On refutation of the Unmoved Mover

[inocente]

What he is saying does not require a privileged reference frame. What is a “mover” in one frame might be a “stationer” in another. The question is what causes mass to behave according to the principle of inertia, regardless of whether we decide to characterize a given body as moving or stationary. Do massed objects behave that way for no reason? Presumably not.

This does not mean that there is an external force acting on objects to make them stay still or move at constant velocity. That is simply not what is being proposed. What is proposed is whether mass behaves according to the principle of inertia for reason (which the principle of inertia is silent on).

Nope, Feser misunderstands relativity, and due to that he thinks inertia is fishy: “And while there is no essential difficulty in the notion of a finite cause imparting a finite motion to an object, there does seem to be something fishy about the idea of a finite cause”.

Motion is change. If I have a soft clay ball in my hand and I squeeze it slowly, it will conform to the shape of my hand. As soon as I stop squeezing (acting), the clay stops conforming; the change stops. “put in motion” is the term Aquinas uses, but from what he is describing it is clear that a mover is required while the motion takes place.

Which, while interesting, has nothing to do with me saying that “Thomas doesn’t require that bodies mysteriously know when to actualize potencies, it’s just not part of this argument”.

This will be my last reply to this topic.

You were the one who introduced Feser’s paper to the thread, but agreed, no point discussing something that’s wrong.

 

[inocente]

Yes – which would be giving us our Freedom in the most radical sense of the word. And that is, indeed, what superficial or empirical evidence would seem to indicate – the Shoah was a very imperfect thing, and a great evil, yet the unmoved mover neither created it (per the Thomists) nor had the moral obligation to stop it. That, to me, is radical freedom for human beings, more a deistic conception of God than a Judeo-Christian one.

Wow – that hadn’t occurred to me All this talk of the Unmoved Mover as God (which Aquinas automatically posited to be the case, as something self-evident) and of God having no moral obligations, contrasts quite interestingly with beliefs about Christ. Christ came to earth and showed himself to be superlatively moral. So, for Christians or for those conversant with Christianity, it is quite understandable that one would expect the Father to be as “morally superlative” as the Son.

It gets complicated, of course, because it’s believed that God answers prayers and continues to do “Christ-like” work as…the Unmoved Mover, presumably, and as the Trinity… It gets confusing – I am mixing the philosophical arguments with the claims of revelation, but I’m assuming the Thomist would posit they are inseparable.

So God has no moral obligations, but intercedes and shows compassion/mercy/forgiveness… Qualities which, indeed, we associate with morality. On the other hand, non-intervention, when one has the power to prevent evil, would be a great evil in a human being. In fact, if a human being had the power to stop the Shoah, and did not, he essentially would be culpable for the deaths of many millions of people. And non-intervention certainly facilities misunderstandings – this sense that we’re pretty much on our own (though we do have each other) which feeds into the prevalent notion that (gasp) God is not a terribly relevant concept in the living of their lives. Statements like “God has no moral obligations towards you” don’t help to relieve these misunderstandings. One can conclude from that, “better learn to help yourself, and don’t wait to be bailed out from on high.”

It’s good we at least agree of some things. But of course this is about belief in God, not (necessarily) the unmoved mover.

*That’s still a possibility. Multiple Unmoved Movers, seeding multiple universe. We have a Father, and even if it’s one Father (though it could be a chorus), perhaps other universes have different Fathers, just as different children do.

p.s. there’s a quote Karl Popper I’ve been meaning to share, which resonated with me:

“Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.”*

I thought you said more than one unmoved mover is ruled out, which seemed more reasonable if we wish to banish infinite regress. The argument allows for a single unmoved mover making multiple gods, although this is at odds with the central tenet of monotheism.

I like the Popper quote - once we think we know for sure, we stop asking questions.

 

[inocente]

I haven’t got time to read this whole debate, so can you please in short tell me what your main problem is with the unmoved mover argument and we can go from there.

So you’re saying your time is more valuable than mine.

*“I said, Hey, is this my problem?
Is this my fault?
If that’s the way it’s gonna be
I’m going to call the whole thing to a halt”

• Gumboots, Paul Simon*

I’m basically discussing the OP proposition that by itself, human logic is subjective and fallible, and therefore it’s always good to be aware of the holes in an argument rather than be blind to them. It seems though that the first way is not so much a philosophical argument as an object of faith, as folk have got real defensive when any aspect of it is questioned.

 

[Linux]

So you’re saying your time is more valuable than mine.

*“I said, Hey, is this my problem?
Is this my fault?
If that’s the way it’s gonna be
I’m going to call the whole thing to a halt”

• Gumboots, Paul Simon*

I’m basically discussing the OP proposition that by itself, human logic is subjective and fallible, and therefore it’s always good to be aware of the holes in an argument rather than be blind to them. It seems though that the first way is not so much a philosophical argument as an object of faith, as folk have got real defensive when any aspect of it is questioned.

Well of course they are offended; anybody with a struggling with their faith is going to see critical arguments as an attack on their very existence.

However, i don’t quite know what you mean by human logic.

 

[Linux]

So you’re saying your time is more valuable than mine.

*“I said, Hey, is this my problem?
Is this my fault?
If that’s the way it’s gonna be
I’m going to call the whole thing to a halt”

• Gumboots, Paul Simon*

I’m basically discussing the OP proposition that by itself, human logic is subjective and fallible, and therefore it’s always good to be aware of the holes in an argument rather than be blind to them. It seems though that the first way is not so much a philosophical argument as an object of faith, as folk have got real defensive when any aspect of it is questioned.

Well of course they are offended; anybody struggling with their faith is going to see critical arguments as an attack on their very existence. That’s just their fight or flight response.

However, i don’t quite know what you mean by human logic.

 

[Portofino]

I like the Popper quote - once we think we know for sure, we stop asking questions.

Yes. Which is why I think some scientists have posited – rightfully, I think – that the unmoved mover hypothesis adds nothing to science, since it is beyond scientific investigation. If you accept it as an answer, you’re in danger of not discovering things about the universe that could have been discovered otherwise – or so it seems to me.

It is the end of inquiry insofar as the question, “what, then, is the origin of the Unmoved Mover?” becomes without interest (in the eyes of theists themselves). How does the Unmoved Mover, which is immaterial, react with the material world? This, too, becomes a question without interest and not worthy of scientific investigation. It just is, period. Most scientists, on the other hand, would see this as raising more questions than it answers.

But by keeping the question of the origin of the universe a question that remains open, and about which you are still gathering data and clues, you are promoting inquiry insofar as you’ll continue to investigate and to learn.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The thread is about the unmoved mover argument and what it may or may not prove, not about Thomas’ life work. Questioning whether a philosophical argument works is not “a deep prejudice against philosophy”. Isn’t it kind of the entire point of philosophy to weigh what is and isn’t reasonable?

Your question was whether or not God could " leave " his creation ( I assumed you meant, " could He transcend His creation and at the same time be intimately involved with its creation and continued existence and causality). My point, in response, is that the First Way ( indeed all the Five Ways ) deals with the question of God’s existence. The question of His transcendence is not the issue here. That is proven in other places in His work, which I referenced.

You prejudiced view of philosophy is so painfully obvious in every thing you have said in this thread that the comment is certainly justified.

And it is the job of philosophy to demonstrate what is reasonable and unreasonable. That you happen to disagree with certain arguments or conclusions does not prove that they are unreasonable. It simply proves you disagree with them. Which you should be able to do without engaging in ridicule.

You seem to have jumped threads. On another thread I argued against the lapdog neutered bar room excuse for philosophy which often appears on the internet. On this thread I am not. Please do not jump threads to carry on old debates, it’s against forum rules.

I wondered earlier what in the world you were driving at here. Sorry, you have been engaged in rash judgment. I never refered to any previous thread of yours. I had in mind certain comments you made in this thread, which I have pointed out to you. Sorry to disappoint your conclusion.

To this point it seems I’m the only one not to have read lots of apologists who have twisted his argument to say all things to all men.

Of course they were apologists. To accuse them of using unfair or unreasonable arguments " …who have twisted his ( their ) argument (s) to say all things to all men " is certainly a case of unjustified rash judgment. To smear these men just because they are defending the Catholic Faith is certainly an unjustified ad hominem.

But just as importantly, it is to avoid answering the objection. The point was that many of the early men of Faith were adept and learned in philosophy. And I should point out that without them the Bible you depend on so heavily, would not exist today. Here is a nice little article for you that discusses this point, entitled " Who is in Authority here. "
integratedcatholiclife.org/2013/08/dr-kreeft-whos-in-authority-here/

Another thing I thought everyone learned in high school physics is that all particles show properties of waves. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

And I pointed out that, even if this was so, it would make not the slightest difference to the validity to any of the Five Ways. You conveniently neglected to answer my objection. Rather, you attempt to deflect it by introducing the red herring and ad hominem of my supposed ignorance of high school physics.

My argument was that whatever the position of science on the ultimate structure of matter, that ultimated structure functioned under the direction of whatever natures it supported. And that is the important point of Thomistic/ Aristotelian philosophy. The physical structure of substances or beings does not affect their natures adversely. On the contrary, it enables each particular nature to fulfill its purpose. And this is one of the basic elements of Thomistic/Aristotelian philosophy.

But just for your information. My highschool days were before the time when this ( waves ) were a property of so called ultimate particles. At least it was not in the physics texts we used in the 50s. Or perhaps it was so long ago I just don’t remember. But I think that was a bit early for such conclusions to make it into the high school texts.

End Part 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Innocente Answered, Part 2

Yet Feser himself says “Geocentrism, the ancient theory of the elements, and the notion that objects have specific places to which they naturally move, are examples of Aristotelian ideas in physics that have been decisively superseded.” - page 10, faculty.fordham.edu/klima/SMLM/PSMLM10/PSMLM10.pdf

So, what is the point? As I said, it has no adverse effect on validity of the Five Ways. Whatever modern physics has to say about ultimate physical reality does not supersed Aristotelian/ Thomistic philosophy, though it has superseded Aristotelian science, per se. Feser points out that one has to distinguish between the two aspects, since neither Aristotle nor Thomas made clear distinctions. Nor did any learned men of their day make these distinctions, not even Copernicus or Galileo. Such distinctions came much later in time.

Modern science studies physical reality, it does not study the ultimate natures of that reality. It is modern science that has made the distinction. Science does not and cannot prove that the action of ultimate particles function independently of the natures that they serve. Philosophy, on the contrary, demonstrates that all physical elements of reality function under the direction of whatever natures they are the part of.

As Feser points out in the article you quoted, " …But the theory of act and potency, the doctrine of the four causes, and the hylemorphic analysis of material objects as composits of form and matter are examples of notions which have ( so the contemporary Aristotelian argues ) abiding value as elements of a sound philosophy of nature. So, indeed, the " whatness of an elephant " is very important since it governs all the movements and activities of the particles of which its physicality is composed.

And I should point out that it is not science which says these things but certain modern cosmologists, posing as scientists or presuming to speak for science, which make these unfounded assertions.

It seems I’m the only one on this thread who actually reads what is written.

Of course you are wrong. And I am edified that you went to that source.

Not sure why ballistics got itself capitalized, but we don’t need to go there. All things are ultimately composed of particles. The nature or “what-ness” of an elephant is not the nature of any of the trillions of particles from which it is composed. Thus the nature of an elephant is not fundamental, it is contingent on a particular highly complex pattern of particles. The same follows for all things.

And there you are absolutely wrong. There you are unmistakably identifying yourself with scientism. It is scientism which makes such unfounded conclusions. They mistakenly assume that a " Slit Screen Experiement " ( or some other experiment ) demonstrates the haphazzard behavior of ultimate particles. It demonstrates no such thing. If anything it demonstrates the fact that we lack either the tools or the ability to observe the causes of their behavior. And it certainly does not demonstrate that the behavior of these particles is independent of the natures of the substances in which they exist.

If what you intimate were true the universe, as we know it, would not exist. All that would exist would be a primordial soup with ultimate particles moving haphazzardly any old way according to chance.

I’ve not been discussing the life works of Thomas, not even the five ways, the thread is only about the first way.

You yourself introduced elements which none of the Five Ways deal with, they are dealt with in other areas of Thomistic corpus. For examle, you questioned whether God could be transcendent to His works.

The CCC says revelation finished with the bible, if you want to discuss your notion that revelation finished later you could start a thread, but you may find few agree with you.

No it doesn’t. It says Revelation ended with Christ ( CCC, paras 65,66). The point here is that the Bible was not completed until the death of the last authors of the New Testament. And Revelation ended before that! There was a separation between the death of Christ and the death of the last Apostle and Disciple of over 60 years. St. John himself outlived the first four Popes.

Now for at least two or three times now you have refused to answer this: " For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ever since the cretion of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal powerer and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things than have been made. ( Rom. 1: 19-20 and similarly: Acts 14: 15, 17: 27-28; Wis 13: 1-9 )

Why is that?

It is a question a’ propos to this topic.

I don’t think you are one to lecture about " introducing " other threads. When it serves your purpose, you never hesitate to deviate from the topic if you think you can score a point. You shouldn’t lecture about anything unless you are going to set the perfect example.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Your question was whether or not God could " leave " his creation ( I assumed you meant, " could He transcend His creation and at the same time be intimately involved with its creation and continued existence and causality). My point, in response, is that the First Way ( indeed all the Five Ways ) deals with the question of God’s existence. The question of His transcendence is not the issue here. That is proven in other places in His work, which I referenced.

The unmoved mover of the argument is an abstract entity which is not necessarily the God of scripture. The thread is about the argument, not about scripture.

And it is the job of philosophy to demonstrate what is reasonable and unreasonable. That you happen to disagree with certain arguments or conclusions does not prove that they are unreasonable. It simply proves you disagree with them. Which you should be able to do without engaging in ridicule.

Now there’s a pot calling the kettle.

*Of course they were apologists. To accuse them of using unfair or unreasonable arguments " …who have twisted his ( their ) argument (s) to say all things to all men " is certainly a case of unjustified rash judgment. To smear these men just because they are defending the Catholic Faith is certainly an unjustified ad hominem.

But just as importantly, it is to avoid answering the objection. The point was that many of the early men of Faith were adept and learned in philosophy. And I should point out that without them the Bible you depend on so heavily, would not exist today. Here is a nice little article for you that discusses this point, entitled " Who is in Authority here. "
integratedcatholiclife.org/2013/08/dr-kreeft-whos-in-authority-here/*

I was talking of the likes of Feser, not the Church Fathers. It would have been great if we could have had a discussion on the merits of the argument without people thinking it was criticizing their faith, but there you go, apparently some folk can’t distinguish theology from philosophy.

The article you linked is about fundamentalists, I don’t know what that has to do with anything. Please note I always refuse to engage with sectarian extremists and tell them to take their bigotry elsewhere.

And I pointed out that, even if this was so, it would make not the slightest difference to the validity to any of the Five Ways. You conveniently neglected to answer my objection. Rather, you attempt to deflect it by introducing the red herring and ad hominem of my supposed ignorance of high school physics

You said “you refer to them as waves but I doubt that” and I linked an article to put your doubts to rest.

*My argument was that whatever the position of science on the ultimate structure of matter, that ultimated structure functioned under the direction of whatever natures it supported. And that is the important point of Thomistic/ Aristotelian philosophy. The physical structure of substances or beings does not affect their natures adversely. On the contrary, it enables each particular nature to fulfill its purpose. And this is one of the basic elements of Thomistic/Aristotelian philosophy. *

Yes but it’s critically flawed. The supposed nature of a thing cannot be properly fundamental since that nature is not shared by any of the particles from with it is made. Thus any argument based on those natures is merely telling us something about how some poeple see the world, not how the world is.

It is of course possible to argue that the natures exist as emergent properties (the whole is more than the sum of its parts), which makes a stronger case but the natures would still not be fundamental.

But just for your information. My highschool days were before the time when this ( waves ) were a property of so called ultimate particles. At least it was not in the physics texts we used in the 50s. Or perhaps it was so long ago I just don’t remember. But I think that was a bit early for such conclusions to make it into the high school texts.

Particle-wave duality has a venerable history and is fundamental to quantum theory. I remember being taught the basics at high school but on reflection maybe it depends on syllabus priorities.

 

[inocente]

So, what is the point? As I said, it has no adverse effect on validity of the Five Ways. Whatever modern physics has to say about ultimate physical reality does not supersed Aristotelian/ Thomistic philosophy, though it has superseded Aristotelian science, per se. Feser points out that one has to distinguish between the two aspects, since neither Aristotle nor Thomas made clear distinctions. Nor did any learned men of their day make these distinctions, not even Copernicus or Galileo. Such distinctions came much later in time.

I think you missed my point. You had said “Thomas points out that it is the natures of things which direct their activity, directing them toward a definite end or goal” and I quoted Feser’s “the notion that objects have specific places to which they naturally move are examples of Aristotelian ideas in physics that have been decisively superseded.”

So I was saying you are at odds with Feser here.

*Modern science studies physical reality, it does not study the ultimate natures of that reality. It is modern science that has made the distinction. Science does not and cannot prove that the action of ultimate particles function independently of the natures that they serve. Philosophy, on the contrary, demonstrates that all physical elements of reality function under the direction of whatever natures they are the part of. *

There are philosophers who claim that these natures exist and there are others who claim they don’t. You cannot subjectively exclude all philosophies you personally disapprove of from the realm of philosophy.

As Feser points out in the article you quoted, " …But the theory of act and potency, the doctrine of the four causes, and the hylemorphic analysis of material objects as composits of form and matter are examples of notions which have ( so the contemporary Aristotelian argues ) abiding value as elements of a sound philosophy of nature. So, indeed, the " whatness of an elephant " is very important since it governs all the movements and activities of the particles of which its physicality is composed.

Note that Feser says this only applies to “the contemporary Aristotelian”. The contemporary non-Aristotelian philosopher will say otherwise.

Feser then goes on the say “the principle of motion is, the Aristotelian will insist, another thesis whose import is metaphysical”. And the non-Aristotelian philosopher will again disagree.

All this tells us that metaphysicians disagree.

And I should point out that it is not science which says these things but certain modern cosmologists, posing as scientists or presuming to speak for science, which make these unfounded assertions.

*And there you are absolutely wrong. There you are unmistakably identifying yourself with scientism. It is scientism which makes such unfounded conclusions. They mistakenly assume that a " Slit Screen Experiement " ( or some other experiment ) demonstrates the haphazzard behavior of ultimate particles. [snip to make post fit]

If what you intimate were true the universe, as we know it, would not exist. All that would exist would be a primordial soup with ultimate particles moving haphazzardly any old way according to chance. *

Earlier you insinuated I am a fundamentalist, now you insinuate I’m guilty of scientism, indicating only that your pressing need to call me names is irrational, one thing one minute, another the next.

Regarding your argument about natures, I’m having difficulty separating it from animism.

*You yourself introduced elements which none of the Five Ways deal with, they are dealt with in other areas of Thomistic corpus. For examle, you questioned whether God could be transcendent to His works. *

Nope, I question whether the unmoved mover of the argument needs to be present after making the first move, which is nothing to do with the God of revelation.

No it doesn’t. It says Revelation ended with Christ ( CCC, paras 65,66). The point here is that the Bible was not completed until the death of the last authors of the New Testament. And Revelation ended before that! There was a separation between the death of Christ and the death of the last Apostle and Disciple of over 60 years. St. John himself outlived the first four Popes.

Sure, my point is that the first way is not part of revelation, not part of any creed, not necessary for any Christian.

Now for at least two or three times now you have refused to answer this: " For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ever since the cretion of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal powerer and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things than have been made. ( Rom. 1: 19-20 and similarly: Acts 14: 15, 17: 27-28; Wis 13: 1-9 )

Correct, Paul confirms my point. All arguments are superfluous straw since what may be known about God is plain because God has made it plain. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.

Thanks for making my point for me, all these so-called proofs are a waste of time, very generous of you.

I don’t think you are one to lecture about " introducing " other threads. When it serves your purpose, you never hesitate to deviate from the topic if you think you can score a point. You shouldn’t lecture about anything unless you are going to set the perfect example.

I didn’t make the forum rules, just saying stick to the stickies.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think you missed my point. You had said “Thomas points out that it is the natures of things which direct their activity, directing them toward a definite end or goal” and I quoted Feser’s “the notion that objects have specific places to which they naturally move are examples of Aristotelian ideas in physics that have been decisively superseded.”

So I was saying you are at odds with Feser here.

There are philosophers who claim that these natures exist and there are others who claim they don’t. You cannot subjectively exclude all philosophies you personally disapprove of from the realm of philosophy.

Note that Feser says this only applies to “the contemporary Aristotelian”. The contemporary non-Aristotelian philosopher will say otherwise.

Feser then goes on the say “the principle of motion is, the Aristotelian will insist, another thesis whose import is metaphysical”. And the non-Aristotelian philosopher will again disagree.

All this tells us that metaphysicians disagree.



Earlier you insinuated I am a fundamentalist, now you insinuate I’m guilty of scientism, indicating only that your pressing need to call me names is irrational, one thing one minute, another the next.

Regarding your argument about natures, I’m having difficulty separating it from animism.

Nope, I question whether the unmoved mover of the argument needs to be present after making the first move, which is nothing to do with the God of revelation.

Sure, my point is that the first way is not part of revelation, not part of any creed, not necessary for any Christian.

Correct, Paul confirms my point. All arguments are superfluous straw since what may be known about God is plain because God has made it plain. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.

Thanks for making my point for me, all these so-called proofs are a waste of time, very generous of you.

All you’ve done so far is expose your bias in favor of scientism and your inability to stick to the point and answer the questions asked.

You have proven nothing except that you think Thomas is wrong. Given your natural bias, that really means nothing.

I didn’t make the forum rules, just saying stick to the stickies.

Oh boy. I will if you will .

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes. Which is why I think some scientists have posited – rightfully, I think – that the unmoved mover hypothesis adds nothing to science, since it is beyond scientific investigation. If you accept it as an answer, you’re in danger of not discovering things about the universe that could have been discovered otherwise – or so it seems to me.

This is a rather strange observation since the unmoved mover would be the absolute beginning and absolute terminus of all change. Logically speaking, this does nothing to limit science, since if science continues to find causal antecedents it could not have arrived at the absolute beginning. In principle, science is free to continue to legitimately pursue explanations for every effect without limitation until science itself arrives at the conclusive beginning.

Aquinas is making a logical point about the logical necessity of the Unmoved Mover. This does not limit scientific pursuit in the least. In fact, it may serve to challenge limits proposed by science that are shortsighted, since the limits of the evidential capacities of humans may be, and, in fact, very likely are, restricted by method.

A Thomist would be undaunted by this kind of critique and the proper response would be, "Go for it! Let science do its absolute best, but it, too, should be liable to critique when it proposes solutions which are held to be the “final” say on any matter.

It is the end of inquiry insofar as the question, “what, then, is the origin of the Unmoved Mover?” becomes without interest (in the eyes of theists themselves). How does the Unmoved Mover, which is immaterial, react with the material world? This, too, becomes a question without interest and not worthy of scientific investigation. It just is, period. Most scientists, on the other hand, would see this as raising more questions than it answers.

But by keeping the question of the origin of the universe a question that remains open, and about which you are still gathering data and clues, you are promoting inquiry insofar as you’ll continue to investigate and to learn.

There is a distinction between a logical conclusion and a scientific conclusion. Scientific conclusions are dependent upon evidential and testable premises. Logical conclusions are deduced from axiomatic principles.

The unmoved mover is a logical conclusion from the principle of sufficient reason. To sufficiently explain change it is necessary to posit a self-sufficient cause that adequately explains all change. In a sense, logic has set the target for science to aim at. Until science can adequately explain all change in terms of sufficient cause, logic continues to challenge science by “holding its feet to the fire,” so to speak.

I don’t see this as limiting science, at all, but rather it keeps science from becoming presumptuous about its findings by providing an independent standard by which to critique science. The danger is in coming to believe human experiential capacities are the final arbiters of truth, when in fact, those simply make truth parochial and contingent.

Science, when mixed with hubris forms a potentially explosive combination. I don’t think it is prudent or wise to allow human beings with a means to some knowledge to enshrine a belief that what little knowledge is to be had by an inherently limited method is sufficient onto itself. Nothing wrong with a little humility in the pursuit of understanding. It keeps you alert, questioning and respectful.

 

[Linux]

All you’ve done so far is expose your bias in favor of scientism and your inability to stick to the point and answer the questions asked.

You have proven nothing except that you think Thomas is wrong. Given your natural bias, that really means nothing.

Oh boy. I will if you will .

Linus2nd

Sorry Linus, i did not see your argument. Is your argument a code that has been hidden somewhere in the above sentences?

 

[Linux]

The unmoved mover of the argument is an abstract entity which is not necessarily the God of scripture. The thread is about the argument, not about scripture.

Even if the God of the philosophers is shown to be identical in every-way with the God of Abraham, this would not necessitate that it is the God of Abraham. It could just mean that humans imagined and wrote stories about a deity that happens to correspond to something real.

However, reasonable evidence of a higher power sharing many if not all of the attributes described by some religion ought to at least give a person serious pause for thought. Could it really be a coincidence?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Sorry Linus, i did not see your argument. Is your argument a code that has been hidden somewhere in the above sentences?

Only available to true Gnostics.

Linus2nd

 

[1AugustSon7]

Yikes, see University of California Riverside - math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

Yikes! Try using your own brain!

Even if the universe was actually infinite space that would not negate the necessity of absolute locations!

Why?

BECAUSE A BODY MUST OCCUPY AN ACTUAL SPACE. Now if you will not grant that then you have no business pretending to know anything. It is self-evident and necessary.

Yikes, the big bang was not an explosion in space. - math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

WOW!

Again, inocente, LEARN WHAT A CONTRADICTION IS BEFORE PRETENDING TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT PHILOSOPHY.

This is what your own authority asserts** in their very first sentence**!

Where is the centre of the universe?
There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a “Big Bang” about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since.

Wait a tick! Didn’t you JUST DENY that the universe IS expanding!? But your authority says that it IS “expanding”. But if it is expanding, then it is finite; if it is finite, then it has limits; if it has limits, then it has boundaries; if it has boundaries, then it will have a centre! Your authority says the universe is expanding; it cannot be otherwise that it would necessarily occupy a finite amount of space because the infinite cannot by any means expand. Even if it is just the matter (contents) in the universe (container) that is expanding away in infinite space, we could still determine the limits that the matter has reached and thus produce a boundary, albeit an expanding one.

Physicists are not philosophers. They contradict themselves and that’s not our problem. It’s theirs. Like you, they sometimes do not understand just what a contradiction is. In fact, as your own authority notes, they are frequently more competent in math than in English; consequently, they are terrible at describing their ideas and thus leave the rest of us to trust them on blind faith that their incoherence isn’t just nonsense. However, no one is obliged to put such faith in mathematicians. They are simply confused people - like the physicists who claim that the universe was produced out of nothing. Here they just manifest themselves as lousy philosophers.

Finally, your authority does not even validate your objection or point. He merely says that the Bing Bang was an explosion of space rather than of matter in space. Space didn’t exist, apparently, before the Bing Bang - but so what! All that does is give us every reason to believe that actual space is finite and not infinite.

 

[1AugustSon7]

They are simply confused people - like the physicists who claim that the universe was produced out of nothing.

I should rather have said, “produced itself out of nothing”.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Please learn something about Newtonian relativity, e.g. start with skullsinthestars.com/2008/02/19/relativity-newtonian-relativity/

Please come back when you’ve learned something.

Okay inocente. This blog proves nothing and changes nothing. It just collapses the distinction between extremely difficult or impractical into the impossible. You’re just begging the question. Moreover, the logic is flawed:

So what is ‘Newtonian relativity’, exactly? Newton, in his own words, introduced it in a rather roundabout way; in modern parlance, we may summarize it as:

The laws of physics (mechanics) are the same for any observer moving at constant speed.

In other words, we all play by the same physical rules, whether we are ‘moving’ or ‘standing still’. Indirectly, this tells us that there is no such thing as absolute motion: if there is no physical experiment which can distinguish between an experimenter moving at (absolute) constant speed or sitting at (absolute) rest, the term ‘absolute motion’ has no meaning. The only motion that matters is relative motion between objects.

Notice the key words: “if there is no physical experiment…” Mark the words “if” and “physical” experiment. From this the conclusion does not follow that “the term ‘absolute motion’ has no meaning”. Which is a rather stupid thing to say: if the term “absolute motion” had “no meaning” then we would not even have the faintest knowledge of what the blogger is even talking about. “Absolute motion” is a term with a meaning: people understand what is meant by the term. So our blogger - as I said earlier - doesn’t understand what they are even talking about. The word “elf”, for example, has meaning; elves, however, do not exist. There’s a difference; but this blogger doesn’t realize what that difference is in the case of absolute motion.

This is the problem: modern physics, for its own practical reasons (and good ones imo) abandons attempts to determine, e.g., absolute motion per se. It does not deny that things are actually moving, as opposed to not actually moving or that motion must, of necessity, be absolute; physically, however, this is practically impossible to determine with confidence. That is not the same as saying that this or that object is not actually i) moving or ii) moving faster or slower than another, and it is certainly not the same as denying the possibility of things actually moving faster or slower than other things; it is just saying that physicists cannot be certain of absolute motion by way of physical experiment or that they abandon it for practical reasons.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Seconded.

Interpretations of logic vary from person to person, but a logical statement will always be logical, and an illogical statement will always be illogical. The trouble is in a person’s unwillingness to acknowledge a statement for its inherent logical or illogical nature.

What you’ve quoted is a relativistic stance which wrongfully denies the existence of absolute Truth; people who believe as such deny that anything is true, and since they cannot recognize any truths, they have no base point from which to determine if something is logical or not; therefore they (again, wrongfully) assume that logic is inconsistent from person to person. They are wrong of course, but frequently are unwilling to acknowledge the existence of absolute truths because it would force them to rethink their entire world view.

Yes indeed and we have a couple of very good examples on this thread right now. Nor does it strenthen a relativist’s point of view to appeal to other relativists. Now, not all relativists broadcast their predilection. You have to sift that out from the arguments they make, the objections they make against Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy. And then there are those who are relativists in regard to philosophy or even skeptical, but are dogmatists in regard to science and Faith. And the latter is a real head scratcher.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Of course not. My statement was written in a relative language, not an absolute language, so it cannot have been an absolute statement. It was a relative statement.

If you want to make a statement of an Absolute Truth, then you need to use an Absolute Language to make that statement.

rossum

Oh brother! You’re a nice guy Rossum but you have the strangest ideas.

Linus2nd