Open Theism Vs Unmoved-Mover

[Cecilianus]

They have no physical cause, this much is true. But there is an “Existential Cause”. For example, there is no being in existence that derives its nature and act from nothing, for nothing is simply nothing. It is not a being. It is simply a meaningless statement to say that something has derived its existence from that which is not real. This is not a scientific statement; its poor philosophy. At most the scientist can say that it has no physical cause in the “mechanical” sense of the term. But to say that it has no cause whatsoever is to go beyond what science is suggesting. One is assuming that there is only one kind of cause, an assumption which has no basis in scientific reality. The fact is, Quantum events are contingently real, because their reality is only meaningful in that they come to exist, and their nature is as such only because they participate in the reality of being; they gain their functionality, act, and nature, in accordence with the existential-reality that they come into, as opposed to non-existence. Thus they are contingent on that which is already being by nature as opposed to that which is being by participation. One must admit a neccesary reality that is existence by nature, and is the giver of “natures”. Otherwise one must rest upon the ideology that all potential beings come into an “actual-nothing”, out of an actual nothing, a nothing that is by definition of its nature “not real”. Feel free to accept this if you so wish but it is not a reasonable position on which one can make logical inferences about anything. The science of Quantum physics is not opposed to all forms of causality. That is not what Quantum physics is teaching.

What is an “existential cause”? So long as we are talking about purely physical reality, there are only physical causes. We can explain the world fully without resource to “existential causes”. Science does not use “existential causes”, and yet science covers all aspects of physical reality. Furthermore, there can be no cause of the appearance of a virtual particle, because their appearance is random. (Of course, to speak of them “appearing” at all is rather imprecise, since it is natural for humans to think in classical terms rather than quantum terms. It is more accurate to say that there is no way to “sharpen” the fuzzy energy level of the vacuum to make it narrow enough to exclude imaginary particles, but because time is a factor in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, these particles do not simply perpetually exist on the borderline between existence and nothingness, but rather must pop in and out of existence chaotically.)

Did God decide to “create” an imaginary particle at one point of time versus another? No. It makes no difference whatsoever when an imaginary particle comes into being and when it doesn’t. (Of course, we are speaking of imaginary partices created by the vacuum, not imaginary particles exchanged in an interaction - which are caused.)

Finally, all beings do come from an “actual nothing”. This is what is meant by creatio ex nihilo. God created us all, not from Himself, but from nothing. (How He created us I do not know. Perhaps He was the efficient cause of the Big Bang, perhaps not. It doesn’t concern science, so I can’t know.)

 

[Cecilianus]

That which God has created.

If God has created it, then it must exist. If it exists, then it is pointless for it to then participate in existence. Yet if it does not exist before it participates in existence, then a non-existent thing participates in existence, and we have about as much reality as the contents of a novel or fiction story.

Maybe a logical explanation would be easier to understand. Created things (the subject) engage in the activity of participating in existence. (I don’t accept the Aristotelian reduction of all statements to statements of identity with a copula. That isn’t how language works; it’s certainly not how I use language. When I use a verb, I mean that the subject performs an action - whether transitive or intransitive. You can then rewrite the statement with a copula, to say that I am in the state of performing the action, but that’s only an elliptical way of saying what I said the first time, and it’s only true because I am performing an action, not the other way around. So when you say that created things “are” participating-in-existence, that’s only true because they are engaging the activity of participating in existence. Otherwise you need to rewrite the phrase without using a verb. The participle “participating” is derived from the verb “to participate”.)

Now, can a non-existent thing perform an act like participation? No. Therefore, that which participates in existence must first exist - and (1) we haven’t explained existence, and (2) if we already exist then there is no more existence that we need to participate in. So your statement that “created things participate in existence” is false.

 

[Cecilianus]

That which God has created.

True

God

So you don’t exist?

Well things exist. We gain are very concept of existence from our experience of existing things.

I still don’t get how you can equate existence with God. Existence, pure existence as such, is just a word - you will find no tangible “thing” out there called existence. We derive our concept of existence-as-such from existing things, as you said. My existence, on the other hand, is just something we say about me. (It isn’t a predicate - one quality among many others - as Kant pointed out, but it is something we say about me.) If it is to be identified with any singular being at all, it would be me, not God. “My existence is God”? That’s equivalent to saying “My being is God”; i.e. “I am God”.

I addressed “participation” in my previous post.

 

[MindOverMatter]

That is false. The vacuum is not a “being that exists”,.

Then why is science speaking about it?

and yet it is a concept which physicists do in fact talk about. .

The fact that sceintists talk about something is not a proof of its validity. The Question is, in what sense are they talking about nothing. Is it in the sense of a “negation of physics”, or “a negation of being”? The two are not neccesarilly synonmous, and the principle object of science is “physical reality”. This mean that when they make scientific statements, in order for it to be meaningfull, it has to be in reference to a real physical reality existing outside of our minds. If they speak of something coming out of nothing, they cannot and do not mean it in the philosophical sense of the term. They mean that it didn’t come from a “physical cause”. Nothing as in negation of physical reality. Get a course in logic; please!!!.

I garrantee you it is not the latter, if they are claiming to be doing real science that can be confirmed or principly falsified; rather then some kind of weird philosophy that has no logical foundation.

If you need help imagining it…

You can’t imagine nothing with out reference to a being. The reason being is that nothing doesn’t exist as a thing in its self.

The absence of being is “nothing”. We can talk about the absence of being as a concept, and it is from this absence of being that virtual particles arise.

A concept is not neccesarilly synonmous to an actual event. That you can conceptualise nothing is not proof that things can come out of it.

In any case, I don’t believe that this is what Science has proven, or can in principle prove or disprove. Its not its vocation to do so. A space with nothing in it is still a space. To speak of paticles coming from nothing is a logical and meaningless fallacy. Nothing is not real, and there is no reason to believe that it is real. Science is dealing with real beings that can be measured in some respect. If nothing is not an object that can be measured, then it is not an object of science but rather a concept that philosophers talk about, whom happen to be scientists. If science is trully stating this as being true, then it is a false sceince. But i do not believe that this is what science is implying at all. At most, the idea that quantum events come out of absolutly nothing is some illogical hypothesis that somebody made up. The theory of quantum physics as a complete theory can suppose no such thing as something coming from nothing. The sonner you get to grips with that the better for you, and the less embarrased you will be in the long run.

 

[Cecilianus]

If you really want to know, look up the history of all my threads. You will finds threads that are devoted entirely to proofs which are derivitive of the five ways.

Claiming that something is false does no good accept to give the mere apperence that you know what you’re talking about.

Perhaps you can give us some evidence?

You do not understand Aquinas.

Nobody is saying that God is. But it is true that God actualises all events and sustains them in existence in an ontolgical sense. This has nothing to do with physics.

You do not undertand the metaphysical grounds upon which Aquinas makes his arguements. I advise you to study metaphysics as Aquinas understand it.

I am asking you to explain it to me, since obviously you do understand Aquinas and I don’t. I’ve been studying Aquinas for the whole seven years since I became Catholic, and not a single priest nor philosophy professor seemed willing to either clarify my misunderstanding (that is, tell me exactly what I am misreading) or address my objections. I got straight A’s and A-'s in college philosophy classes, which were taught by professors who claimed to understand it “as Aquinas understands it” (but who, quite frankly, seemed to know very much of the modern commentators on the medieval commentators on Aquinas’s commentaries on Aristotle, but very little of reality). I’ll look through your 1000+ posts (though I’ve seen lots of posts by other people - or possibly they were by you - which of course did not address the specific questions I had; they just repeat what I’ve already read in the ST and SCG). If you do understand it as well as you said, and I don’t, why not perform a small favor out of Christian charity and tell me where I went wrong?

Beginning with, why can’t my soul be an unmoved mover, granted that it was given existence in the first place by God, and that it continues to exist on its own after the act of Creation? (Or do you mean something stronger - in which case you would have to prove it - by God “sustaining” Creation than to just say that our being was a gift from Him to begin with? Aquinas taught that it is in the nature of created reality to continue to exist and that its annihilation by God would be a miracle.)

 

[MindOverMatter]

If God has created it, then it must exist. If it exists, then it is pointless for it to then participate in existence. Yet if it does not exist before it participates in existence, then a non-existent thing participates in existence, and we have about as much reality as the contents of a novel or fiction story.

To say that things particpate in existence is to say that they do not exist of their own nature. It is not of their own nature to exist. Otherwise they would be neccesary beings. They cannot be “existence” themselves, because you cannot cause that which is existence, and so, therefore they can only become actual through that which is already actuality by nature of its being/God. To say that things participate in Gods nature, is to say that God has created qualities or natures, that require existence in order to be actual. In otherwords they require Gods eternal will and being in order to be actual. To think of it in its proper terms would be to say that God in his perfection equals any number of potential possibilities that are themselves contingent on Gods natural being in order to be actual or possible. There are also natural truths which flow naturally from God such as 2 + 2 = 4. Mathematical truth is true because of Gods being. All of these exist in a sense as either the eternal ideas of God or as the natural extentions of Gods attributes. The eternal God gives actuality to Gods eternal ideas through Gods eternal actuality, which is existence. Another way to put it, would be to say that, the concept of man becomes actual through the power that is the underlying reality, which is in its self “existence”.

There is nothing inconsistence with that statement. It is certainly more reasonable then saying that things can come out of nothing.

 

[Cecilianus]

Then why is science speaking about it?

The fact that sceintists talk about something is not a proof of its validity. The Question is, in what sense are they talking about nothing. Is it in the sense of a “negation of physics”, or “a negation of being”? The two are not neccesarilly synonmous, and the principle object of science is “physical reality”. This mean that when they make scientific statements, in order for it to be meaningfull, it has to be in reference to a real physical reality existing outside of our minds. If they speak of something coming out of nothing, they cannot and do not mean it in the philosophical sense of the term. They mean that it didn’t come from a “physical cause”. Nothing as in negation of physical reality. Get a course in logic; please!!!.

I garrantee you it is not the latter, if they are claiming to be doing real science that can be confirmed or principly falsified; rather then some kind of weird philosophy that has no logical foundation.

You can’t imagine nothing with out reference to a being. The reason being is that nothing doesn’t exist as a thing in its self.

A concept is not neccesarilly synonmous to an actual event. That you can conceptualise nothing is not proof that things can come out of it.

In any case, I don’t believe that this is what Science has proven, or can in principle prove or disprove. Its not its vocation to do so. A space with nothing in it is still a space. To speak of paticles coming from nothing is a logical and meaningless fallacy. Nothing is not real, and there is no reason to believe that it is real. Science is dealing with real beings that can be measured in some respect. If nothing is not an object that can be measured, then it is not an object of science but rather a concept that philosophers talk about, whom happen to be scientists. If science is trully stating this as being true, then it is a false sceince. But i do not believe that this is what science is implying at all. At most, the idea that quantum events come out of absolutly nothing is some illogical hypothesis that somebody made up. The theory of quantum physics as a complete theory can suppose no such thing as something coming from nothing. The sonner you get to grips with that the better for you, and the less embarrased you will be in the long run.

Read a textbook in quantum electrodynamics before criticizing it. Who are you to limit what science studies? Are you even a scientist? If you don’t like science, then turn off your computer, since you don’t like the theory that makes it work. The vacuum - “Nothing” - is real, and it is most certainly studied by physics. Empty space is real, and teeming with virtual particles. Your body are composed of mostly empty space, as elementary schoolchildren are taught.

Science is much more than “what can be measured”. That’s empiricist philosophy, not science. Most of what I study in school is mathematical theory, not lab results (though they are necessary too). (And no, with due respect to fundamentalists who don’t know what they’re talking about, “theory” does not mean “hasn’t been proven”.)

Philosophy is not a judge of science. Philosophy is unverifiable speculation which nobody agrees on. Science is known to be true, and its truth is the standard by which philosophical theories have to be judged.

 

[MindOverMatter]

If you do understand it as well as you said, and I don’t, why not perform a small favor out of Christian charity and tell me where I went wrong?

No.

 

[Cecilianus]

To say that things particpate in existence is to say that they do not exist of their own nature. It is not of their own nature to exist. Otherwise they would be neccesary beings. They cannot be “existence” themselves, because you cannot cause that which is existence, and so, therefore they can only become actual through that which is already actuality by nature of its being/God. To say that things participate in Gods nature, is to say that God has created qualities or natures, that require existence in order to be actual. In otherwords they require Gods eternal will and being in order to be actual. To think of it in its proper terms would be to say that God in his perfection equals any number of potential possibilities that are themselves contingent on Gods natural being in order to be actual or possible. There are also natural truths which flow naturally from God such as 2 + 2 = 4. Mathematical truth is true because of Gods being. All of these exist in a sense as either the eternal ideas of God or as the natural extentions of Gods attributes. The eternal God gives actuality to Gods eternal ideas through Gods eternal actuality, which is existence. Another way to put it, would be to say that, the concept of man becomes actual through the power that is the underlying reality, which is in its self “existence”.

There is nothing inconsistence with that statement. It is certainly more reasonable then saying that things can come out of nothing.

Then just say that “they do not exist of their own nature”, if that is what you mean, rather than they “participate in existence”, since the latter statement is false (for the reasons I gave above).

How do natural truths “flow from God’s being”? Mathematical truths are necessarily true in and of themselves - God didn’t “cause” them to be true (which I don’t think you claimed), and they don’t “emanate” from Him in any way. They are just true - simply and necessarily so. Math isn’t an extension of God’s attributes.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Science is much more than “what can be measured”. That’s empiricist philosophy, not science.

So emprical science is not about experiement/falsification and studying that which can be measured? :nope:

I didn’t know that scientific theories were accepted and verified by baseless speculation. Is that what passes for true science these days?:nope:

I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

By the way a hypothesis is not a Theory.

This discussion is over. Good luck.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Then just say that “they do not exist of their own nature”, if that is what you mean, rather than they “participate in existence”, since the latter statement is false (for the reasons I gave above)…

They are both synonmous and valid functions of language when spoken in reference to ontological reality in terms of the contingent and neccesary.

How do natural truths “flow from God’s being”?

They exist because God is present.

Mathematical truths are necessarily true in and of themselves - God didn’t “cause” them to be true (which I don’t think you claimed), and they don’t “emanate” from Him in any way. They are just true - simply and necessarily so. Math isn’t an extension of God’s attributes.

Mathematical truths do not exist in nothing and neither are they true of themselves. Neither does truth exist in Nothing. Out of nothing comes nothing; there is no truth in nothing. Truth exists in being; they are extentions of being. They require absolute being in order to be true. I never said that God cuases them in the classical sense of “cuase”, i said that mathematical truths exist because God exists; they are true because of God. Think of this analogy; there are such things as solar flares because the sun is present. It is because of the nature of Gods being that there is such a thing as mathematical truth. If God is the root of all things, which is what classical christians believe, then you must also agree with this. Or perhaps you believe that there are things which exist apart from God in there own right? This is heresy.

 

[tonyrey]

Philosophy is unverifiable speculation which nobody agrees on. Science is known to be true, and its truth is the standard by which philosophical theories have to be judged.

Unlike mathematics science deals with probabilities not certainties.Not only that. Science is based on logical and philosophical principles which are the foundation of all knowledge and cannot be established scientifically. It presupposes the power of reason and the intelligibility of the universe. In the order of knowledge science is a late arrival on the scene. It relies primarily on induction rather than deduction and is concerned with only one aspect of reality - physical - whereas philosophy is concerned with reality as a whole. If philosophy were unverifiable speculation which nobody agrees on then science would not emerged in the first place.

 

[Cecilianus]

So emprical science is not about experiement/falsification and studying that which can be measured? :nope:

I didn’t know that scientific theories were accepted and verified by baseless speculation. Is that what passes for true science these days?:nope:

I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

By the way a hypothesis is not a Theory.

This discussion is over. Good luck.

Did I say any of that? It does “have to do with” experiment, but is not reduced to. Look at what I say, not your stereotype about what you think I am thinking.

Theory is not “baseless speculation”. It is developed to explain the experimental evidence, but it goes beyond it.

 

[Cecilianus]

They are both synonmous and valid functions of language when spoken in reference to ontological reality in terms of the contingent and neccesary.

They exist because God is present.

Mathematical truths do not exist in nothing and neither are they true of themselves. Neither does truth exist in Nothing. Out of nothing comes nothing; there is no truth in nothing. Truth exists in being; they are extentions of being. They require absolute being in order to be true. I never said that God cuases them in the classical sense of “cuase”, i said that mathematical truths exist because God exists; they are true because of God. Think of this analogy; there are such things as solar flares because the sun is present. It is because of the nature of Gods being that there is such a thing as mathematical truth. If God is the root of all things, which is what classical christians believe, then you must also agree with this. Or perhaps you believe that there are things which exist apart from God in there own right? This is heresy.

Mathematical truths exist regardless of God. They are not “nothing”, but they are not things in the sense that objects are things. Truth is more extensive than being, since mathematical truths are still true (even though some numbers do not and cannot exist in beings - e.g., a google, which is larger than the number of objects in the universe, and yet is a number just like any other number. Or imaginary numbers, which are just as truly numbers as real numbers [you have to ignore the word “imaginary”, which is used in a technical sense].)

 

[Cecilianus]

Unlike mathematics science deals with probabilities not certainties.Not only that. Science is based on logical and philosophical principles which are the foundation of all knowledge and cannot be established scientifically. It presupposes the power of reason and the intelligibility of the universe. In the order of knowledge science is a late arrival on the scene. It relies primarily on induction rather than deduction and is concerned with only one aspect of reality - physical - whereas philosophy is concerned with reality as a whole. If philosophy were unverifiable speculation which nobody agrees on then science would not emerged in the first place.

“Science deals with probabilities not certainties”. Yes, that’s the best we can do. Our knowledge can always increase - but this does not mean the previous theories are false, just that the new theories are closer approximations.

“Science is based on logical and philosophical principles”. False. Aristotelian “science” was, but modern science is not, aside from tautological principles which you do not need a philosophy class in order to learn.

Science emerged when philosophers started actually looking at the things they were talking about instead of just taking Aristotle’s word for it. It only emerged because philosophy qua such is unverifiable speculation.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Mathematical truths exist regardless of God. They are not “nothing”, but they are not things in the sense that objects are things.

I never said they were things like objects are things.

Truth is more extensive than being, since mathematical truths are still true (even though some numbers do not and cannot exist in beings

I never said they exist in being, i said they exist because of being. There is a difference.

Or imaginary numbers, which are just as truly numbers as real numbers [you have to ignore the word “imaginary”, which is used in a technical sense].)

Are you saying that mathematical truths can exist in absolute nothingness?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Did I say any of that? It does “have to do with” experiment, but is not reduced to. Look at what I say, not your stereotype about what you think I am thinking.

Theory is not “baseless speculation”. It is developed to explain the experimental evidence, but it goes beyond it.

Again; everything you’re saying is a wasted attempt to overstretch the legitimate boundaries of science.

Read this; this is a proper explanation of the scientific method.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

[Cecilianus]

I never said they were things like objects are things.

I never said they exist in being, i said they exist because of being. There is a difference.

Are you saying that mathematical truths can exist in absolute nothingness?

They have their own “being” (in an analogous way); they don’t depend on objects or things for their existence. They don’t exist “because of being”; I don’t even know what that means.

 

[Cecilianus]

Again; everything you’re saying is a wasted attempt to overstretch the legitimate boundaries of science.

Read this; this is a proper explanation of the scientific method.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Look - I’m a physics major; I’m close to having degrees in physics and math; I know what science covers and how it’s done. I don’t go to Wikipedia to learn about science.

Face it: Science talks about the vacuum. You have no business deciding whether that is “legitimate” or not.

Your name is “Mind over Matter”. Why do you keep using emotional arguments like telling me that I’m wasting my time with my argument? Read my arguments and answer my questions. I would still really, honestly like an answer to the question as to why my soul can’t be its own prime mover. I’ll answer any question you ask me, so please answer any question I ask you.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you deny that science is concerned with only one aspect of reality - physical - whereas philosophy is concerned with reality as a whole?

“Science is based on logical and philosophical principles”. False. Aristotelian “science” was, but modern science is not, aside from tautological principles which you do not need a philosophy class in order to learn.