St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[Linusthe2nd]

Everyone is forgetting that all possible being exist in God’s Essence as Ideas only. This is not " potency " as potency exists in created beings as a principle of their being. By " principle " we mean that which makes acutal being possible. Thus in Angels, as actually existing beings, are composed of essence and an act which is limited by their essence. Thus essence is called the potency principle in respect to their act principle or their act. So, in creation Angels are composits of the principles of potency and act which is to say that at the level of actual existence, these principles are the cause that Angels are composed of essence and existence. But we refer the the actual Angel as an essence that has existence, a real spiritual being.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

737 continued. I thought to add this too late.​

But it is improper to speak of God existing in a world when there was no existing created world. That implies a univocal analogy between the mode of God’s existence and the mode of the created world’s existence. World is properly applied as the place of created beings but improperly applied to the mode of God’s existence. God did not exist in a world when the created world was not in existence. When the created world was not in existence, God simply existed but one could not say he existed in a world, as in a place of location ( as I pointed out above).

But now that the created world does exist, God exists in the created world but not as a part of the created world. God exists in his eternal, infinite mode outside of the created world at the same time he acts in the created world. Similarly, Christ existed in and as part of the created world at the same time as the Trinity existed in the eternal, infinity of God.

Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

would it be useful to make a mundane example of your idea, and correct it if it is inaccurate;

• so, i am me. and in my mind i think of a number. now i am both me and this number.

am i now changed?

No, this is not accurate. It would be more like: I am me and in my mind is an elephant. I agree for the sake of the argument that I have not changed.
However, this idea of an elephant becomes an elephant. Now I have changed because something of me (an idea) has become something external to me, an elephant.

 

[belorg]

737 continued. I thought to add this too late.​

But it is improper to speak of God existing in a world when there was no existing created world. That implies a univocal analogy between the mode of God’s existence and the mode of the created world’s existence. World is properly applied as the place of created beings but improperly applied to the mode of God’s existence. God did not exist in a world when the created world was not in existence. When the created world was not in existence, God simply existed but one could not say he existed in a world, as in a place of location ( as I pointed out above).

But now that the created world does exist, God exists in the created world but not as a part of the created world. God exists in his eternal, infinite mode outside of the created world at the same time he acts in the created world. Similarly, Christ existed in and as part of the created world at the same time as the Trinity existed in the eternal, infinity of God.

Linus2nd

Thanks, Linus, I could not have said this any better. Love4All won’t believe it, though.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

No, this is not accurate. It would be more like: I am me and in my mind is an elephant. I agree for the sake of the argument that I have not changed.
However, this idea of an elephant becomes an elephant. Now I have changed because something of me (an idea) has become something external to me, an elephant.

then thats what i don’t understand. an idea does not change you, but if you paint a picture of an elephant [you had an idea for an elephant painting] then you are changed when you begin painting. are you a different person then?

 

[belorg]

then thats what i don’t understand. an idea does not change you, but if you paint a picture of an elephant [you had an idea for an elephant painting] then you are changed when you begin painting. are you a different person then?

The elephant is not painted, the elephant becomes real, it is one of my ideas that becomes real. There is no substance out of which I somehow create an elephant, but this elephant is entirely made up of my idea. Hence a change.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

The elephant is not painted, the elephant becomes real, it is one of my ideas that becomes real. There is no substance out of which I somehow create an elephant, but this elephant is entirely made up of my idea. Hence a change.

but the real elephant isn’t in my mind (or is it?), the idea is in my mind, so how does the real elephant change me?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks, Linus, I could not have said this any better. Love4All won’t believe it, though.

Well, I think it is just a matter of semantics. But Paddy is right in that an Idea, and here I mean an Idea in the Mind of God, does not cause a change in the Essence of God. Nothing is added to or subtracted from his Essence when he creates or governs the world.

The same is true in man. When we have an idea and transfer it to an exterior act, nothing is added to or subtracted from our essence. But in man there is a discursive movement or change. This however does not happen to God since in him there is no discursive reflection. He knows and does. Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

but the real elephant isn’t in my mind (or is it?), the idea is in my mind, so how does the real elephant change me?

What is the connection between the elephant in my mind and the real elephant?

 

[belorg]

Well, I think it is just a matter of semantics. But Paddy is right in that an Idea, and here I mean an Idea in the Mind of God, does not cause a change in the Essence of God.

That’s true. but, unless we are nothing but ideas in the mind of God (which would be panentheism), the idea does not saty just an idea. It somehow becomes real.

Nothing is added to or subtracted from his Essence when he creates or governs the world.

I doubt that this is true.

The same is true in man. When we have an idea and transfer it to an exterior act, nothing is added to or subtracted from our essence.

But our ideas do not become something else.

But in man there is a discursive movement or change. This however does not happen to God since in him there is no discursive reflection. He knows and does. Linus2nd

And ‘does’ what?

 

[Paddy_Walker]

What is the connection between the elephant in my mind and the real elephant?

i would think an act of will, or some such. but whether i use my will to or not to paint a picture of an elephant does not change me, does it? i don’t become a different person when i start painting, or do i?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That’s true. but, unless we are nothing but ideas in the mind of God (which would be panentheism), the idea does not saty just an idea. It somehow becomes real.

I doubt that this is true.

But our ideas do not become something else.

And ‘does’ what?

Now you are being difficult. Do you really want me to spell all that out again?

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Now you are being difficult. Do you really want me to spell all that out again?

Linus2nd

You actualise potentiality. You receive esse.

 

[Eleve]

Of course possible worlds are a useful fiction. So God and the world have the same properties, because the world is just God. It is just a linguistic device.

No, that does not follow. In fact, it’s quite at odds with modal fictionalism. If “God” and “wG” co-refer, then possible worlds are in fact objects. But fictionalism doesn’t say that possible worlds are code-names for objects or collections of objects. It says that they aren’t objects at all.

And no you say: but there is no X such that X changed, because X came from absolutely nothing, and nothing cannot be desribed as X. But if that is true, it is not true that ex nihilo nihil fit. You have X popping into existence here.

Well, that’s fine. In the same passage I’ve been citing, Aquinas considers the objection that “ex nihilo nihil fit,” and says that when it comes to God’s creation the Ex nihilo doctrine either (a) does not apply or (b) is false.

Moreover, if you object: but X is caused by God. This requires some sort of creative force that is applied by God, and since there is clearly a world in which God applies this force and also one in which He doesn’t, we still see a change. Not in a temporal sense, but in an ontological sense. Now, according to Thomism, that is impossible.

What on earth is “change in an ontological sense,” and where does Thomism say that this neologism is impossible?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You actualise potentiality. You receive esse.

Explain how you mean this, in what context? Linus2nd

 

[Love4All]

wG and G are the same because I started from Catholic doctrine that says that God is the creator of everything, visible and invisible. Maybe you do not agree with that doctrine, of course, but then this discussion is not meant for you.

Since you plainly do not agree with that doctrine, then by your own rule, this discussion is not for you.

 

[Love4All]

Thanks, Linus, I could not have said this any better. Love4All won’t believe it, though.

Stop spouting without a clue. You don’t know anything about me, and this discussion ended for me as soon as you exposed your true tactic.

 

[Love4All]

Well, I think it is just a matter of semantics. But Paddy is right in that an Idea, and here I mean an Idea in the Mind of God, does not cause a change in the Essence of God. Nothing is added to or subtracted from his Essence when he creates or governs the world.

The same is true in man. When we have an idea and transfer it to an exterior act, nothing is added to or subtracted from our essence. But in man there is a discursive movement or change. This however does not happen to God since in him there is no discursive reflection. He knows and does. Linus2nd

You’re right, it is a matter of semantics. Belorg is trolling us.

“The world” is all that is. Thus, when God alone existed, He existed alone in the world. That is the world belorg talks about as possible — it was actual, before Creation, and then God created.

But you have a lot of fun feeding the troll. I’m done.

 

[rom422]

Here you have already shot your own foot, because if beings exist in His power to create and have no actual existence and some of those beings are created ‘afterwards’ (not necessarily in a temporal sense), then something that existed in the power of God (which is internal to God) became actual (and exterior to God). That is pantheism or panentheism.

No, Belorg. Pantheism believes that everything that comes from God is god, or a part of God. But when a potential being that originally exists in God’s power later becomes actual, then it does not become another god, but an actual creature (dependent on God). Therefore, this is not pantheism but genuine theism.

But admitting this, you have lost your argument.

The rest of your post becomes irrelevant once we have established this.

I did not lose my argument because you lost my point. Besides, you haven’t established anything yet, so the rest of my post remains relevant.

 

[rom422]

ANALYSIS OF BELORG’S SECOND ARGUMENT

Let G be an immutable God.
let U be the universe.
So we have G, who becomes G+U. That’s a change, sin’t it? But G cannot change, so He cannot become G + U

First of all, G does not “become” G + U. To phrase the argument this way is already to beg the question that God can become. The proper way to state the argument is this:

Let G be an immutable God.
Let U be the universe.
So in the beginning we have G; later we have G+ U.
That’s a change, isn’t it?
But G cannot change, so we cannot have G + U.

Very nice argument, Belorg.

Unfortunately, the last line is wrong. We can still have G + U even if G cannot change, because U can change. In fact, that is exactly what happened. U changed from being-in-potency to being-in-act, from being a possible universe to being an actually existing universe. How? Because the creator God was always a being-in-act, and that is all that is required to cause a potential Universe to be an actual Universe.