On refutation of the Unmoved Mover

[Peter_Plato]

It is important to note that Jesus said, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)

It would seem that knowing the truth is important towards the end of being “free.” It seems that some are advocating a “shortcut.” That being “set free” need not involve “knowing the truth” but rather living in a state of blissful ignorance.

 

[Linux]

You do realize that Thomism is the only intellectual response possible to the scientism which is the rage today,

I disagree. Ever heard of “One-Esse-Theism”.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You appear to be saying that it doesn’t matter whether the argument is or isn’t true, all that matters is whether it gets backsides on seats, which is pretty much my critique earlier in the thread of how all denominations have uncritically employed the argument.

I assure you I have never had Thomas preached in Church. I learned him at College and after as a personal interest. I am very sorry you take such a narrow view.

Yea, though in times of old, when Jesus walked, people had faith. And yea did Paul employ arguments from experience rather than theory (1 Cor 1:18-31). And forsooth even today doth the Pentecostalists unto the charismatic Catholics.

Mostly, yes in reference to Paul and the other Apostles and Disciples. I don’t know where you got the idea that we preach Thomas. We use him primarily to counter the ideas of militant atheists and the pop scienctists which they and others are peddling, especially in the Colleges and Universities. Why do you walk around with such a negative cloud hanging over you?

This is the iPad generation, a lively church is a lot more welcoming than complicated medieval arguments. Jesus died for us, the unmoved mover is just marks on paper.

You are certainly obstinate. I don’t think I have ever encounterd anyone having quite you take on things. It’s pretty sad really.

Linus2nd

 

[Portofino]

Or, put another way, the metaphysical concepts of potentiality and actuality are not objective, since if they were they could be quantified. Which means they cannot be part of the physical law - the universe gets by fine without them.

…

What is a known fact is the simple principle of cause and effect, which is the basis of the natural sciences, but that discards potentialities, actualities, natural places and so on.

Yes, this confuses the heck out of me vis-a-vis the arguments of Aquinas or Aristotle. “Potentiality”, to me, is a concept that exists “in” the mind of one who is trying to make sense of what happens in the world. It’s not clear to me that potential is something “out there” in the world, as some kind of essence.

I can’t wrap my head around the idea that an object – say, a billiard – is “potentially” in motion, that the “potential” for motion somehow inheres in it, like some ghostly presence. It’s not in motion, at least on a common sense level. I ascribe potential to it insofar as I mentally understand that it is capable of being moved.

Potential is also seemingly infinite, ironically. A billiard ball has any number of potential uses to which it can be put. Thus, I see potential as an inherently perspectival kind of word.

If I’m understanding you correctly, it would appear that the natural sciences view the matter similarly, and do not posit any metaphysical or physical reality to the mental conceptualizing that takes place when we describe something as “potential” or “actual.”

 

[Portofino]

But to be objective it would have to say something quantifiable, but does not, and to be scientific it would have to make a falsifiable prediction about the world, but does not. So it has nothing to say about how the world is but only about how some people think. Essentialism falls into the same boat, it is about what we imagine to be objective essences but which only exist in our heads as constructs which help us model and deal with our world.

Wanted to thank you for that paragraph, which superbly articulates my own view of the matter. Arguments that the unmoved mover – posited to be God – is pure actuality, also make no sense to me. It also shows the paltry adequacy of words, in my mind, since one could also describe the Godhead – if it is omnipotent – as infinite potential, infinite possibility. The Godhead, as omnipotent, would have the “infinite potential” to act, “power” being capability and capability being potential.

But these are mental conceptions, ways of understanding the world. I have no idea whether they designate objective realities, in and of themselves, nor – as I think you’re point out – is there any way to measure these concepts objectively, or demonstrate them empirically.

Which is why it will never happen that philosophers, or scientists, will reach consensus on arguments such as this. There’s nothing to ground them objectively; one either accepts that they should taken as self-evident axioms (the definitions given of potentiality, pure actuality, desirability, perfection), or one is simply alienated by the presuppositions of the argument.

 

[inocente]

I assure you I have never had Thomas preached in Church. I learned him at College and after as a personal interest. I am very sorry you take such a narrow view.

If it’s only of minority interest then I withdraw my objection.

inocente;11193445:

Yea, though in times of old, when Jesus walked, people had faith. And yea did Paul employ arguments from experience rather than theory (1 Cor 1:18-31). And forsooth even today doth the Pentecostalists unto the charismatic Catholics.

Mostly, yes in reference to Paul and the other Apostles and Disciples. I don’t know where you got the idea that we preach Thomas. We use him primarily to counter the ideas of militant atheists and the pop scienctists which they and others are peddling, especially in the Colleges and Universities. Why do you walk around with such a negative cloud hanging over you?

I think your comments have more to do with your mood than mine.

inocente;11193445:

This is the iPad generation, a lively church is a lot more welcoming than complicated medieval arguments. Jesus died for us, the unmoved mover is just marks on paper.

You are certainly obstinate. I don’t think I have ever encounterd anyone having quite you take on things. It’s pretty sad really.

Now I know for sure your comments have more to do with your mood than mine.

 

[inocente]

Yes, this confuses the heck out of me vis-a-vis the arguments of Aquinas or Aristotle. “Potentiality”, to me, is a concept that exists “in” the mind of one who is trying to make sense of what happens in the world. It’s not clear to me that potential is something “out there” in the world, as some kind of essence.

I can’t wrap my head around the idea that an object – say, a billiard – is “potentially” in motion, that the “potential” for motion somehow inheres in it, like some ghostly presence. It’s not in motion, at least on a common sense level. I ascribe potential to it insofar as I mentally understand that it is capable of being moved.

Potential is also seemingly infinite, ironically. A billiard ball has any number of potential uses to which it can be put. Thus, I see potential as an inherently perspectival kind of word.

If I’m understanding you correctly, it would appear that the natural sciences view the matter similarly, and do not posit any metaphysical or physical reality to the mental conceptualizing that takes place when we describe something as “potential” or “actual.”

Yes, I think one of the reasons why science makes progress is that it intentionally discards metaphysics. It goes back to Newton, who refused to hypothesize anything about gravity other than what could be inferred directly from the empirical evidence. If he had tried to work out why gravity exists and how it came to be, as his critics wanted, he’d never have been finished (or else would just have had to stab in the dark).

Descartes claimed knowledge can be gained a priori, independent of experience, while Newton claimed knowledge depends on experience, a posterioria, and Newton prevailed, at least in experimental philosophy (I think that was what he called science).

Looked at in those terms, the billiard ball has properties - it is smooth, hard, etc., and these properties are inherent and measurable, they are known a posterioria. But a property of potentia would need to exist a priori in some essence or form of billiard balls, for a billiard ball couldn’t otherwise possibly know or store all the zillions of potentials. But this a priori property can’t be observed or measured and so is ruled out as not even wrong.

 

[inocente]

Wanted to thank you for that paragraph, which superbly articulates my own view of the matter. Arguments that the unmoved mover – posited to be God – is pure actuality, also make no sense to me. It also shows the paltry adequacy of words, in my mind, since one could also describe the Godhead – if it is omnipotent – as infinite potential, infinite possibility. The Godhead, as omnipotent, would have the “infinite potential” to act, “power” being capability and capability being potential.

Yes, I can’t get my head round why pure act with no potential provides the potential for the unmoved mover to choose to act. It seems to do away with grace, the unmoved mover can’t be almighty.

It was a little child who observed that the emperor’s new clothes were somewhat thin, and Christ says “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven”, but no doubt that analogy shows a lack of depth.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I disagree. Ever heard of “One-Esse-Theism”.

Never heard of it and neither has anyone else. Enlighten me via P.M. I am most curious to learn of this new religion or cult or whatever it is.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Discussions about the Unmoved Mover always draw a swarm of protests from atheists and agnostics and ( I am learning ) from assorted non-Catholic Christians. Whether the latter regard war against the Unmoved Mover as an extension of the " battles " of the Reformation is something that has crossed my mind. Be that as it may, I thought it good to show the readers just what this argument is and make a few comments.

The Existence of God according to Thomas Aquinas can be demonstrated, as a logical necessity, from the observation of the realities of the world around us. He gives five arguments in the Summa Theologica and more in other works. The first argument is called the First Way and is taken from the observation of motion int the world. From it he reasons to the necessity of an Unmoved Mover, whom he identifies as God.

The First Way

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

I will spare you any comments for the moment, since I have an appointment.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

Take a ray of light traveling from Andromeda to your eye. It started the journey two years ago. There is no requirement in the argument for it to have been sustained by the unmoved mover during those two years, or indeed when it is absorbed by your eye.

Part of the problem with an objection like this is that Feser, in his paper, makes a stronger claim that inertial motion is actual change and requires a mover. One who argues that a state of constant velocity is the same as a state of rest is not actually disputing the principle of motion, since he is just removing things at constant velocity from the set of things in motion, ie. even if constant velocity is the same as rest/non-change, the principle of motion would hold (and so this would not even be an example of a per se causal series).

But to be objective it would have to say something quantifiable, but does not, and to be scientific it would have to make a falsifiable prediction about the world, but does not.

Quantifiability is not really a standard of objectivity. Biology, at least, and chemistry, to a large extent, are schematic sciences. We might mix two solutions - without knowing specifically what quantities we have, or what concentrations, but we can still infer objective facts about reality from, for example, the presence of a precipitant.

But we could quantify the argument, if you’d like, using a simple system of binaries. An object is either moving or not moving, and is either being acted upon or not acted upon.

So it has nothing to say about how the world is but only about how some people think.

Such a claim would rely on there being a contradiction between how the world is and how people think. You could say it is how just some people think, but as long as their thinking represents reality and no one can produce suitable evidence to the contrary, the only implication would be that those who think differently are wrong.

 

[polytropos]

Yes, this confuses the heck out of me vis-a-vis the arguments of Aquinas or Aristotle. “Potentiality”, to me, is a concept that exists “in” the mind of one who is trying to make sense of what happens in the world. It’s not clear to me that potential is something “out there” in the world, as some kind of essence.

I can’t wrap my head around the idea that an object – say, a billiard – is “potentially” in motion, that the “potential” for motion somehow inheres in it, like some ghostly presence. It’s not in motion, at least on a common sense level. I ascribe potential to it insofar as I mentally understand that it is capable of being moved.

Suppose there is a stationary billboard ball on a table. You hit it, and it moves. If it went from being stationary to moving, then it had the potential to move (if it did not have to potential to move, then it would make no sense to say that it did move). Perhaps it never occurred to you to think about what potentials the stationary billboard ball had. But whether you thought of it or not, it did have the potential for motion, which is why, when you hit it, it did, in fact, move.

Potentialities are not “ghostly presences.” They are just what a thing is capable of being but is not. Obviously, whether you or I see a change does not effect whether something happens to it, since what can happen to it is absolutely independent of any observer.

Potential is also seemingly infinite, ironically. A billiard ball has any number of potential uses to which it can be put. Thus, I see potential as an inherently perspectival kind of word.

There could be a lot of different potentials. Sinking it into a pocket, dropping it, throwing it up in the air. I could smash it with a sledgehammer on an anvil. However, there is probably nothing I can do to it to turn it into a lump of human flesh. (Though this is not even important for the First Way. For the First Way, we only need to know that nothing happens to the billiard ball unless something acts on it.)

If I’m understanding you correctly, it would appear that the natural sciences view the matter similarly, and do not posit any metaphysical or physical reality to the mental conceptualizing that takes place when we describe something as “potential” or “actual.”

This seems dubious to me, especially in light of the mischaracterization of potentials as “ghostly presences.” Atoms, for instance, are notoriously difficult to represent on paper, and what they actually are, physically, does not literally correspond to the schemas we represent. However, by studying what, say, a fluorine atom is (qua having a single valence electron), we might infer what potentials it has to react with some atoms but not others. The claims I make about potentiality are really no stronger than this.

 

[polytropos]

a fluorine atom is (qua having a single valence electron)

Although it does not change the point I’m making, a fluorine atom lacks a single valence electron.

 

[Portofino]

Suppose there is a stationary billboard ball on a table. You hit it, and it moves. If it went from being stationary to moving, then it had the potential to move (if it did not have to potential to move, then it would make no sense to say that it did move). Perhaps it never occurred to you to think about what potentials the stationary billboard ball had. But whether you thought of it or not, it did have the potential for motion, which is why, when you hit it, it did, in fact, move.

Hmm… Perhaps another way of saying it is that the motion of a billiard, an event, is the equivalent of “ABC.” The billiard has “A”; the cue stick has B; the arm of the player has “C.” Put them together, and you have motion.

A, B, and C, in and of themselves, are all “actual.” It’s when you combined certain actualities with other actualities, that they create new actualities. So do they have potential, or is that just a way of understanding it, conceptually? A, B, and C are all actualities; when combined, they form the actuality ABC, let’s say.

With the argument for the unmoved mover, uncaused cause, or God, it is as if God is either the cue stick, the player, or both. Both could one not say that the cue stick had the potential to hit the ball? Or that the player had the potential, to use the cue stick, to hit the ball?

Would God, or the unmoved mover, have the potential to act on the universe? Or is that, being outside of time, there is no “before” or “after”; everything is the process of actualization, vis-a-vis the unmoved mover. After all, if I say that the billiard ball has the potential to move, I am saying, “it is not moving yet, but it can move, at some future point.”

It also occurred to me that it would, ironically, be satisfying to think of God to be pure potentiality and pure actuality. I would simply put it in the same category as those paradoxes like “one God in three persons” or “fully God, fully man.”

 

[polytropos]

Hmm… Perhaps another way of saying it is that the motion of a billiard, an event, is the equivalent of “ABC.” The billiard has “A”; the cue stick has B; the arm of the player has “C.” Put them together, and you have motion.

A, B, and C, in and of themselves, are all “actual.” It’s when you combined certain actualities with other actualities, that they create new actualities. So do they have potential, or is that just a way of understanding it, conceptually? A, B, and C are all actualities; when combined, they form the actuality ABC, let’s say.

There seem to be some problems with this interpretation. To call ABC the actuality of the moving billiard ball would seem to complicate things, since it is certainly conceivable that the billiard ball could obtain the same state without ABC (we could just have AC, for instance, or the motion could be obtained by way of gravity). All the principle of potentiality is saying is that, if an object is one thing and can be something else, then it has that “something else” in potentiality.

Another way of putting it: if an object does goes from state A to state B, then it was possible for the object to go from state A to state B. Hence the object had state A in actuality and state B in potency.

What is also important to point out is that the notion of ABC being a single event does not really exclude what I’m saying. As I mentioned in another topic, metaphysics is a way of representing the world, and I’m certainly not claiming that there is not another way to think about hitting a billiard ball. What I am claiming is that it cannot be coherently denied that a pool ball can only move because it has the potential to move (if we suppose, alternatively, that a pool ball does move but cannot move, we would seem to have a contradiction on our hands).

Would God, or the unmoved mover, have the potential to act on the universe? Or is that, being outside of time, there is no “before” or “after”; everything is the process of actualization, vis-a-vis the unmoved mover. After all, if I say that the billiard ball has the potential to move, I am saying, “it is not moving yet, but it can move, at some future point.”

Potentials refer to what a thing is, not what necessarily it does (it would depend on whether the doing is essential to the being). Peter Geach, for example, gave the example of a professor. A professor teaching students is not actualizing any sort of potential to teach students, except in a very qualified sense. Certainly, he might, at a given moment, be actualizing his vocal chord’s potentials to vibrate, his hand to write on a chalkboard. He might even come to a realization that he did not have before, because of something he said or something one of his students said in the way of his teaching, and so some aspect of his mind might be actualized. But his changing is not essential to his effect. So while the Unmoved Mover does act on the universe, its changing is not essential to its acting.

So this is not akin to what we are saying about the billiard ball. The billiard ball is not moving. To exert a force on it is to change it.

It also occurred to me that it would, ironically, be satisfying to think of God to be pure potentiality and pure actuality.

In what way? To admit of potentiality in the Unmoved Mover would be to suggest that it is moved and would prevent it from being any sort of source of actual (rather than instrumental) causal efficacy.

 

[inocente]

Part of the problem with an objection like this is that Feser, in his paper, makes a stronger claim that inertial motion is actual change and requires a mover. One who argues that a state of constant velocity is the same as a state of rest is not actually disputing the principle of motion, since he is just removing things at constant velocity from the set of things in motion, ie. even if constant velocity is the same as rest/non-change, the principle of motion would hold (and so this would not even be an example of a per se causal series).

You appear to be repeating Feser’s mistake in thinking that constant velocity is a state of rest. A state of rest is only relative to an inertial reference frame, there can be no absolute state of rest. This applies to everything. For instance absolute zero is a theoretical state where atoms would lose all kinetic energy, but quantum physics prevents it ever being reached. Even then of course the electrons still move, and their motion doesn’t involve a constant velocity.

So as well as the unmoved mover having to constantly attend to the jiggling of every atom and orbit of every electron, it would have to constantly oscillate the electric and magnetic fields in every ray of light - 550,000,000,000,000 cycles every second for every ray of green light. The unmoved mover has to run around like a manic juggler keeping all the plates spinning, but in reality they can do this by themselves, because unlike the unmoved mover, God had the wit to have them do it by themselves.

*Quantifiability is not really a standard of objectivity. Biology, at least, and chemistry, to a large extent, are schematic sciences. We might mix two solutions - without knowing specifically what quantities we have, or what concentrations, but we can still infer objective facts about reality from, for example, the presence of a precipitant.

But we could quantify the argument, if you’d like, using a simple system of binaries. An object is either moving or not moving, and is either being acted upon or not acted upon.*

Without being able to quantify, we can only speak of value judgments, since there would be no way to agree anything. And your binary switch would always be on, since every object is always moving relative to something.

But if there was any way to make the argument mathematical someone would have done it by now, unless you want to be the first. Please present your paper for peer review.

Such a claim would rely on there being a contradiction between how the world is and how people think. You could say it is how just some people think, but as long as their thinking represents reality and no one can produce suitable evidence to the contrary, the only implication would be that those who think differently are wrong.

Which would be fine except that its believers refuse to admit that it contradicts reality,

 

[polytropos]

You appear to be repeating Feser’s mistake in thinking that constant velocity is a state of rest.

This is not really “Feser’s mistake.” What I am saying is that you can say that there is no state of rest or that rest is the same as constant velocity, but either way it does not really change the principle of motion. (Feser is making the same point throughout as well. You’ve zeroed in on his calling constant velocity “fishy,” even though it is in the context of his consideration of the claim that constant velocity involves real change. If one is committed to maintaining that constant velocity does not involve real change, then Newtonian motion simply presents no issue to the principle of motion.)

So as well as the unmoved mover having to constantly attend to the jiggling of every atom and orbit of every electron, it would have to constantly oscillate the electric and magnetic fields in every ray of light - 550,000,000,000,000 cycles every second for every ray of green light. The unmoved mover has to run around like a manic juggler keeping all the plates spinning, but in reality they can do this by themselves, because unlike the unmoved mover, God had the wit to have them do it by themselves.

There is so much wrong with the idea that it would be difficult for the Unmoved Mover to maintain any sort of motion, or that it makes sense to say the Unmoved Mover “has to run around like a manic juggler.”

The other issue is that it is pure question begging to assert that “they can do this by themselves.” The argument is claiming that they cannot, and you haven’t successfully disputed that it is possible for them to act on their own, since you have not demonstrated that there is any actual causal effiacy apart from that which is Pure Act.

Without being able to quantify, we can only speak of value judgments, since there would be no way to agree anything. And your binary switch would always be on, since every object is always moving relative to something.

But if there was any way to make the argument mathematical someone would have done it by now, unless you want to be the first. Please present your paper for peer review.

You are equivocating with respect to motion when you say “every object is always moving relative to something.” The argument does not rely on Newtonian motion. For example, let’s say that I exert a force on a nearby wastebasket. It accelerates and eventually stops moving in my reference frame. I have not quantified its acceleration, but I can objectively say that it did accelerate, which was an instance of real change. I can also objectively say that I did exert a force on it, whether or not I know how many Newtons it was. All I would have to do to quantify it is assign binary values to changing and non-changing things. The reason this works is that ideas like change are completely objective, and because the argument does not require knowing how much change occurred, just whether it occurred.

(Of course, for any quantified science, we must know the whether as well as the how much, so the standard of quantifiability is parasitic upon the more basic objectivity of something’s occurring. As such, using quantifiability as a lone metric of objectivity is simply nonsensical, since it is a useless measure if it is not abstracted from more basic, unquantified realities.)

 

[inocente]

There is so much wrong with the idea that it would be difficult for the Unmoved Mover to maintain any sort of motion, or that it makes sense to say the Unmoved Mover “has to run around like a manic juggler.”

My example was of a ray of green light, where the electric and magnetic fields oscillate sinusoidally 550,000,000,000,000 times every second, i.e. the phase is always changing, always having the potential to change again, apparently requiring the unmoved mover to sustain the change without any rest.

The unmoved mover must do this for every ray of light in the universe, including those traveling from distant galaxies over billions of years. This takes micro management to ridiculous levels, surely it’s essentially an obsessive form of pantheism. In any event the exact opposite of the scriptural God Almighty.

The other issue is that it is pure question begging to assert that “they can do this by themselves.” The argument is claiming that they cannot, and you haven’t successfully disputed that it is possible for them to act on their own, since you have not demonstrated that there is any actual causal effiacy apart from that which is Pure Act.

The fields continuously oscillate without any unmoved mover, they are simply a projection of a circular motion:



The Wikipedia article has another example below, an oscillating spring in which all the trillions of molecules move constantly by precisely the correct amounts. You don’t think it’s just a little unnecessary to make God do all the calculations for every spring in every vehicle suspension, rather than have the blind molecular forces sort it out by themselves?

You are equivocating with respect to motion when you say “every object is always moving relative to something.” The argument does not rely on Newtonian motion. For example, let’s say that I exert a force on a nearby wastebasket. It accelerates and eventually stops moving in my reference frame. I have not quantified its acceleration, but I can objectively say that it did accelerate, which was an instance of real change. I can also objectively say that I did exert a force on it, whether or not I know how many Newtons it was. All I would have to do to quantify it is assign binary values to changing and non-changing things. The reason this works is that ideas like change are completely objective, and because the argument does not require knowing how much change occurred, just whether it occurred.

(Of course, for any quantified science, we must know the whether as well as the how much, so the standard of quantifiability is parasitic upon the more basic objectivity of something’s occurring. As such, using quantifiability as a lone metric of objectivity is simply nonsensical, since it is a useless measure if it is not abstracted from more basic, unquantified realities.)

This is still words and sentences. I claim you cannot describe it in any mathematically consistent manner, such that different observers could agree on what is happening, and therefore the argument is not objective.

 

[1AugustSon7]

The unmoved mover must do this for every ray of light in the universe, including those traveling from distant galaxies over billions of years. This takes micro management to ridiculous levels,

Because the Almighty would certainly be exhausted by tedium.

it’s … pantheism.

No it is not. You’re not a philosopher and no philosopher has ever claimed that the Unmoved Mover results in identifying or confusing God with His works or the creation or the physical universe.

the opposite of the scriptural God.

The Psalms and Wisdom literature of the Old Testament are filled with references to God’s providential love and care for everything He has made; but the first verse that comes to my mind is Wis 11:24:

For you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made; for what you hated, you would not have fashioned.

But there are others attesting to God’s absolute Lordship and Sovereignty over His creation.

Deut. 32:39 Now you shall learn that I alone am God; there are no others to rival me; it is mine to kill and to quicken, mine to smite and to heal; from my power there is no deliverance.

Sir. 11:14: From God all comes, good fortune and ill, life and death, poverty and riches;

There is no novelty in the doctrine that God sustains His creation and that without Him every creature (all creation) would simply vanish:

Heb. 1:3 a Son, who is the radiance of his Father’s splendour, and the full expression of his being; all creation depends, for its support, on his enabling word.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

My example was of a ray of green light, where the electric and magnetic fields oscillate sinusoidally 550,000,000,000,000 times every second, i.e. the phase is always changing, always having the potential to change again, apparently requiring the unmoved mover to sustain the change without any rest.

The unmoved mover must do this for every ray of light in the universe, including those traveling from distant galaxies over billions of years. This takes micro management to ridiculous levels, surely it’s essentially an obsessive form of pantheism. In any event the exact opposite of the scriptural God Almighty.

The fields continuously oscillate without any unmoved mover, they are simply a projection of a circular motion:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/ComplexSinInATimeAxe.gif

The Wikipedia article has another example below, an oscillating spring in which all the trillions of molecules move constantly by precisely the correct amounts. You don’t think it’s just a little unnecessary to make God do all the calculations for every spring in every vehicle suspension, rather than have the blind molecular forces sort it out by themselves?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Simple_harmonic_oscillator.gif

This is still words and sentences. I claim you cannot describe it in any mathematically consistent manner, such that different observers could agree on what is happening, and therefore the argument is not objective.

I find your comments here extremely interesting. Based on your understanding of Scripture how would you describe God’s activity in regard to his creation? Especially, how would you describe His activity in regard to the activity of photons as you have described above ( on the assumption of course that these theories are correct )?

Linus2nd