Philosophical Proof of a Creator/Beats Aquinas!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Don_Schneider
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What a great discussion here! Don, your paper was thought-provoking. Keep up the good work!

While I agree with just about everything St. Thomas argues, I (with all due respect for the Angelic Doctor) side with St. Bonaventure on the impossibility of an infinite past. Bonaventure argues as follows:
  1. An actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition.
  2. A beginningless universe entails an actual infinite formed by successive addition.
  3. Hence, a beginningless universe cannot exist.
  4. Therefore, the universe had a beginning.
Thomas objects by saying that each moment of the finite past can be traversed. On this point, he is correct, but it seems to me that he commits a composition fallacy by suggesting that an infinite whole can therefore be traversed. It is true that every point of an infinite set is a finite point, but it doesn’t follow from this the entire set as a whole can be passed.

Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Bonnette that Thomas’ five ways, correctly understood, are very compelling arguments for God’s existence.
 
Dr Bonnette,
Dr.Bonnette said:
In reply to my claim that the causal regresses in the Five Ways are simultaneous

Etienne Gilson [says] "…the impossibility of going back to infinity does not refer to an infinite regression in time, but in the present instant in which we are considering the world." Gilson, Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 64.

In his Summa Contra Gentiles, where he offers the corresponding proof to the prima via of the Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas makes explicit the simultaneity of movers and things moved: “But every body that moves something moved is itself moved while moving it. Therefore, all of the infinite multitude are moved simultaneously while one of them is moved.” C.G., I, 13. And again, “The mover and the thing moved must exist simultaneously. …But bodies cannot be simultaneous except through continuity or contiguity.” C.G., I, 13, para. 13.

The above should be sufficient to support my interpretation, which remains the same as it was in 1972 when I wrote my book, “Aquinas’ Proofs for God’s Existence.” Simultaneity of cause and effect apply to each of the Five Ways.

From the above, two inferences follow: (1) St. Thomas does not appear to think that God can be proven to exist by arguments which pursue a series of causes going back in time, and (2) St. Thomas employs proper causality as the essential principle in discerning God’s existence in each of the Five Ways, meaning that the cause and effect of which he is speaking must be simultaneous. The latter means that the principle of “no infinite regress among proper causes” refers to a chain of causes existing here and now, as Lagrange says, like gears in a clock – all operating simultaneously in ontological, not temporal, sequence.
Click to expand...
I (guided by professors) have understood St. Thomas to be speaking of simultaneous causes and effects in the 5 ways. But St. Thomas also says:

S.T. Question 46. The beginning of the duration of creatures, A2, Reply Objection 1
we must consider that the efficient cause, which acts by motion, of necessity precedes its effect in time; because the effect is only in the end of the action, and every agent must be the principle of action. But if the action is instantaneous and not successive, it is not necessary for the maker to be prior to the thing made in duration as appears in the case of illumination.
I’m not sure if I’m taking this out of context, but it does seem to correspond to my common idea that effects can follow causes in time, even if not at the final instant of the action.

Existence and change in creatures do need God’s causality which is (in their time) simultaneous with them. And (in time) the end point of a cause needs to be simultananeous with the begin point of an effect. And an “infinite multitude” of causes and effects can be considered, where the causes and effects are entirely simultaneous. But at least in common speech (even if not metaphysics or in the context of St. Thomas 5 ways) causes and effects are not always entirely simultaneous.

But perhaps I am speaking outside of the metaphysical discussion that has been going on here. Sorry if I’ve misread (or failed to read) parts of this thread
 
To NKBeth:

I do not object to all use of examples. They are a fine and much needed teaching tool. But I have found that in presenting the first metaphysical principles, i.e., identity, non-contradiction, sufficient reason, causality, and finality, it is better at first to try to get the students to think in terms of being itself. If you give them examples first, they attach the particularities of the examples to universal being and have many problems. Better I find is to give the universal principles first, getting to think in terms that are almost algebraic – and then later giving examples.

This is especially true regarding simultaneity in causation, since most examples appear to violate the general rule! For example (!), we think lighting a fuse sets off an explosive, with the lighting first and the explosion later. Very careful analysis is needed at each step to see that the principle is never violated: When the cause ceases causing, the effect ceases. For example (!), the moment the fuse runs out of black powder, it loses the ability to initiate the chain of chemical reactions which actually cause the explosion. Did you ever wonder why the extent of the explosion can be calculated ahead of time? It is because you know the weight of the explosive reagents, and can calculate that for every gram molecular weight of the reagents you will get 22.4 liters of gas, and from that you can calculate the volume of the final product and “size” of the explosion!

Glad you appreciated St. Thomas!
 
nkbeth said:
Dr Bonnette,

I (guided by professors) have understood St. Thomas to be speaking of simultaneous causes and effects in the 5 ways. But St. Thomas also says:

S.T. Question 46. The beginning of the duration of creatures, A2, Reply Objection 1
we must consider that the efficient cause, which acts by motion, of necessity precedes its effect in time; because the effect is only in the end of the action, and every agent must be the principle of action. But if the action is instantaneous and not successive, it is not necessary for the maker to be prior to the thing made in duration as appears in the case of illumination.
I’m not sure if I’m taking this out of context, but it does seem to correspond to my common idea that effects can follow causes in time, even if not at the final instant of the action.

Existence and change in creatures do need God’s causality which is (in their time) simultaneous with them. And (in time) the end point of a cause needs to be simultananeous with the begin point of an effect. And an “infinite multitude” of causes and effects can be considered, where the causes and effects are entirely simultaneous. But at least in common speech (even if not metaphysics or in the context of St. Thomas 5 ways) causes and effects are not always entirely simultaneous.

But perhaps I am speaking outside of the metaphysical discussion that has been going on here. Sorry if I’ve misread (or failed to read) parts of this thread
Click to expand...
Dear nkbeth,

You found a good quote there! But I think you have to look at the wording carefully. St. Thomas says, “consider that the efficient cause, which acts by motion.…” I think there he is talking about a cause of coming-to-be of a final effect. We are all aware that the final cause is the cause of all causes that that what is first in intention is last in execution. The final cause initiates the action of the efficient cause which then gives form to matter resulting in the final effect. This process does take place through time. But at each instant, whatever causality takes place is simultaneous with that precise part of the process which it effects. So one might say there are two ways of looking at causality. In common sense terms, it is evident that a process taking place through time entails a succession of events leading to the final effect, and here the agent which initiates the sequence does so at the beginning of the process. Still, at each point in the causal process of coming-to-be (the real meaning of becoming), the causality taking place must be simultaneous with that “piece” of the process which is unfolding at that moment. And that is what we are focusing on here when we say that when the cause ceases causing, the effect ceases.

To use the example of the explosive going off again, the black powder engages in an exothermic reaction until its reagents are exhausted. By then, either nothing happens and the explosive is a “dud,” or else, the reagents in the main device have been raised to a high enough temperature to initiate their own mutual oxidation/reduction which then maintains the explosive expansion until those reagents are also exhausted. The principle, “When the cause ceases causing, the effect ceases,” is never violated. Still, the person who lit the fuse has safely retired to another room! Yet he remains the moral and efficient cause of the entire process, looked at as an intelligible chain of events. But at the level of immediate causation, the principle is never violated – and that is the real metaphysical level that needs explanation in terms of being and its causality.

Yes, this stuff gets complicated.
 
Don_Schneider said:
Dear Dr. Bonnette:

"I am still unclear as to what you mean by “cause is simultaneous with effect.” I think you mean by that that the egg becomes fertilized the moment the sperm penetrates the egg. Thus, the cause and the effect occur at the same time. You are making a distinction here between the actual event and the antecedent forces involved, correct?

Obviously both the sperm and the egg existed before the child. You are not denying this, simply making a distinction between the two concepts, calling the former “causes of coming-to-be;” the latter, the “causes of being?” Correct?"

Dear Don,

I have been trying to get back to responding to this post, but nkbeth raised other issues that grabbed my attention first!

Yes, I think you basically have grasped my meaning about “simultaneous causality.” Some of my remarks to nkbeth may be helpful here. But this may take more explanation as we proceed. Nothing to fear here.

You also write: *“I shall have to try to find the paper to which you referred authored by a priest that attacks the underlying assumptions of the theory of relativity. That would be quite interesting. If relativity is false, then obviously my proof also has no validity. But I must tell you, every empirical observation from experiments thus far performed upholds the theory.”
*

I am sorry, but you will never find Fr. Woodbury’s paper! Theologian and philosopher Austin Woodbury was one of Garrigou-Lagranges actual students, and one who was once said to have “exceeded the master!” He founded the Aquinas Academy in Sydney, Australia, and taught there for many, many years – producing massive amounts of papers and books, NONE of which were ever actually published. They were handed out to his thousands of students, and are done in a form that could have been published. It is a tragedy that all his works may be lost to history, since they now exist merely as manuscripts in the hands of his few surviving students.

“The Einsteinian Theory of Relativity” is one of his short papers. On rereading parts of it tonight, I am convinced it is a major paper, much needing publication. But it likely will never be published. At any rate, this is not a matter of saying Einstein’s theory is wrong in the sense of it being a theory of physics able to produce verifiable predictions. It is and it can. What is at issue here are the underlying philosophical assumptions and claims made by Einstein and on his behalf.

There is no way I can give you the whole paper. But let me try to give you a “taste.”

SUMMARY on motion: “But this change of the relation of distance is equally in one of these bodies as in the other. Therefore one of thes bodies is wequally in movement as is the other; either can, just as rightly as the other be CONSIDERED to be at rest”

Because "a locally moved body is intrinsically affected by a mechanical impulse which is the proximate cause of its movement", …"one body rather than another is really in movement , and not rightly would we indifferently or indiscriminately attribute the movement equally to both these bodies"

What I think Fr. Woodbury is saying is that the Einsteinians maintain an equiparant reciprocity of local movement, where it does not matter which body is in actual movement, whereas such movement is real and actual in one of the bodies and as such entails a real reduction of potency to act, which the Einsteinians ignore at the philosophical level.

This, in turn, affects the philosophical understanding of all the rest of relativity theory in such manner as to violate basic principles of the philosophy of nature – and unnecessarily so.

How is that for food for thought?
Click to expand...
 
punkforchrist said:
Bonaventure argues as follows:
  1. An actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition.
  2. A beginningless universe entails an actual infinite formed by successive addition.
  3. Hence, a beginningless universe cannot exist.
  4. Therefore, the universe had a beginning.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your explanation on this.
I find St. Bonaventure’s reasoning to be irrefutable - at least as I see it.
Thomas objects by saying that each moment of the finite past can be traversed. On this point, he is correct, but it seems to me that he commits a composition fallacy by suggesting that an infinite whole can therefore be traversed. It is true that every point of an infinite set is a finite point, but it doesn’t follow from this the entire set as a whole can be passed.
Click to expand...
I agree with your objection here also. I don’t understand St. Thomas’ view on this and it does not seem like a strong challenge to the classic arguments against an infinite universe. I think it might be argued that with an actual infinite, none of the finite points can be traversed. Since it would take an infinite amount of time to arrive at the present, one could never add another point to the set.
In order to traverse any one finite point, there must be a beginning to the set of points.
If there is no beginning, then the set never reaches the present (if a present exists, which in our universe we see that there is a present day and then a day after). An actual infinite would not have a present moment since it has already fulfilled the completeness of time into the infinite future.
If there is no present moment, then one cannot traverse anything.
But the fact that there is a present moment, means that the universe must have had a beginning.
 
Dr. Bonnette, perhaps I was confused by this part of your earlier post:
Dr.Bonnette said:
In his [St Thomas’] Summa Contra Gentiles, where he offers the corresponding proof to the prima via of the Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas makes explicit the simultaneity of movers and things moved:** "But every body that moves something moved is itself moved while moving it. Therefore, all of the infinite multitude** are moved simultaneously while one of them is moved." C.G., I, 13. And again, “The mover and the thing moved must exist simultaneously. …But bodies cannot be simultaneous except through continuity or contiguity.” C.G., I, 13, para. 13.
Click to expand...
The first quote does show St. Thomas making explicit the simultaneity of movers and things moved. But read alone, it seems to say that St. Thomas also believed in the infinity of things moved.

In fact, isn’t the first quote above a part of a reductio absurdam argument that is trying to show the absurdity of the “infinite multitude” (or “all these infinites” in the translation below):

Summa Contra Gentiles. I, 13, para 12, 13:
[11] The second proposition, namely, that there is no procession to infinity among movers and things moved, Aristotle proves in three ways.
Click to expand...
[12] The first is as follows [VII, 1]. If [assuming] among movers and things moved we proceed to infinity, all these infinite beings must be bodies. For whatever is moved is divisible and a body, as is proved in the Physics [VI, 4]. But every body that moves some thing moved is itself moved while moving it.** Therefore,** all these infinites are moved together while one of them is moved.
Click to expand...
But one of them, being finite, is moved in a finite time. Therefore, all those infinites are moved in a finite time. This, however, is impossible. It is, therefore, impossible that among movers and things moved one can proceed to infinity.

[13] Furthermore, that it is impossible for the abovementioned infinites to be moved in a finite time Aristotle proves as follows. The mover and the thing moved must exist simultaneously. This Aristotle proves by induction in the various species of motion. But bodies cannot be simultaneous except through continuity or contiguity. Now, since, as has been proved, all the aforementioned movers and. things moved are bodies, they must constitute by continuity or contiguity a sort of single mobile. In this way, one infinite is moved in a finite time. This is impossible, as is proved in the Physics [VII, 1].

Par 12 In other words (my own, and so likely to be defective:)
Assuming there are infinite movers and moved, then (since every body is itself moved while it is moving another) all these infinites must be moved. together. But that implies that all these infinite bodies move in a finite time. This is absurd. Therefore there can’t be infinite movers and moved.

I’ll leave it to you or others who are more qualified then myself to consider whether this should be discussed further in this thread.
 
What would happen to people’s beliefs if the big bang was shown to actually be incorrect, and a hypothesis is created that is eventually proven that the universe is eternal?

There are quite a few scientists that are working on alternative theories at the moment, though nothing particularly outstanding has been claimed yet, but science is not if anything fairly young in the grand scheme of things.
 
I cannot see how your argument is any different than anyone elses.

I dont’ see how the question, If a God can “just exist” then why can the universe not “just” exist has been answered.

Not trying to be rude, but either I’m missing something or the argument lacks something.
 
Dear nkbeth,

You are quite correct. The whole argument you cite is a reductio ad absurdum. St. Thomas is not saying such a causal series is possible, but rather that it would entail absurdities if it were possible.

I dealt with this argument based on Aristotle’s Physics in my book, but frankly, it is a tedious one. I much prefer other, more evident, arguments based directly on reasoning in the Summa theologiae and the Commentary on the Metaphysics.

In point of fact, my book, Aquinas’ Proofs for God’s Existence, is more directly concerned with the famed problem of infinite regress than it is with the proofs for God’s existence themselves. To my knowledge, even now, some 37 years after its publication, there is no more complete discussion of actual infinite metaphysical regress in print. That does not make me right, but it does mean I have talked about it more than anyone else!

Everyone can become an apparent expert on something. The trick is to write on something no one else bothers with!
 
Dear Dameedna,

You write:

“What would happen to people’s beliefs if the big bang was shown to actually be incorrect, and a hypothesis is created that is eventually proven that the universe is eternal?”

That is why it is so hazardous to try to frame a proof for God’s existence based on going back in time. Materialists and scientific creationists argue back and forth as if determining whether the Cosmos began in time decides the whole question of God’s existence. In truth, you can prove God’s existence even IF the world were eternal. In St. Thomas’ tertia via, he even assumes, for the sake of argument, that the world IS eternal – and then uses that to prove that God would still exist. Even if the world IS of endless duration, it would still need God to be creating and sustaining its existence through every moment of that “eternity.”

You also write:

“I dont’ see how the question, If a God can “just exist” then why can the universe not “just” exist has been answered.”

St. Thomas addresses that very question in a reply to an objection in the Five Ways. He considers the objection, later raised by Hume and others, that Nature explains itself. If so, why need God?

The point of any valid proof for God’s existence is precisely to show that Nature does not adequately explain itself, and has need of an extrinsic Cause. God can “just exist” because He alone is an Infinite Being. But every finite being or Cosmos composed of finite beings fails to fully explain its own existence and becoming. Showing this to be true is the key to understanding that even an eternal finite Cosmos would require some exterior Cause to continually create and sustain its being and becoming.

The point of any valid proof for God is to show that finite things simply cannot fully explain themselves, whereas God can do so because He is in an entirely different order of being.
 
A lot of the stuff you have on this forum is echoed in a wonderful book by Steven M Barr “Modern Physics Ancient Beliefs,” some of which I’ve summarized in a series of six posts on a longish essay Barr wrote based on the book. The first is here: payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/05/20/374/ I’m currently reading the book and plan to review it. I can recommend it now though.

The rest are under the category Science and Religion.

A fellow named Rodney also gave me a great response to a post I had about the false opposition between Faith and Reason (derived from a Fr. Robert Barron meditation). He wrote “What is spiritual science? Perhaps one needs first to ask what is science?” and came up with some great stuff too. That’s all at payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/15/the-false-opposition-of-faith-and-reason/

Hope you enjoy it

DJ
 
Dear Dameedna:

Since you offer no objections to my arguments, I presume you didn’t understand them. Perhaps the fault lies in the clarity of my writing.

According to the implications of Eiinstein’s STR, the past, present and future of spacetime all exist concurrently. The universe is static and motion is an illusion, just as with motion pictures which consist of projected still frames.

Now, it is obvious that you exist because, like any of us (well, most of us), your parents had relations. Were it not for their action, the reaction of your conception would never have occurred. But if your parents and you have always existed concurrently, then they are in fact no older than you. Therefore, how could they have been your cause if they hadn’t existed prior to your existence?

Since they had to have and it couldn’t have been within the reality of spacetime that we perceive, then it must have been in another dimension, the creator’s dimension of reality. It is therefore evident that our reality was created.

If like me, you type your posts here offline and then copy and paste them onto CA, you do so in a sequential order; typing one letter/punctuation point at a time. However, when you copy and paste it onto the forum, it materializes all at once. By way of analogy, you are the creator of the post and you are in a primal dimension of reality. The CA forum is a secondary dimension of reality in which your post now exists, completed and static, just like our spacetime.
 
Dameedna said:
What would happen to people’s beliefs if the big bang was shown to actually be incorrect, and a hypothesis is created that is eventually proven that the universe is eternal?
Click to expand...
it would take a lot more faith to deny the empirical evidence of the Big Bang than it would be to simply be a theist.
There are quite a few scientists that are working on alternative theories at the moment, though nothing particularly outstanding has been claimed yet, but science is not if anything fairly young in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...
even should we ignore the empirical evidence of the big bang, commonly accepted by almost every serious scientist on the planet, then ignore all the relevant physical laws, we still cant get to an eternal universe.

the whole idea is just so much fairytale.
 
Dameedna said:
I cannot see how your argument is any different than anyone elses.

I dont’ see how the question, If a God can “just exist” then why can the universe not “just” exist has been answered.

Not trying to be rude, but either I’m missing something or the argument lacks something.
Click to expand...
because G-d is not physical, as we have always claimed, G-d is spirit.

the universe cant just exist because it is physical, it cannot cause itself, G-d is not physical, and can be eternal without violating the laws of physics.
 
djeter said:
A lot of the stuff you have on this forum is echoed in a wonderful book by Steven M Barr “Modern Physics Ancient Beliefs,” some of which I’ve summarized in a series of six posts on a longish essay Barr wrote based on the book. The first is here: payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/05/20/374/ I’m currently reading the book and plan to review it. I can recommend it now though.
Click to expand...
I read this back in May this year. I agree, it’s excellent. Highly recommended – very well-written for non-specialists, but includes advanced scientific detail as well. The arguments are very strong throughout.
 
Don_Schneider said:
I mentioned this in passing on another thread, which really wasn’t, I realize in retrospect, appropriate. Therefore, I ‘m posting this again on its own thread as from reading here it is evident that many are interested in philosophical proofs of a creator. So here is my humble offering. Although it takes but ten minutes or so tops to read, it’s too long to post here. Therefore, I shall provide the URL.

Although it was also published on Ezine Articles, a large online publication service where one may have his or her nonfiction articles published, if accepted, I’d rather it be read in its original version at my website. In order to meet their guidelines, I had to edit it somewhat.

The proof is based upon the implications of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. Although it does not purport to prove the existence of God per se, I do claim to prove the existence of some sort of universal creator, a first step in the process. As I state in its conclusion, although my arguments might transpose to a typical intelligent design thesis, it transcends such and cannot be so easily dismissed because it utilizes the prevailing paradigm in which modern physics is formulated.

And, oh yes. I’m quite aware that Dr. Einstein had been a self-professed atheist. Ironic, isn’t it? If there are any atheists or agnostics reading here, can you refute my reasoning? I’m always educable.

wwwdnschneidercom.xbuild.com/#/miscellaneous-7/4526495432
Click to expand...
I must say…a very intriguing proof.
 
Dr.Bonnette said:
The point of any valid proof for God is to show that finite things simply cannot fully explain themselves, whereas God can do so because He is in an entirely different order of being.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply.

The problem is, what if the universe is not finite? What if it is in fact infinite?

Believe it or not, I do not think believing in “something”(call it God, whatever that may be) is completely irrational(although I do think we go into the realm of irrational thinking for many religious claims). But it’s not outside the realm of possibility nor completely foolish to contemplate and/or believe.

However, I just cannot see how the argument has actually addressed why the universe in fact could not be the “infinite” thing we are dealing with? If something must exist, then it could simply BE our universe.

I’m not seeing how this is addressed by the OP.
 
Dameedna said:
Thanks for the reply.

The problem is, what if the universe is not finite? What if it is in fact infinite?

Believe it or not, I do not think believing in “something”(call it God, whatever that may be) is completely irrational(although I do think we go into the realm of irrational thinking for many religious claims). But it’s not outside the realm of possibility nor completely foolish to contemplate and/or believe.

However, I just cannot see how the argument has actually addressed why the universe in fact could not be the “infinite” thing we are dealing with? If something must exist, then it could simply BE our universe.

I’m not seeing how this is addressed by the OP.
Click to expand...
because physicists know the universe isnt infinite spatially, we have empirical evidence of a big bang also.

what we dont have any evidence of or reason to think exists, is an eternal universe. if you mean infinity in time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top