are two sorts of bread. One is the common bread we eat, and which cannot have any life in it. The second, which is the Eucharist, is a bread where a soul and a life can be had, even though it seems about as alive as common bread. The difference is, then, that the Eucharist is a person, and not merely an holy object.

Considering some people have felt another person in a Catholic Church, even when they’re otherwise alone, I wonder if that might be the defining trait of a change of substance: from an object, to a person.

Any other thoughts on this?

 

[blase6]

Who said the Eucharist changed physical form? Actually, wouldn’t that be transformation, as physical forms are just that, forms?

Atoms and subatomic particles are physical, and therefore have a form, for a form is not but a measurable or sensible quality.

But do you think God has no substance, although the Father and the Spirit are entirely non-material Beings? If the Eucharist changes substance, it need not be on the physical level, nor need it merely be on the spiritual.

From what I understand, Calvinists teach the Eucharist is still bread, but merely infused with the Spirit of Our Lord. Hm. You’re making me think. So what, then, is the change of transubstantiation if not physical change of form, and not merely a spiritual infusion?

I’m going to make a wild guess: let’s say that, in God’s mind, there are two sorts of bread. One is the common bread we eat, and which cannot have any life in it. The second, which is the Eucharist, is a bread where a soul and a life can be had, even though it seems about as alive as common bread. The difference is, then, that the Eucharist is a person, and not merely an holy object.

Considering some people have felt another person in a Catholic Church, even when they’re otherwise alone, I wonder if that might be the defining trait of a change of substance: from an object, to a person.

Any other thoughts on this?

I think that objective substance exists only on the spiritual level. I exist. So do you. We are objectively different because we do not have spiritual parts which could be exchanged.

On the other hand, let’s say you see a cat and cat food. The cat is an objective substance, right? The components in its body have the indelible mark of “cat”, as opposed to the food, right? No. There is no absolute difference in the matter of the cat’s body which objectively separates it from the matter of the food. The cat could eat the food and absorb the matter into its own body. Then where is the substance of food anymore? Does it undergo a sort of spiritual change of substance? No. There never was objective substance of “food” in the matter. The “food” was just a label our mind gave to the mass of matter, which appeared separate from the matter surrounding it. It is the same with the cat.

The explanation of the Eucharist as a “change of substance” is definitely based on the assumption that the Thomistic ideas of “form” and “accident” correspond perfectly to physical reality. I seriously question that accuracy, especially with our better understanding of matter now.

I am not sure if this is an acceptable explanation of the Eucharist, but I think it could be understood that a real “change of substance” happens, in that the matter of the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ because they become “disposed” for that purpose, in the sense that the matter in our bodies is “disposed” for our souls. So the underlying physical matter remains the same.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think that objective substance exists only on the spiritual level. I exist. So do you. We are objectively different because we do not have spiritual parts which could be exchanged.

On the other hand, let’s say you see a cat and cat food. The cat is an objective substance, right? The components in its body have the indelible mark of “cat”, as opposed to the food, right? No. There is no absolute difference in the matter of the cat’s body which objectively separates it from the matter of the food. The cat could eat the food and absorb the matter into its own body. Then where is the substance of food anymore? Does it undergo a sort of spiritual change of substance? No. There never was objective substance of “food” in the matter. The “food” was just a label our mind gave to the mass of matter, which appeared separate from the matter surrounding it. It is the same with the cat.

The explanation of the Eucharist as a “change of substance” is definitely based on the assumption that the Thomistic ideas of “form” and “accident” correspond perfectly to physical reality. I seriously question that accuracy, especially with our better understanding of matter now.

I am not sure if this is an acceptable explanation of the Eucharist, but I think it could be understood that a real “change of substance” happens, in that the matter of the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ because they become “disposed” for that purpose, in the sense that the matter in our bodies is “disposed” for our souls. So the underlying physical matter remains the same.

As long as you keep on this track you will have no credibility. God created things with natures. The nature of substances control the activity of all of which they are composed. The nature of the Cat controls all the electrons, atoms, cells of which its physicality is composed.

Your concept of Transubstiantion is wrong. I explained what the Dogmatic teaching of the Church is. If you want a philosophical explanation you will have to god to Thomas Aquinas. newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm

Question 75. The change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ
1.Is the Body of Christ in this sacrament truly, or figuratively?
2.Do the substance of bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the consecration?
3.Is it annihilated?
4.Is it changed into the body and blood of Christ?
5.Do the accidents remain after the change?
6.Does the substantial form remain there?
7.Is this change instantaneous? 8.By what words it may be suitably expressed?

Linus2nd