Objective substance of macroscopic physical objects does not exist

[TarkanAttila]

The Catechism like any other text, is subject to fallible interpretation, and so I will never be sure what it exactly means.

So I assume you also believe that we’ll never know exactly what St. Paul had in mind when he said, “If Christ has not risen from the dead”?

The encyclopedia quote just shows me the logical absurdity which results from believing that physical objects have substance apart from mere matter. I am trying to point out that substance of physical objects is based in one’s perception of the world. There are objectively no planets, no stars, no rocks, no water, etc. All that is purely physical is just matter, and any substance we perceive is subjective.

And any substance God perceives, and call us to recognise: is that merely subjective, too?

I think I can disagree with your assertion that all things are merely nameless matter. For while they are composed of certain building blocks like atoms, it’s the arrangement of the atoms that makes a substance. Water is no mere matter; it is a substance. Its arrangement of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom has measurable, noticeable properties that make it different from most every other substance in the world. The arrangement of atoms in iron makes it malleable, and also strong, whereas talc is not malleable, and is weak. And all this because some of its parts are arranged in a certain way.

Saying there is no iron, no water, no planets, but only matter, is like saying there is no blue, green, pink, or white, but it’s all colour. Well, colour is made distinct by certain properties, be it light, or amount of pigment, or what have you. Same with matter. Quanity and quality go together in distinguishing matter.

 

[blase6]

So I assume you also believe that we’ll never know exactly what St. Paul had in mind when he said, “If Christ has not risen from the dead”?

And any substance God perceives, and call us to recognise: is that merely subjective, too?

I think I can disagree with your assertion that all things are merely nameless matter. For while they are composed of certain building blocks like atoms, it’s the arrangement of the atoms that makes a substance. Water is no mere matter; it is a substance. Its arrangement of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom has measurable, noticeable properties that make it different from most every other substance in the world. The arrangement of atoms in iron makes it malleable, and also strong, whereas talc is not malleable, and is weak. And all this because some of its parts are arranged in a certain way.

Saying there is no iron, no water, no planets, but only matter, is like saying there is no blue, green, pink, or white, but it’s all colour. Well, colour is made distinct by certain properties, be it light, or amount of pigment, or what have you. Same with matter. Quanity and quality go together in distinguishing matter.

Absolute substance is basic. It cannot be broken down into parts like physical objects can. Your soul does not have separable parts like your body does. So the overall substance of physical objects is based on perception. Even if God “perceives” substance in a collection of matter and calls us to recognize it, it does not mean that the collection of matter in and of itself has objective substance apart from perception.

 

[blase6]

“I hold that”? So, just a group of assertions without any actual argument…?

For example, “that would be a spiritual reality” - why do you think so?

Or “a spiritual reality, which purely physical matter does not have except at the basic level of ‘matter’” - again, why do you think so?

I see… Well, at least that’s consistent… Not very reasonable, but consistent.

Because substance is an idea. Ideas are spiritual. You cannot look with your eyes at an idea. Only your mind perceives an idea. That a rock has an objective substance apart from personal perception is contradictory, because it ascribes an objective spiritual quality to purely physical matter.

 

[MPat]

Because substance is an idea.

A substance is an object, not an idea.

That a rock has an objective substance apart from personal perception is contradictory, because it ascribes an objective spiritual quality to purely physical matter.

Yes, a rock cannot have a substance. It might be a substance.

At the moment it appears that what you really try to argue would be “translated” like this: “Only leptons, quarks, photons, plants, animals (and some similar objects) are substances; rocks and similar things are aggregates of substances.”. Which, by the way, is not as incompatible with Thomism, as you seem to claim.

 

[blase6]

A substance is an object, not an idea.

Yes, a rock cannot have a substance. It might be a substance.

At the moment it appears that what you really try to argue would be “translated” like this: “Only leptons, quarks, photons, plants, animals (and some similar objects) are substances; rocks and similar things are aggregates of substances.”. Which, by the way, is not as incompatible with Thomism, as you seem to claim.

Plants seem to be biological machines without any spiritual quality. They probably do not have any soul at all. So they would not be substances.

Animals seem to have some thought process and memory, which suggests that they have a spiritual soul, if not a rational soul.

But only the souls of such objects would have substance, because substance is spiritual. The bodies of those creatures have no objective substance.

Please just admit that even though you think a rock is a substance, that it comes basically from your own perception, and not from that something which is called a rock objectively exists, apart from your perception.

 

[ricmat]

When you guys get this all sorted out, perhaps you can finally solve the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[blase6]

When you guys get this all sorted out, perhaps you can finally solve the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

None, because dancing involves physical movement of one’s body, which angels lack.

 

[MPat]

Plants seem to be biological machines without any spiritual quality. They probably do not have any soul at all. So they would not be substances.

Finally! “So they would not be substances.” - “be” is much better than “have”!

Animals seem to have some thought process and memory, which suggests that they have a spiritual soul, if not a rational soul.

But only the souls of such objects would have substance, because substance is spiritual. The bodies of those creatures have no objective substance.

Wait, why do you think that substance is spiritual? Is it just because you cannot imagine it any other way?

Please just admit that even though you think a rock is a substance,

I do? I don’t remember saying so.

I was just pointing out that you seem to misunderstand what a substance is supposed to be.

 

[blase6]

Wait, why do you think that substance is spiritual? Is it just because you cannot imagine it any other way?

That which is physical comprises matter, or energy, or both. (or any other physical force).
That which is not physical is spiritual. A substance is an idea. An idea is not physical, so it must be spiritual.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Absolute substance is basic. It cannot be broken down into parts like physical objects can. Your soul does not have separable parts like your body does. So the overall substance of physical objects is based on perception. Even if God “perceives” substance in a collection of matter and calls us to recognize it, it does not mean that the collection of matter in and of itself has objective substance apart from perception.

Absolute substance. What on Earth is that supposed to mean?

A substance can have parts - even parts that, by themselves, may be substances. Simply because the soul is a substance without parts does not mean all substances, basically, lack parts. A substance is*** any*** coherent, stable entity - be it simple, without parts, or complex, with parts configured in a certain fashion.

So a spirit is a simple substance, but man is a complex substance consisting of body and soul, the body having the vast majority of the parts.

And so, to take an earlier example, cat food is a substance and form made up of dead meat and water and other things, and it ceases to be a substance when it becomes a part of the substance and form called a cat what eats it.

Your problem is refusing to recognise that the material world, while contingent on the utterly simple God, exists and has parts and is not an illusion. God created the world ex nihilo. He did not merely dream it up.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Absolute substance. What on Earth is that supposed to mean?

A substance can have parts - even parts that, by themselves, may be substances. Simply because the soul is a substance without parts does not mean all substances, basically, lack parts. A substance is*** any*** coherent, stable entity - be it simple, without parts, or complex, with parts configured in a certain fashion.

So a spirit is a simple substance, but man is a complex substance consisting of body and soul, the body having the vast majority of the parts.

And so, to take an earlier example, cat food is a substance and form made up of dead meat and water and other things, and it ceases to be a substance when it becomes a part of the substance and form called a cat what eats it.

Your problem is refusing to recognise that the material world, while contingent on the utterly simple God, exists and has parts and is not an illusion. God created the world ex nihilo. He did not merely dream it up.

Your explanation is good as far as it goes. Material substances are a bit hard to explain. For example, a Cat does not have to have the physical configurations or bodily appearance and form it does have. It could have been two legged and walk upright. So it is better to view the things we sense and detect as accidents of the underlying substance we cannot sense and detect. True the accidents exist, but they exist only because they adhere to the underlying substance, essence, or nature ( and these three are more or less synonyms for one another in material being).

But Aristotle, and Thomas after him, called the thing we see, First Substance. And they called the underlying essential reality, Second Substance. But it is actually Second Substance which is the real thing. Why they didn’t turn the two terms around I don’t know, but we have to deal with what they came up with. Second substance is the basic and essential reality, from that flows the whole nature of the thing, including its accidents.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What is certainly defined Catholic Dogma, and where it can be found? The Church is in such a mess of what is dogma, and what is not, that I don’t know if I will ever know for sure.

Actually, Dogmas are not known except in the way they are presented and in the type of Document they appear in. And Dogmas are usually formulated because some infallible teaching of the Church has become under prolonged attack. And for this reason, while not everything in the Catechism is Dogma, everything in is is Infallible and must be believed by all Catholics who want to be able to receive the Sacraments and be faithful Catholics.

And yes, it is difficult to sort out which teaching is a Dogma. One usually knows this from the footnotes which refer to the source of the teaching.

For example: " 36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12 "

This is a Defined Dogma. We know this because the footnote # 11refers us to Vatican Council I, Dei Filius 2: DS 3004 cf. 3026; Vatican Council
II, Dei Verbum 6.

The document, Dei Filius of the Council Defined this Dogma. It is also found on the book which keeps track of such things, called Denzinger Sources of Catholic Dogma, paragraph 3004, and the Dogma is also repeated in the document , Dei Verbum of Vatican 2.

So, for the most part, you would not know whether a teaching is Dogma or not unless you followed the footnotes. But it is not essential to know which are Dogmas and which are not because everything in the Catechism must be believed, the whole book is Infallible.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[mikekle]

None, because dancing involves physical movement of one’s body, which angels lack.

So, this would also mean NO angel could have entered someones house and have dinner with them…or angels that enter a particular town, and have to deal with some residents wanting to rape them…after all, how could any humans ‘rape’ a being that has no physical body?

See what Im saying?

 

[MPat]

That which is physical comprises matter, or energy, or both. (or any other physical force).
That which is not physical is spiritual. A substance is an idea. An idea is not physical, so it must be spiritual.

Where do you get those assertions?

No, “That which is physical comprises matter, or energy, or both. (or any other physical force).” doesn’t sound right. Do not forget: energy is otherwise known as mass. Would you really say “That which is physical comprises matter, or mass, or both.”?

Or “That which is not physical is spiritual.”. That is less questionable, but still, are you sure those are the only options? If you are, can you demonstrate that other options do not exist?

Or “A substance is an idea.” - no, it is not. Why do you think that it is? Can you, let’s say, cite Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas claiming so?

 

[blase6]

Absolute substance. What on Earth is that supposed to mean?

A substance can have parts - even parts that, by themselves, may be substances. Simply because the soul is a substance without parts does not mean all substances, basically, lack parts. A substance is*** any*** coherent, stable entity - be it simple, without parts, or complex, with parts configured in a certain fashion.

So a spirit is a simple substance, but man is a complex substance consisting of body and soul, the body having the vast majority of the parts.

And so, to take an earlier example, cat food is a substance and form made up of dead meat and water and other things, and it ceases to be a substance when it becomes a part of the substance and form called a cat what eats it.

Your problem is refusing to recognise that the material world, while contingent on the utterly simple God, exists and has parts and is not an illusion. God created the world ex nihilo. He did not merely dream it up.

Absolute substance is that which cannot be broken down into what appears to be more substances. This is the only real substance that I know. Further substance of physical matter is based on perception. You may see a cat on a tree and conceive of it as two distinct entities, but another person may think that it is one entity.

 

[blase6]

Actually, Dogmas are not known except in the way they are presented and in the type of Document they appear in. And Dogmas are usually formulated because some infallible teaching of the Church has become under prolonged attack. And for this reason, while not everything in the Catechism is Dogma, everything in is is Infallible and must be believed by all Catholics who want to be able to receive the Sacraments and be faithful Catholics.

And yes, it is difficult to sort out which teaching is a Dogma. One usually knows this from the footnotes which refer to the source of the teaching.

For example: " 36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12 "

This is a Defined Dogma. We know this because the footnote # 11refers us to Vatican Council I, Dei Filius 2: DS 3004 cf. 3026; Vatican Council
II, Dei Verbum 6.

The document, Dei Filius of the Council Defined this Dogma. It is also found on the book which keeps track of such things, called Denzinger Sources of Catholic Dogma, paragraph 3004, and the Dogma is also repeated in the document , Dei Verbum of Vatican 2.

So, for the most part, you would not know whether a teaching is Dogma or not unless you followed the footnotes. But it is not essential to know which are Dogmas and which are not because everything in the Catechism must be believed, the whole book is Infallible.

Pax
Linus2nd

I think that Council had a different idea of “certain” from the certainty I know. I really don’t know if you are correct in saying that the CCC is infallible. It has to be translated and that brings about minor inconsistencies which obscure the truth. Not even translations of the Bible are infallible, I think.

 

[blase6]

So, this would also mean NO angel could have entered someones house and have dinner with them…or angels that enter a particular town, and have to deal with some residents wanting to rape them…after all, how could any humans ‘rape’ a being that has no physical body?

See what Im saying?

I don’t know where you are getting that stuff. I have to focus on my own philosophical problems with absolute Church teaching, and I don’t have time to worry about all the inconsistent stuff that other Catholics believe.

 

[blase6]

Where do you get those assertions?

No, “That which is physical comprises matter, or energy, or both. (or any other physical force).” doesn’t sound right. Do not forget: energy is otherwise known as mass. Would you really say “That which is physical comprises matter, or mass, or both.”?

Or “That which is not physical is spiritual.”. That is less questionable, but still, are you sure those are the only options? If you are, can you demonstrate that other options do not exist?

Or “A substance is an idea.” - no, it is not. Why do you think that it is? Can you, let’s say, cite Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas claiming so?

:banghead:

Yesterday I looked outside and saw a bunch of substances. NO. I saw matter, which I conceived in my mind as having distinct substances. Substance is an idea. If you don’t see that, then I don’t know how to explain myself better.

 

[MPat]

:banghead:

Yesterday I looked outside and saw a bunch of substances. NO. I saw matter, which I conceived in my mind as having distinct substances. Substance is an idea. If you don’t see that, then I don’t know how to explain myself better.

Yes, you do assert that. You did so many times. But no, it is not self-evident and you do need an argument. If you cannot provide one, could it be because you are wrong on this point?

At the moment the strongest argument you have given is that you cannot imagine it in any other way:

The only understanding I could have of objective physical substance would be a kind of “soul” that that object has.

But no, that doesn’t work. There is an alternative explanation: that your understanding is not correct.

Then there is “a seed of an argument” that:

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.

Yet Thomists do agree that there is “prime matter” that is the same in the tree and in the bird. But they do not conclude that the tree and the bird do not exist. So, you’ll have to show how your premises lead to your conclusion in far more detail.

Also, I have pointed out three questionable assertions in my post. This might be considered an answer to the point about the third, but what about the other two?

 

[blase6]

Yes, you do assert that. You did so many times. But no, it is not self-evident and you do need an argument. If you cannot provide one, could it be because you are wrong on this point?

At the moment the strongest argument you have given is that you cannot imagine it in any other way:

But no, that doesn’t work. There is an alternative explanation: that your understanding is not correct.

Then there is “a seed of an argument” that:

Yet Thomists do agree that there is “prime matter” that is the same in the tree and in the bird. But they do not conclude that the tree and the bird do not exist. So, you’ll have to show how your premises lead to your conclusion in far more detail.

Also, I have pointed out three questionable assertions in my post. This might be considered an answer to the point about the third, but what about the other two?

Walk into a room and look around at all the objects. They are all objective substances, right? Look closer, and with the general understanding scientists have of matter. For example, you may think a tin can has objective substance. But if you look closer, it is just tin arranged in a way which you think is the shape and consistency of a can. And then if you look closer, the “tin” is just atoms which have a certain number of protons in them. And if you look closer, there are no protons, just deeper and deeper particles, which may just keep going on infinitely.

So you have to accept that all the “substances” you see are only in your immediate and superficial perception. Even you yourself looking closer will find that those “substances” do not remain under your own perception.