St. Thomas' Argument from Contingency

[empther]

I got a PM inquiring about my background. Well, it’s gotten heavier over the years. It happens with age.

This was a very good perception, " Aquinas uses movement to represent every kind of change you can think of in any object, substance, speed, size, color, sound, light, smell, etc etc etc, the whole nine yards. "

I don’t think many here would know that. What are you reading? I’m trying to read A’s Physics and am finding it very tough. I’m reading T’s Commentary as well but it is not a paragraph by paragraph explanation. It is more or less a compilation of his thoughts on it, chapter by Book and he jumps around all over the place.

I’ve read Plato’s Dialogues many times since I was a teenager some fifty years ago. Also ploughed thru Aquinas’ two Summas, re-reading some sections many times. Have Aristotles complete works but too tedious to read but did read Niomachean Ethics, Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding
Other than that,
biographies of Douglas MacCarthur, George C. Marshall, Hirohito, Chairman Mao, Eisenhower, John D. Rockerfeller, J P Morgan, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Einstein,
histories, Will Durant’s eleven volume Story of Civilization, Inside the Third Reich, The Rise and the Fall of the Third Reich,
novels, War and Peace, Pride and Prejudice twice, To Kill a Mockingbird thrice,
sci-fi, the four 20xx Space Odyssey books by Arthur C. Clarke, novels by Asimov,
lots and lots of other stuff

Also, I have three college degrees in the sciences, have taken every science course you can think of,
Also, was a computer programmer for a few years, coding in COBOL and IBM mainframe Basic Assembly Language ( machine language )

Have been writing Empress Theresa for nineteen years, and am now working to put in on Amazon’s CREATESPACE to get printed copies. Should be done in a few weeks. Sure bet for the Noble Prize.

What have you been up to?

( note to belorg: Glad you mixed it up with me? )

 

[belorg]

Both Aristotle and Aquinas were well aware of Impetus, which they applied to violent as opposed to natural motion. Aristotle’s famous phrase, " Quod movetur ab alio movetur… , " and adopted by Thomas in the First Way, was meant to apply to the Prime or Unmoved Mover who generated a body in the first place, giving it its Substantial Form ( and its matter) by which its natural movements, spontaneously begin operating naturally without the necessity of any other movent. Thus animals move naturally from place to place, digest, natural elements like uranium degenerate, light and heavy bodies seek their proper places, etc. without the need of any outside movent.

I was objecting to one aspect , namely " it is impossible for something to be moved for an infinite time by a finite power". And that is false. The fact that you are still using the Aristotelean “seek their proper place” as a reason for moving proves that you really have no idea what physics is about. In reality, e.g.,light and heavy bodies fall equally fast, while on Aristotelean physics,heavy bodies should move faster.

In the case of local motion, an outside movent is required only in the case of violent, constrained, or unnatural movements, and even this movent is an instrumental mover of the Prime Mover. Thus a thrown ball receives an impetus from the boy throwing the ball, which is overcome eventually by the resistance of the air and by the ball seeking its natural proper place.

No, it is overcome by the resistance of the air and gravity. Both are forces, and in the absense of those forces, the ball would be moving for infinity.

It is true that Aristotle described the need for an accompanying mover in such cases, which he attributed to the transfer of the impetus given by the boy to the air rushing in behind the thrown ball and pushing the ball. Which, oddly enough, is demonstrated as somewhat true by the science of aerodynamics. Drive down the highway sometime close behind a semi truck and you will see this is true.

I don’t know why this is “oddly enough”. Aristotle was a good observator, but sometimes drew the wrong conclusions.

However, the principle was correct. Some mover was required to move an object unnaturallly. And that of course always leads to the Prime Mover who created the body and its substantial form in the first place, for a mover must exist before it can move anything. And that was the point of my post # 34, it showed that The First Way was always about existence and what caused things to exist in the first place. And local motion was merely an occassion of showing that necessity…

I was only objecting to " it is impossible for something to be moved for an infinite time by a finite power", I reject the creation of things out of nothing because it is a violation of ex nihilo nihil fit. but that’s another matter.

However, as early as the early 14th century, some scholastics began to disregard Aristotle’s explanation of projectile motion. They arrived at the conclusion that the impetus supplied by the mover was transferred to the moved object, in that the Creator of the object’s form, God, had given its nature a potentiality to receive an accidental modification of its form to receive an impetus. Once received, the object would continue to move, without an accompanying motor coniunctus until its inertia was overcome by opposing forces.
( Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages, by John A. Weisheipl, pgs 31-33). In these motions, the impetus is not a mover but an accidental natural form, an instrument of the Prime Agent, God. The boy who threw the ball would also be an instrumental cause of the Prime Agent.

So, in the 14th century, some scholastics began to realize that " it is impossible for something to be moved for an infinite time by a finite power" was wrong, and started bringing in some instrumental causes.

So it is clear that Newton’s laws of Inertia offer no obsticales to Thomas’ First Way, as it might apply to local motion. For it has just been shown that God is the Prime Mover of such movements and He is operating with Infinite Power.

This begs the question. I did not say that Newton’s law disporves God, just that it refutes I was only objecting to " it is impossible for something to be moved for an infinite time by a finite power". This clearly is possible, as even your 14th century philosophers accepted…

The lesson here is that God is the ultimate cause behind every change and movement in that He supplies the power or motive force and the act of existence of the thing moved or changing.

It might be true that God is the ultimate cause of the existence of all things, but that does not follow from I was only objecting to " it is impossible for something to be moved for an infinite time by a finite power"

Nor do any true ( as opposed to imaginary ) facts of Quantum Mechanics or of the Theoies of Relitivity offer any obstacles to any of the Five Ways. Whatever are the changes and motions of Quantum events ( and there is much speculation about this), there is always either instrumental causality through which God is operating or the direct causality of God Himself which is the cause of such motion, for nothing in this universe happens without the causality of God.

Of course you can always say “God is behind quantum mechanics” or something. The point is that under quantum mechanics the movement of everything in the universe can be explained by the internal properties of a quantum vacuum. but , sure, you still have a small gap to squeeze God into if you so wish.

I could just say that ,ultimately,the nature of things is necessary.

 

[belorg]

I regard free will as primitive.

Suppose I have a choice between A and B. I do not have a preference for either of them. But I do not intend to choose both. I choose A.

I had reasons for choosing A. I had reasons for choosing B. I did choose A. Despite choosing A, I still had reasons for choosing B, which I did not choose. My reasons for choosing A explain my decision to choose A rather than B, even though I had no preference for A over B. If I had chosen B, then my reasons for choosing B would have explained my choice.

My choice wasn’t random either. It was made on the basis of specific reasons, namely my reasons for choosing A. I didn’t choose C, D, E, F, G,… because I didn’t want to choose C, D, E, F, G,…

A preference is simply inessential in the case of freely made choices. It could play a role. But it need not, as the consistency of the above scenario demonstrates.

If your reason to choose A is equally strong as your reason to choose B, then you ‘free’ decision to go for A is the result of either chance or your preference. You obviously think it’s preference, judging by the bolded part. “BecauseIi didn’t want to” can be translated as “because I preferred not to”
Just labeling it “primitive free will” doesn’t explain anything at all.

 

[belorg]

Following your logic, belorg, I can now denounce all of your arguments against God as irrelevant.

The reason I call empther’s arguments irrelevant is because they reply to all sorts of objections, but not to mine.

 

[belorg]

I got a PM inquiring about my background. Well, it’s gotten heavier over the years. It happens with age.

I’ve read Plato’s Dialogues many times since I was a teenager some fifty years ago. Also ploughed thru Aquinas’ two Summas, re-reading some sections many times. Have Aristotles complete works but too tedious to read but did read Niomachean Ethics, Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding
Other than that,
biographies of Douglas MacCarthur, George C. Marshall, Hirohito, Chairman Mao, Eisenhower, John D. Rockerfeller, J P Morgan, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Einstein,
histories, Will Durant’s eleven volume Story of Civilization, Inside the Third Reich, The Rise and the Fall of the Third Reich,
novels, War and Peace, Pride and Prejudice twice, To Kill a Mockingbird thrice,
sci-fi, the four 20xx Space Odyssey books by Arthur C. Clarke, novels by Asimov,
lots and lots of other stuff

Also, I have three college degrees in the sciences, have taken every science course you can think of,
Also, was a computer programmer for a few years, coding in COBOL and IBM mainframe Basic Assembly Language ( machine language )

Have been writing Empress Theresa for nineteen years, and am now working to put in on Amazon’s CREATESPACE to get printed copies. Should be done in a few weeks. Sure bet for the Noble Prize.

What have you been up to?

( note to belorg: Glad you mixed it up with me? )

I am always glad to mix up with someone I can have a serious discussion with and who replies to my objections with relevant arguments.

 

[belorg]

Non sequitur. There is a vast difference. Logic is concerned with** theoretical consistency. The onus is on you to explain why something or some one must** exist.

Since you are the one claiming that God must exist, I would think the onus is on you.
But regardless of who has the onus, “Cannot not exist” is a statrement of logical necessity, and if logic is not necessary, as your first claim entails, then the statement “cannot not exist” is meaningless.

Another non sequitur. “God cannot not exist” is an existential claim: without God neither logic nor anything else would exist because everything - and every**one - **is contingent. Can you give a reason why persons or things **must **:dts: exist?

Yes I can, but that isn’t relevant.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Gee, nothing much is relevant these days, is it?

 

[belorg]

Gee, nothing much is relevant these days, is it?

Lots of things are relevant, but some things just aren’t.

 

[empther]

Originally Posted by JackieO123
Following your logic, belorg, I can now denounce all of your arguments against God as irrelevant.

( belorg’s reply )
The reason I call empther’s arguments irrelevant is because they reply to all sorts of objections, but not to mine.

Your objections, belorg, are gratuitous assertions, with no evidence, that ignore alternative points, full of distortions, and are always completely irrelevant.
Why people even bother to respond to them with long posts is beyond me.

 

[belorg]

Your objections, belorg, are gratuitous assertions, with no evidence, that ignore alternative points, full of distortions, and are always completely irrelevant.
Why people even bother to respond to them with long posts is beyond me.

Why people even bother to respond to them with long passages from Aquinas that they themselves do not understand is beyond me.

 

[empther]

JackieO123 post 72

Quote:
Following your logic, belorg, I can now denounce all of your arguments against God as irrelevant.

:extrahappy: :clapping: :bowdown2:

Beautiful! I wish I had said that.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

If your reason to choose A is equally strong as your reason to choose B, then you ‘free’ decision to go for A is the result of either chance or your preference. You obviously think it’s preference, judging by the bolded part. “BecauseIi didn’t want to” can be translated as “because I preferred not to”
Just labeling it “primitive free will” doesn’t explain anything at all.

Example: this morning I had to put on my socks. I put on my right sock first instead of my left. Now I could have put my left sock on first, but I didn’t choose to do so.

Does this mean I have a preference for putting one sock on first? No, frankly there are few things I care less about than which order I put my socks on.

Does this mean it was random? No, because the putting on of the sock was a result of my choice, a thing that I did. Assuming free will is a thing, the action originated in my mind which is under my control. I didn’t use any particular reasoning to pick which foot to sock first, but neither did I roll a die or flip a coin - I simply put a sock on. The decision, being free, was not dependent on anything except my ability to make decisions, but since it was in fact made, neither was it random. How the decision is made is primitive in the sense that there need not be anything influencing it (though there can be), including chance- it is just made, and is made, not randomly arrived at.

I think you are being careless with your use of the word random. Random implies uncontrolled. That something else could have happened and that we do not know of any reason why it didn’t, or even if there is not any reason why it didn’t, is not sufficient to call something random.

We use the word random carelessly, but the whole point of free will is that decisions are made without being the direct consequence of something else, and yet are still made. To an outsider trying to predict what we do, laws of chance might be a good way to go for things for which we have no preference, but laws of chance are useful even for completely deterministic things that are just complex (behavior of gases and thermodynamics can be couched in terms of Newtonian physics). The mere fact that a random process could be used to model things does not make them random.

Of course, if you use a definition of random that does allow a process to be both random and completely controlled, it might be worth giving it. But I think any such definition would be so different from what people normally mean by the term as to justify using a different word instead.

 

[belorg]

Example: this morning I had to put on my socks. I put on my right sock first instead of my left. Now I could have put my left sock on first, but I didn’t choose to do so.

Does this mean I have a preference for putting one sock on first? No, frankly there are few things I care less about than which order I put my socks on.

Does this mean it was random? No, because the putting on of the sock was a result of my choice, a thing that I did. Assuming free will is a thing, the action originated in my mind which is under my control.I didn’t use any particular reasoning to pick which foot to sock first, but neither did I roll a die or flip a coin - I simply put a sock on.

How do you know that, in your mind, this ‘decision’ was not made by the equivalent of a die roll or by a preference in your mind?

The decision, being free, was not dependent on anything except my ability to make decisions, but since it was in fact made, neither was it random.

That seems strange. If I make a decision based on rolling a die (e.g. if the result is 4, I am going to put green socks on) then it is not a random decision?

How the decision is made is primitive in the sense that there need not be anything influencing it (though there can be), including chance- it is just made, and is made, not randomly arrived at.

If nothing influences it, not even who I am, then the decision is randomly arrived at.
If the decision is influenced by who I am, then it is not random, but it is a matter of preference.

I think you are being careless with your use of the word random. Random implies uncontrolled. That something else could have happened and that we do not know of any reason why it didn’t, or even if there is not any reason why it didn’t, is not sufficient to call something random.

If something happens without any reason, it happens by chance. Maybe random is too strong a word here, but something that doesn’t happen for a reason, happens by chance.

We use the word random carelessly, but the whole point of free will is that decisions are made without being the direct consequence of something else, and yet are still made. To an outsider trying to predict what we do, laws of chance might be a good way to go for things for which we have no preference, but laws of chance are useful even for completely deterministic things that are just complex (behavior of gases and thermodynamics can be couched in terms of Newtonian physics). The mere fact that a random process could be used to model things does not make them random.

Either the random process is an accurate description or it’s not.

Of course, if you use a definition of random that does allow a process to be both random and completely controlled, it might be worth giving it. But I think any such definition would be so different from what people normally mean by the term as to justify using a different word instead.

The fact is that if your choice of socks is completely controlled, then it is based on reasons. It can also be based on preference (which is also a subjective reason). Those are the only two somewhat indeterministic options. It can also be completely controlled if your ‘setup’ combined with circumstances, inevitably leads to your choice of socks.

The only other option I see is chance. If you have another option, please share it with me. But I have asked this countelss times already, and nobody has been able to come up with anything that cannot be reduced to determinism or chance or a combination of both.

 

[tonyrey]

Non sequitur. There is a vast difference. Logic is concerned with* theoretical ***

The topic is St. Thomas’ Argument from Contingency which you reject. Therefore the onus is on you to explain why it is false. These questions may be helpful:

1. Is everything necessary? If so why? If not why not?
2. Is something necessary? If so what? If not why not?

 

[tonyrey]

The only other option I see is chance. If you have another option, please share it with me. But I have asked this countelss times already, and nobody has been able to come up with anything that cannot be reduced to determinism or chance or a combination of both.

I have pointed out that we are the cause of our decisions. We can choose to be reasonable or unreasonable. Why do you reject our power to think for ourselves and make up our own minds? Is it because you regard persons as biological machines?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

For the benefit of the Faithful. There are those who will not accept any argument which contains a truth or a fact which points to the existence of the Christian God. Don’t worry about the skeptics, the sophists, the contentious. No true fact of science either disproves or invalidates any of the Five Ways - or of the many other arguments for the existence of God. This is to give you confidence.

Nothing in Science invalidates any of the Five Ways, not even the First Way. Even in the case of local motion ( and the First Way is not limited to local motion but includes all forms of change). Secondly, all the Five Ways are also concerned with the cause of the existence of limited and contingent beings, these being the movers and the moved, who must ultimately have their existence from the Unmoved Mover. For nothing moves or is moved unless it first exist. And neither can exist unless it first be brought into existence by the Unmoved Mover.

Now when the Unmoved Mover brings beings into existence, He gives them their Nature by which they are moved naturally. This is easy to see in living things where one part moves another and thus the whole creature, which is in turn moved by its soul. But it is the Unmoved Mover that has given the creature its Nature. In other words, the Unmoved Mover gives every creature, as a part of its nature, all it needs to move and function naturally without the need for an external mover.

This applies to inanimate beings as well. The Unmoved Mover gives their Natures every facility and potentiality to function and move naturally according to His Divine Plan.

Thus, if I fire a rocket into space and thus apply impetus to it, all its parts have been endowed by the creator with Natures, having the potentiality to receive this impetus and keep the rocket going indefinitely, as long as it is not countered by a contrary force. ( Contrary to what Newton said however, the rocket will not keep going for an infinite time because space is not a vaccum.) However if it were, then, by the impetus which it has received it will continue moving forever. But if so, it will be due to an infinite potential for infinite movement provided by the Creator at creation. So it is the Creator who is the Prime Mover of the rocket, the men who designed the ship, the fuel which supplied the impetus, the parts of the rocket, etc, would be instrumental movers only.

It is important to notice here that, this is a natural movement. Once the impetus is received the instrumental movers who built the ship and who fired it and the energy which supplied the energy can be forgotten. There is no accompanying mover to the moved. And this is true in all local motion which occurs naturally. The only time an accompanying mover would be required would be in examples of constrained movement like pushing a car up a hill.

So in the famous phrase, " Quod enim movetur ab alia movetur, " the other, the mover is the Primary Mover who created a Nature with the potentiality of receiving an impetus capable of moving the ship, naturally and spontaneously, forever.

Thus, this is not a case of a finite power exercising infinite power. It is a case of the Prime Mover creating Natures capable of converting a finite impetus into infinite motion, exercising an infinite power, instrumentally, supplied by the Prime Mover, Who alone has Infinite Power.

So those who misinterpreted Newton are proved wrong. Newton, more than once, declared that there was a Divine Cause which caused the natures from which his Laws were abstracted, to move and behave as they did.

God is the God of gravity as well. So those who ridiculed Aristotle and Thomas for their explanation of the movement of heavy and light bodies seeking their proper place are proven wrong also, These movements are explained by the potentiality of these objects to be moved by gravity to their proper places. And it is God, the Creator of their Natures, Who gave their natures the potential to be moved by gravity and to seek their proper places.

Similar arguments can be made to answer objections raised in the name of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. But I think enough has been shown to make reasonable people see that nothing excapes God’s causality, even if we cannot explain it down to the " T " or even if we cannot see the " objects, " as in Quntum Mechanics.

And so we see that in every case of local motion we are led to the Prime Mover who creates the Natures of beings, who move naturally, and with the potentially and power He created them with. All arguments contrary to this are nothing but Sophistical Red Herrings.

If you are interested in a more detailed explaination of these things you will need to get access to a really great book, Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages by John A. Weisheipl O.P. Good libraries should have a copy. Now out of print but can still be found at super high cost. I paid $140 for mine and that was cheap!!!

Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

The topic is St. Thomas’ Argument from Contingency which you reject. Therefore the onus is on you to explain why it is false. These questions may be helpful:

1. Is everything necessary? If so why? If not why not?
2. Is something necessary? If so what? If not why not?

I have explained why I reject tye argument from contingency. Thta’s it.
Whether I have an alternative explanation is not relevant, just as if I tell you what is wrong with your car, it does not matter whether my car is better, or whether I even have a car.

But, FYI, I do have an alternative explanation.

 

[belorg]

I have pointed out that we are the cause of our decisions. We can choose to be reasonable or unreasonable. Why do you reject our power to think for ourselves and make up our own minds? Is it because you regard persons as biological machines?

Is our “choice” to be unreasonable a reasonable choice or an unreasonable one?

And no, it’s not because I regard persons as biological machines. Even if persons were completely immaterial, my question still stands, and I have yet to receive an answer that makes any sort of sense.

 

[belorg]

For the benefit of the Faithful. There are those who will not accept any argument which contains a truth or a fact which points to the existence of the Christian God. Don’t worry about the skeptics, the sophists, the contentious. No true fact of science either disproves or invalidates any of the Five Ways - or of the many other arguments for the existence of God. This is to give you confidence.

Nothing in Science invalidates any of the Five Ways, not even the First Way. Even in the case of local motion ( and the First Way is not limited to local motion but includes all forms of change). Secondly, all the Five Ways are also concerned with the cause of the existence of limited and contingent beings, these being the movers and the moved, who must ultimately have their existence from the Unmoved Mover. For nothing moves or is moved unless it first exist. And neither can exist unless it first be brought into existence by the Unmoved Mover.

Now when the Unmoved Mover brings beings into existence, He gives them their Nature by which they are moved naturally. This is easy to see in living things where one part moves another and thus the whole creature, which is in turn moved by its soul. But it is the Unmoved Mover that has given the creature its Nature. In other words, the Unmoved Mover gives every creature, as a part of its nature, all it needs to move and function naturally without the need for an external mover.

This applies to inanimate beings as well. The Unmoved Mover gives their Natures every facility and potentiality to function and move naturally according to His Divine Plan.

Thus, if I fire a rocket into space and thus apply impetus to it, all its parts have been endowed by the creator with Natures, having the potentiality to receive this impetus and keep the rocket going indefinitely, as long as it is not countered by a contrary force. ( Contrary to what Newton said however, the rocket will not keep going for an infinite time because space is not a vaccum.) However if it were, then, by the impetus which it has received it will continue moving forever. But if so, it will be due to an infinite potential for infinite movement provided by the Creator at creation. So it is the Creator who is the Prime Mover of the rocket, the men who designed the ship, the fuel which supplied the impetus, the parts of the rocket, etc, would be instrumental movers only.

It is important to notice here that, this is a natural movement. Once the impetus is received the instrumental movers who built the ship and who fired it and the energy which supplied the energy can be forgotten. There is no accompanying mover to the moved. And this is true in all local motion which occurs naturally. The only time an accompanying mover would be required would be in examples of constrained movement like pushing a car up a hill.

So in the famous phrase, " Quod enim movetur ab alia movetur, " the other, the mover is the Primary Mover who created a Nature with the potentiality of receiving an impetus capable of moving the ship, naturally and spontaneously, forever.

Thus, this is not a case of a finite power exercising infinite power. It is a case of the Prime Mover creating Natures capable of converting a finite impetus into infinite motion, exercising an infinite power, instrumentally, supplied by the Prime Mover, Who alone has Infinite Power.

So those who misinterpreted Newton are proved wrong. Newton, more than once, declared that there was a Divine Cause which caused the natures from which his Laws were abstracted, to move and behave as they did.

God is the God of gravity as well. So those who ridiculed Aristotle and Thomas for their explanation of the movement of heavy and light bodies seeking their proper place are proven wrong also, These movements are explained by the potentiality of these objects to be moved by gravity to their proper places. And it is God, the Creator of their Natures, Who gave their natures the potential to be moved by gravity and to seek their proper places.

Similar arguments can be made to answer objections raised in the name of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. But I think enough has been shown to make reasonable people see that nothing excapes God’s causality, even if we cannot explain it down to the " T " or even if we cannot see the " objects, " as in Quntum Mechanics.

And so we see that in every case of local motion we are led to the Prime Mover who creates the Natures of beings, who move naturally, and with the potentially and power He created them with. All arguments contrary to this are nothing but Sophistical Red Herrings.

If you are interested in a more detailed explaination of these things you will need to get access to a really great book, Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages by John A. Weisheipl O.P. Good libraries should have a copy. Now out of print but can still be found at super high cost. I paid $140 for mine and that was cheap!!!

Linus2nd

The question is not whether you can still find a gap in modern physics to squeeze your God into. You will always be able to do so.
The question is: is God necessary to explain the aspects of modern physics you refer to. And the answer is no.

 

[empther]

Give it up, belorg.
Nobody believes your arguments against Catholic doctrine. They’re gratuitous and weak.

JackieO123 post 72
Following your logic, belorg, I can now denounce all of your arguments against God as irrelevant.

:extrahappy: :clapping: :bowdown2:

Beautiful! I wish I had said that.