Philosophical Proof of a Creator/Beats Aquinas!

[4Horsemen]

Quote from the paper presented:
Rather, the reality that we live within and perceive must have been sequentially created (thus accounting for the obvious causes and effects we observe) in a higher dimensional time, exactly as Dr. Ross argues, and then became static, exactly as a painting does upon completion. Quite simply, a cause must precede its effect within existence, which cannot be the case if both the cause and the effect have always existed simultaneously.

Although I don’t have a background in metaphysics and philosophy, I’m reading some works on Aquinas’ thinking. In hopes that I’m interpreting his writing correctly, I’ll just mention briefly that he did consider the question of the eternity of the universe, although his conclusion was firmly that the world has not existed eternally and its duration had a beginning. Nonetheless, in order to get to the truth of this matter, he, first of all, rejected any claim that the world could always have been independently of God. Then he considered if it could be maintained that something always existed but was nonetheless caused by God. Otherwise, wouldn’t we be putting a limitation on God’s omnipotence? Or are we to believe a “passive potency” preceded its existence? Finally, is it conceptually incoherent that God can make something that always was?

Aquinas considered the idea of “passive potency” heretical. As for "conceptual incoherence, Thomas didn’t consider believing that something’s being caused by God and yet always having been heretical. But it is understood that something can’t be both an affirmation and negation at the same time (though he mentioned that some thought that God could bring that about). However, Thomas considered it a nullity.

Thomas held that either the efficient cause must precede its effect in duration or non-existence must precede existence in duration (creating exnihilo, that is, from nothing).

He shows that it is not necessary for the efficient cause to precede His effect in duration. An example given is since in that particular instant in which fire begins to be, heating begins. He maintains that the beginning and ending are at the same time. (But I would think that since fire produces heat, it is the efficient cause of the heat. Maybe, the idea of fire and light would work better. Just my humble, uninformed opinion). It would be incoherent, Thomas advises, to say this of causes which produce their effects through motion however.

Although I tried to wade through the logic (there’s so much more he dicoursed on concerning this point of simultaneous efficient causes), but he concludes that although it is not incoherent to profer the argument from above and says it’s not “repugnant to intellect”
he dismisses their thinking after quoting several other philosophers (Plato, Boethius, St. Augustine, St. John Damascene) and finally arriving with those philosophers who “surpass all others in nobility and authority.” Creatures cannot be co-eternal with the Creator.

As for the idea mentioned in the paper about an infinite sequence of causes unconnected, it’s like saying an infinite world would have to have an infinite number of people unconnected, if I may venture to guess.

 

[Don_Schneider]

Dear weskit:

I’d prefer not to mention his name for personal reasons. He has a theory very similar to that of the “Many-Worlds Interpretation” of QM. I’d call it simply a variation. He seems to spell out what I have always maintained: that the MWI transposes to nothing more than a vastly enhanced model of a single, spacetime scheme of reality. Instead of there being one spacetime, which exists eternally and statically, there are a virtual infinite number of them (which like Deutsch (the “Multiverse”) he calls by a collective name), except he would not acknowledge the nomenclature “spacetime.” Although I might be misinterpreting his views from reading his work, I would call that a point without a distinction. “A rose by….”

Don

 

[Don_Schneider]

Dear Warpspeed:

You wrote:

“id like to comment on your argument as i read it, i hope its ok to post parts of it here for that purpose.”

That would be fine, except you don’t. (Which is also fine.) All your quotes and rebuttals (or observations) are of and addressed to Dr. Schick’s paper, the atheistic university philosopher that my essay purports to rebut. As I said, that is quite alright. I could use all the help I can get, and you are obviously erudite and well-versed regarding the field of physics, more so than me.

I especially appreciated your assistance with countering Dr. Schick’s argument about particles spontaneously being briefly created as the result of vacuum fluctuations. A writer friend of mine, who is an agnostic, scolded me on that very point; saying within a rebuttal he wrote to my piece that I simply glossed over it. He was right, and I am glad that you did not. As I said, I appreciate the assistance rendered!

As for a summary of my arguments, here goes:

According to the implications of Einstein’s STR, all spacetime events, past, present and future, exist within spacetime *concurrently *and eternally.

For an event to be a cause, it must precede its effect.

Therefore, the obvious existence of causes and effects within our spacetime cannot be accounted for by any agency from within spacetime, only from without

Thanks.

Don.

 

[Don_Schneider]

Dear Reggie:

Please see my recent response to warpspeed (whom you are answering) for clarification as to what the OP (i.e., me) wrote and what you are addressing. As I appreciated warp’s assistance in helping to rebut Dr. Schick’s paper, so do I yours, especially your further explanation of particles being created spontaneously in vacuum fluctuations. I found it most enlightening, so thanks!

Don

 

[Don_Schneider]

Dear JD,

You wrote:

“If you are correct in your assumption, that would mean the annihilation of the time-as-a-continuum concept. In other words, time, of the sort you describe, would be some sort of grouping of loosely “bound” together but completely separate “now” events. What would relate them? How could they ever get to be sequential? And, how do you mean “sequential”?

The answer to your question is inferred from within it. Obviously causes and effects *do *exist and provide a logical order to our existence. Since they could not have come from within “the system,” they must have come from without.

Please look at my essay again and pay particular attention to my suggested thought experiment concerning a hypothetical situation where characters within a novel somehow gain sentience and intelligence. How would they explain their existences? Would they eventually come to the realization that they must have had an author who provided order in their universe?

Don

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Dear Don,

In reference to your post #20:

May I respectfully suggest that trying to find God by going back in time is a difficult proposition. I do not say it is impossible to use the scientific approach, possibly by using the Second Law of Thermodynamics to show that a first state of the cosmos is required since otherwise infinite order is presupposed in the past. The argument posed on this thread may also be possible, but if it is effective, it will be because it becomes a valid metaphysical, not merely scientific, proof. Still, it should be noted that St. Thomas considered an infinite regress into the past a conceptual possibility, since in his tertia via, he argues to an Uncaused Necessary Being by assuming the possibility of an eternal world.

That the world might have been eternal in principle is evident from two considerations: (1) If God does exist and is eternal Himself, then what is to have prevented Him from creating a finite world itself co-existing in time from all eternity, and (2) no matter how far back you go in time, it is always possible to conceive a prior time. As St. Thomas himself notes, creation of the world in time is not a dictate of pure reason, but a revealed Christian doctrine. Incidentally, a world of infinite prior duration would not actually be eternal in the technical sense. Eternity is the name of God’s life: It means the infinite and simultaneous possession of infinite life. Endless duration in time remains a limiting quality of a finite cosmos.

Some of these considerations I have posed in greater detail on another thread: Aquinas, Logic & The First Cause*. (Thread 1) at **forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=318466&page=**7

Incidentally, a central thesis of my own book, Aquinas’ Proofs for God’s Existence, was to show that an infinite regress among per se causes (causes acting simultaneous with their effects’ production) is impossible.

I have not had time to adequately review the argument presented on this thread, and do not wish to adjudge its validity until (and unless) I can. But it seems to me that its force would have to entail a shift to a metaphysical perspective for it to be valid. Natural science, by definition, is limited to the study of the finite physical world. Any argument which transcends this physical world to prove God’s existence has transcended the physical world, and thus, has engaged in metaphysical reasoning.

My one concern about this thread is that it seems to imply some defect in St. Thomas’ arguments to God’s existence. I maintain that, properly understood, Aquinas’ proofs for God’s existence are valid. Certain common errors are made concerning them. Among others, the two most serious mistakes are:

(1) failure to grasp the real relation of mover to thing moved, and

(2) thinking the causal regress mentioned in the first three “Ways” goes back in time.

Concerning the first, we are talking about the principle in the prima via which says: Quidquid movetur ab alio movetur. Let me translate its proper metaphysical meaning, rather than give a literal translation which often confuses people. It means that whatever is here and now in motion is here and now being moved by something else. Mover and thing moved are simultaneous. Thus, examples like those given by Samuel Enoch Stumpf of a series of dominoes falling are simply wrong, since the first dominoes may be falling or fallen while the last one remains standing. Rather, all movers and things moved move together and at the same time, like gears in a clock. (Incidentally, the same problem arises regarding the relation of cause and effect, which are also simultaneous when properly understood.)
**
Concerning the second**, as I mentioned in my prior post, the series of moved movers and caused causes regress, not in time, but by ontological priority – all at the same time. So, these two frequent errors are connected.

In truth, it would be a daunting task to give a complete and adequate proof for God’s existence as presented by St. Thomas in his Five Ways in the medium of an internet forum. But that is the subject matter of another time.*

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Dear Warpspeed:

You wrote:

“id like to comment on your argument as i read it, i hope its ok to post parts of it here for that purpose.”

That would be fine, except you don’t. (Which is also fine.) All your quotes and rebuttals (or observations) are of and addressed to Dr. Schick’s paper, the atheistic university philosopher that my essay purports to rebut. As I said, that is quite alright. I could use all the help I can get, and you are obviously erudite and well-versed regarding the field of physics, more so than me.

oops, i messed up, sorry.

I especially appreciated your assistance with countering Dr. Schick’s argument about particles spontaneously being briefly created as the result of vacuum fluctuations. A writer friend of mine, who is an agnostic, scolded me on that very point; saying within a rebuttal he wrote to my piece that I simply glossed over it. He was right, and I am glad that you did not. As I said, I appreciate the assistance rendered!

thank you.

fyi, the qoute button is to the left of the hash marks, simply highlight a passage you wish and click that button to save time while posting

As for a summary of my arguments, here goes:

According to the implications of Einstein’s STR, all spacetime events, past, present and future, exist within spacetime *concurrently *and eternally.

For an event to be a cause, it must precede its effect.

Therefore, the obvious existence of causes and effects within our spacetime cannot be accounted for by any agency from within spacetime, only from without

Thanks.

Don.

indeed, i like the argument, i state it like this.

as nothing physical can cause itself, only a non-physical first cause is possible.

our arguments conclusions support eachother. i think thats very interesting, i would like some support for the first premise, but assuming it withstands refutation it casts a whole new light on the subject for me.

what are the common refutations you have heard? what were your counter arguments?

i reach that conclusion as a result of causality, you reach it as a result of STR.

i need to know more much more

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Dear Don,

In reference to your post #20:

May I respectfully suggest that trying to find God by going back in time is a difficult proposition. I do not say it is impossible to use the scientific approach, possibly by using the Second Law of Thermodynamics to show that a first state of the cosmos is required since otherwise infinite order is presupposed in the past. The argument posed on this thread may also be possible, but if it is effective, it will be because it becomes a valid metaphysical, not merely scientific, proof. Still, it should be noted that St. Thomas considered an infinite regress into the past a conceptual possibility, since in his tertia via, he argues to an Uncaused Necessary Being by assuming the possibility of an eternal world.
**

finally, some one i can ask!

is someone practicing metaphysics a metaphysician, a metaphysicist, or a nut?

is your book on amazon or something?

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

finally, some one i can ask!

is someone practicing metaphysics a metaphysician, a metaphysicist, or a nut?

is your book on amazon or something?

Whether one doing metaphysics is a metaphysician or a nut, you will have to decide for yourself. In forty years of teaching, I always told my students that they would have no philosophy except that which they themselves understood. You are not doing philosophy by memorizing what others have said. That is history of philosophy, not philosophy itself. So, you will have to do some metaphysics yourself before you will know whether it is the act of a nut or not. But then, no one knows that he himself is nuts, right? He just thinks everyone else is.

My book is available on Amazon, but you don’t want to buy it. It costs something like $123 in a print-on-demand format. It was originally published in 1972 and went out of print. Klewer bought up the rights and now sells it for this ridiculous price – probably to libraries that have a budget and don’t care about expenses for individual books.

 

[reggieM]

Still, it should be noted that St. Thomas considered an infinite regress into the past a conceptual possibility, since in his tertia via, he argues to an Uncaused Necessary Being by assuming the possibility of an eternal world. **

I’m not an expert, but I don’t agree that St. Thomas argued strongly or well in favor of an eternal world. I do not believe he was convinced of it, but only used the argument as a means to an end. I don’t think the argument holds up at all either. I can post my concerns later – looking at his text.

That the world might have been eternal in principle is evident from two considerations: (1) If God does exist and is eternal Himself, then what is to have prevented Him from creating a finite world itself co-existing in time from all eternity,

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Whether one doing metaphysics is a metaphysician or a nut, you will have to decide for yourself. In forty years of teaching, I always told my students that they would have no philosophy except that which they themselves understood. You are not doing philosophy by memorizing what others have said. That is history of philosophy, not philosophy itself. So, you will have to do some metaphysics yourself before you will know whether it is the act of a nut or not. But then, no one knows that he himself is nuts, right? He just thinks everyone else is.

My book is available on Amazon, but you don’t want to buy it. It costs something like $123 in a print-on-demand format. It was originally published in 1972 and went out of print. Klewer bought up the rights and now sells it for this ridiculous price – probably to libraries that have a budget and don’t care about expenses for individual books.

that blows. just getting something like that published is a coup.

this book was published the year before i was born, in that time we have made alot of observational discoveries in theoretical physics, and other hard sciences.

its my position tht no natural explanantion is possible an argument i make rather ineptly in the thread, "science is worthless’, but i wonder if there are any changes you might comment on in the time since the book was publiished in light of those observations.

 

[PatThompson]

Wow, there have been many interesting posts to this thread, making my simple mind experiment seem, well, simple, but here it goes.

Imagine a chain of identical, perfectly round links. Throw the chain randomly on the ground.

Now imagine that each link corresponds to a point in time right next to the connecting link in the chain (or think of it as a frame of film in a movie). As you play through time (or the movie) as if by magic the link would snake along the ground! Not randomly jump from spot to spot, but seemingly moving bit by bit.

The interconnectedness of each frame in the movie is as a result of the restrictions in the system.

Now imagine rather than just a chain, instead a long loop of chain. Now there is no obvious start or end to the movie…

I realize that someone had to MAKE the chain in my example, but obviously there are many, many examples of ‘nature’ making chains like this without a n-1 level designer, so as science has shown, given enough time, you can go from n-1 to (n-1)-1 to ( (n-1)-1)-1 and so on.

And that proves, without a shadow of a doubt something, but I’m not really sure what!

 

[Biggie]

I am still chewing on your essay, but it seems to me you are arguing that the universe has a beginning by arguing that it is infinite, that its chronology is an accident of the perception of it and that it’s nature as a creation is only revealed in its completion (read that end) as in a completed work of art. Isn’t that taking the long way around?

Schick is throwing everything and the kitchen sink into his argument. You seem to be addressing the first several paragraphs. Does he have a problem with “first cause” or with “beginning”? It depends … if the evidence is in on the big bang, then the evidence is in on the issue of “beginning”. The universe has a beginning and we are arguing about cause. If, however, quantum electrodynamics, quarks, sparks and narcs reveal the existence of infinite chains that bring themselves into existence, then the universe has no beginning (or maybe so) therefore we need not be speaking of first cause (or maybe so). What horse is he on other than the one named No God No Matter What?

Assuming his Big Bang title reveals him to be of the understanding that the universe had a distinct beginning, then one must wonder if in his construct the lack of a perception of cause is the equivalent to the lack of cause. Or is the vote also in on the consummation of scientific knowledge?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Quailman

Just want to support your assertion that Einstein was not an atheist. As a matter of fact, he went out of his way on several occasions, and used rather strong language to dissociate himself from the atheists. He often spoke of God as below, but certainly more so the God of Spinoza than any other.

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” Albert Einstein in Max Jammer’s Einstein and Religion.

 

[Don_Schneider]

Dear Dr. Bonnette:

First off, I am in awe of your profound intellect and erudition and even more so by your obviously being an *exemplarily *Catholic. If only we had more such men and women as yourself and, I might add in light of recent events, especially at the hallowed halls of your doctorial alma mater. I’m sure all appreciate what time you can spare to post here. Although I believe you are retired, I’m certain you have other obligations and projects. So thank you.

Secondly, the part of my note heading that reads “Beats Aquinas” was intended as tongue-in-cheek and as, of course, an attention grabber. I did, however, previously believe that our master theologian and Doctor of the Church had been somewhat weak in regard to his much vaunted “uncaused cause” argument. However, with your offered clarification, I can now see that it was my understanding of St. Thomas’s philosophical arguments that had been lacking.

When you state:

“(Incidentally, the same problem arises regarding the relation of cause and effect, which are also simultaneous when properly understood.)” and…

“…as I mentioned in my prior post, the series of moved movers and caused causes regress, not in time, but by ontological priority-- all at the same time.” [emphasis added]

it seems to me that my offered proof based upon STR is identical to how you are clarifying Aquinas’s arguments here.

God is outside of spacetime and created spacetime and everything within it, including us. God is “Is” or “I Am Who Am.” God creates the time of a finite universe, but He is not part of it. An analogy is found within my proof in the form of a hypothetic thought experiment.

Assume the characters within a novel could somehow gain sentience and intelligence. Now, I’ll elaborate a little upon what I previously wrote within the proof. Suppose the novel spans a time period of fifty years. Characters within the novel experience the fifty years which seem sequential to them because of memory. That is, at the end of the novel, the end of the fifty years, they remember all that had preceded it. (This is the illusion called “time”.) However, at the beginning of the novel, the beginning of the fifty years, they have, of course, no memory of what is to come. However, because the novel is now eternally complete, fifty years hence already exists and always will: exactly in accordance with the implications of relativity.

However, in the higher dimensional time of the author in which the novel (their universe) was written, the author is not bound by the eternal fifty years of his or her characters within the novel. The characters, however, could by pure reason and logic infer the existence of a creator of their literary universe (which seems as real to them as ours does to us) by the logic I present within my proof.

As I state, the alternative would be to reason along the same lines as does Dr. Schick and many others. That is, that their universe “just is” and always has been; it had no creator: and they would be very wrong.

In this analogy, of course, the author corresponds to our Creator, God. Unlike a human author, however, who will himself or herself experience a finite, eternal timeframe (independent of that of the characters), God is timeless. God somehow “just is.” I contend that we simply are not capable of comprehending by what logic that could be and it is therefore futile to even try. Nevertheless, it remains the only viable theory to account for our existence.

 

[Don_Schneider]

Dear Warpspeed:

I believe your paraphrase of my argument is valid.

I first formulated my ideas while posting on an email list devoted to a theory concerning quantum mechanics. Most of the people on the list were like me, intelligent layman with an interest in physics. I must confess that most of their attempted rebuttals to my arguments seemed incoherent to me. I literally didn’t understand what they were getting at.

So when I put forth my idea to a highly renowned contemporary physicist (not the one I quote in my proof), he basically just stated that we shouldn’t worry about such concerns; just go with the best theories we have to work with. As he is a disciple of Karl Popper, I assume he meant that my argument is not falsifiable and, therefore, irrelevant even if true.

 

[liquidpele]

Quailman

Just want to support your assertion that Einstein was not an atheist. As a matter of fact, he went out of his way on several occasions, and used rather strong language to dissociate himself from the atheists. He often spoke of God as below, but certainly more so the God of Spinoza than any other.

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” Albert Einstein in Max Jammer’s Einstein and Religion.

I don’t think he was either atheist or believed in religion. I think in the equations of the universe, he saw God, but it was not the God of the bible. For instance, in this letter he clearly says he rejects religion:

relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_religion.html

For more details (really good read actually) on his complex answers to religious questions, see here:

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Dear Warpspeed:

I believe your paraphrase of my argument is valid.

I first formulated my ideas while posting on an email list devoted to a theory concerning quantum mechanics. Most of the people on the list were like me, intelligent layman with an interest in physics. I must confess that most of their attempted rebuttals to my arguments seemed incoherent to me. I literally didn’t understand what they were getting at.

i get the same with my arguments from the metaphysics side also, i usually attribute it to an educationally ingrained tendency to empiricism that is often the meat of the counter argument.

So when I put forth my idea to a highly renowned contemporary physicist (not the one I quote in my proof), he basically just stated that we shouldn’t worry about such concerns; just go with the best theories we have to work with. As he is a disciple of Karl Popper, I assume he meant that my argument is not falsifiable and, therefore, irrelevant even if true.

yup, if it aint empirical it aint worth talking about.

thats just a lame dodge.

 

[nkbeth]

From the original article posted by the OP:

How then can one account for the creator’s origin? How can one avoid an infinite regress of creators? That is what I term the "ultimate mystery” of existence. How can anything*exist at all? As incomprehensible as the mystery is, the only answer I can suggest is that somewhere along the line, someone or something “just is,” and in his, her or its plane of existence the answer to these questions can be scientifically fathomed as they cannot be here within the logic of our reality.

This seems pretty much in accord with St. Thomas to me. I’m not sure that adding modern science to St. Thomas’ concepts of existence, cause, and effect really makes the arguments for God’s existence stronger in themselves. I think that perhaps it just helps our modern minds.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Dear Dr. Bonette:

Your grasp of Aquinas’s theology/philosophy is evidently more profound than my own. From your above statement, are you suggesting that my offered proof is exactly the same as Aquinas’s, only that mine is updated in accordance with scientific advances and discoveries since his time? When you speak of his viewing events to be simultaneous, this is what it sounds like to me.

Dear Don,

Just a quick observation in defense of St. Thomas. I am not sure that his arguments really need updating in accordance with scientific advances and discoveries since his time. Some of his examples may appear inappropriate or just plain wrong to our ears today, e.g., when he said fire is the hottest of all things. But if you grasp his essential metaphysical insights, I think they will hold up as well today as when he wrote them.

The problem is that many of his critics misread his meaning. The reason there exist philosophical traditions is that those educated within them are often given more authentic interpretations of their mentors than are attained by outside readers. Thus St. Thomas is often misread by skeptics who think his philosophy is “quaint” and “outmoded.” I assure you that the Catholic Church did not describe his doctrine, method, and principles as the philosophy preferred and recommended because it was “antiquated.”

Please forgive me, but I cannot say whether your argument is the same as St. Thomas’ at this point because I have not as yet read it carefully, and don’t wish to comment when uninformed.

More later…