St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[Linux]

That is interesting Linux, not discussing theology in a philosophical discussion, when the subject of the discussion is Aquinas and Motion relating to modern physics (which is not philosophy) all the while knowing that Aquinas is doing theology in all his writings.

Aquinas PRESUMED the revelation of this God as the principle knowledge brought to all other knowledge in everything he wrote. Theology cannot be absent from this discussion, nor from any Catholic participated discussion. That is the way it is; it is my understanding that you and belorg are posting and questioning at this site to seek to find a way to find union with Christ’s Church yourselves, so you turn to this People, this site, with your seeking. I am sure there are many sites where personal authority (of Jesus, of the Pope, of St Thomas) is not claimed.

So I must (and will continue) to believe that you are here to find this Jesus, this God, this Theology, even in the face of your words, because your use of this site betrays the meaning of your words.

John Martin

Being a Catholic is not an excuse to not think objectively. While this is Catholic answers, this section is nevertheless the philosophy forum. And if you are going to do philosophy then you should abide by the principle rules of philosophy. Saying that belorgs argument is wrong, merely because you don’t believe that your faith could possibly be mistaken, is not doing philosophy. That’s dogmatic theology. If you wish to convince belorg that your faith is rational and represents how reality truly is, then you must refrain from this cult-like attitude. Belorg has no obligation to accept any belief that cannot be rationally demonstrated as true. Whether or not he is being honest about the evidence is between him and God.

 

[John_Martin]

Being a Catholic is not an excuse to not think objectively. While this is Catholic answers, this section is nevertheless the philosophy forum. And if you are going to do philosophy then you should abide by the principle rules of philosophy. Saying that belorgs argument is wrong, merely because you don’t believe that your faith could possibly be mistaken, is not doing philosophy. That’s dogmatic theology. If you wish to convince belorg that your faith is rational and represents how reality truly is, then you must refrain from this cult-like attitude. Belorg has no obligation to accept any belief that cannot be rationally demonstrated as true. Whether or not he is being honest about the evidence is between him and God.

I don’t believe I ever stated belorg’s argument was wrong about anything, but that yours is wrong for excluding a “Principle” of Thomas’ thought (namely revelation). “Princliples” are “givens” in a science (including philosophy).

As far as “potentiality” and “motion” I believe all I ever did was to speak to clarify Thomas’ view that potentiality did not mean potentiality to motion, but potentiality to an End, with motion being the movement to actuality (end).

I also was not the one who brought up God, but I did (when he was brought up by someone else) clarify Thomas’ understanding that God was not in potentiality neither in motion, but in Act (at his final End, and always is at his final actuality). This is a topic concerning Thomas’ words; I think it only fitting that he be understood as he intended, don’t you?..

John Martin

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Philosophy, Linus, is the unbiased pursuit of the truth. Starting from the assumption that something is the truth and that there can be no discussion about it, is fine with me, as long as :
1 Do not expect me to do the same
2 You have the decency not to call this “philosophy”

That’s it.

I never confuse the two, You just object to the use of Christian faith. Oddly you don’t object to atheist and or agnostic faith. But you know this is a Catholic cite and even though this is a philosophy forum, that does not mean the Christian faith cannot be used. I do not apologize for using it, I will keep on using it, I’m proud of it and rejoice in it. However, I am always quite clear when I am drawing from faith. One reason I use it from time to time is to let my brothers and sisters in the faith know that we don’t have to be afraid to let the faith shine in public, we have the best argument for faith in Divine Revelation and in the Catholic Church and its Magisterium. But we also have the greatest philosophers and not a few of the world’s greatest scientests. So we hide from no man, nor apologize to any. So you might just as well get used to it. We are here and we aren’t going to run and hide.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Being a Catholic is not an excuse to not think objectively. While this is Catholic answers, this section is nevertheless the philosophy forum. And if you are going to do philosophy then you should abide by the principle rules of philosophy. Saying that belorgs argument is wrong, merely because you don’t believe that your faith could possibly be mistaken, is not doing philosophy. That’s dogmatic theology. If you wish to convince belorg that your faith is rational and represents how reality truly is, then you must refrain from this cult-like attitude. Belorg has no obligation to accept any belief that cannot be rationally demonstrated as true. Whether or not he is being honest about the evidence is between him and God.

I brought God into the picture. Nothing wrong with that. Berlong has been here for a long time. He should know Thomas often cited Scriptures or other authorities such the Pseudo Dionises or one of the Arab or Greek philosophers. Yet it caused no problems. He used philosophy as a tool to a greater understanding of the Faith. That is my object as well and I do not apologize for it. My object is not specifically to convince any non-believing poster. It is to defend the Faith as far as I can and I will use any means at hand to do that.

 

[John_Martin]

I brought God into the picture. Nothing wrong with that. Berlong has been here for a long time. He should know Thomas often cited Scriptures or other authorities such the Pseudo Dionises or one of the Arab or Greek philosophers. Yet it caused no problems. He used philosophy as a tool to a greater understanding of the Faith. That is my object as well and I do not apologize for it. My object is not specifically to convince any non-believing poster. It is to defend the Faith as far as I can and I will use any means at hand to do that.

Actually, Linus, Aquinas brought God into the picture.
He was not an Italian who was a philosopher and also happened to have Catholocism as his personal religious inclination.
He was a Catholic (his ‘being’) who lived in Italy and disected and explained his being and all being from the reality of who he was (a Catholic) and bringing the best of Philosophy (Aristotle, et.al.) to provide a common ground framework - God was not another topic apart from his being; there was no disection, were no explanations or teaching apart from God.

Catholics are different beings than those who are not baptized. They may look like everyone else you see, but they are not from the world even though they live in the world, just as Jesus’ contemporaries thought he was from Nazareth, but did not know he was from Heaven. It is like tying our hands behind our backs to ask us to describe being without our God.

Thomas, however, did not write to debate with those outside the faith nor to convince anyone, but he wrote to provide clear understanding of being for those doing catechesis of the faithful who are seeking that understanding. You have probably found that in other (non-philosophy) topics that your understanding of Thomas has given you the ability to provide much richer insights to your posts.

John Martin

 

[belorg]

I never confuse the two, You just object to the use of Christian faith. Oddly you don’t object to atheist and or agnostic faith.

I don’t object to the use of Christian faith, I object to the use of any faith (whether Christian, Muslim, atheist or agnostic) as a starting point for philosophy. that’s all.

But you know this is a Catholic cite and even though this is a philosophy forum, that does not mean the Christian faith cannot be used. I do not apologize for using it, I will keep on using it, I’m proud of it and rejoice in it. However, I am always quite clear when I am drawing from faith. One reason I use it from time to time is to let my brothers and sisters in the faith know that we don’t have to be afraid to let the faith shine in public, we have the best argument for faith in Divine Revelation and in the Catholic Church and its Magisterium. But we also have the greatest philosophers and not a few of the world’s greatest scientests. So we hide from no man, nor apologize to any. So you might just as well get used to it. We are here and we aren’t going to run and hide.

Nobody is expecting you to run and hide. But if you really want to do philosophy, you should follow Linux’ advise.
Linix probably does not think I am right, but in a philosophical discussion, if he wants to show me I am wrong, he will most probably use philosophical arguments. And you know what, if he (or anybody else) actually manages to make a convincing philosophcal argument for the existence of God, then I am prepared to change my mind.
Seems like a fair deal, doesn’t it?

 

[belorg]

Actually, Linus, Aquinas brought God into the picture.
He was not an Italian who was a philosopher and also happened to have Catholocism as his personal religious inclination.
He was a Catholic (his ‘being’) who lived in Italy and disected and explained his being and all being from the reality of who he was (a Catholic) and bringing the best of Philosophy (Aristotle, et.al.) to provide a common ground framework - God was not another topic apart from his being; there was no disection, were no explanations or teaching apart from God.

Then in that respect, Thomas was not a real philosopher. He should have followed his great example, Aristotle, on this.

Catholics are different beings than those who are not baptized. They may look like everyone else you see, but they are not from the world even though they live in the world, just as Jesus’ contemporaries thought he was from Nazareth, but did not know he was from Heaven. It is like tying our hands behind our backs to ask us to describe being without our God.

I happen to be baptized, John. And , yes, if you really want to do philosophy, you should tie your hands behind your back. If Catholicism is really true, philosophy should show this without a priori assumptions, even with your hands tied.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t object to the use of Christian faith, I object to the use of any faith (whether Christian, Muslim, atheist or agnostic) as a strating point for philosophy. that’s all.

Nobody is expecting you to run and hide. But if you really want to do philosophy, you should follow Linux’ advise.
Linix probably does not think I am right, but in a philosophical discussion, if he wants to show me I am wrong, he will most probably use philosophical arguments. And you know what, if he (or anybody else) actually manages to make a convincing philosophcal argument for the existence of God, then I am prepared to change my mind.
Seems like a fair deal, doesn’t it?

Oh, that is a fair deal, but I don’t think you are properly disposed, because, though, you haven’t said so, I think, like so many, you have been indoctrinated for years by whatever educational system you were subjected to, the media, or by your social peer group, or by your professional peer group, or you are beyond tha pale ( addicted to some vice ).

You see, no one can logically hold your position. It is absolutely irrational. And I and others have offered plenty of " proofs " by way of inductive arguments. And though the fact of Divine Revelation is a deductive demonstration, it is a solid fact which an honest observer will admit if he objectively studies the Scriptures and the available historicity involved. And it would be good to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

And with so many of your persuasion we have never heard any reasons for their position. Why?

 

[Al_Moritz]

You see, no one can logically hold your position. It is absolutely irrational.

I wouldn’t be so rough, Linus. I almost became an atheist a few years ago, but I ultimately found naturalism a too weak position. Yes, I think that theism is more rational; I can understand the lure of naturalism, however (the acceptance of naturalism would be a prerequisite for me, if I were to become an atheist; most atheists are naturalists anyway).

 

[Al_Moritz]

Then in that respect, Thomas was not a real philosopher. He should have followed his great example, Aristotle, on this.

I think he did. He was very well aware that philosophy cannot know what can be known solely by divine revelation; e.g. the Holy Trinity, or the truth of Catholicism in general. And I don’t see any a priori assumptions in his philosophy.

Philosophy can only arrive at a more generic ‘God of the philosophers’. All attributes of the God of the philosophers are contained in the Catholic God (omnipotence, simplicity, pure act etc.), but not the other way around.

 

[John_Martin]

I happen to be baptized, John. And , yes, if you really want to do philosophy, you should tie your hands behind your back. If Catholicism is really true, philosophy should show this without a priori assumptions, even with your hands tied.

You are one of us. I am glad to hear that. When you have returned, strengthen our brothers and sisters.
John Martin

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t object to the use of Christian faith, I object to the use of any faith (whether Christian, Muslim, atheist or agnostic) as a starting point for philosophy. that’s all.

So who is using God as a starting point, not me ? If that is what you thought you need to reread my posts. I do speak of God and of Divine Revelation but I don’t use God to prove the philosophy.

Thomas was a different matter. He was a Theologian. He used philosophy to help define and explain Divine Revelation and Catholic Teaching.

And as I said before I am not so much interested in you or in anyone else at C.A. But I want my fellow Catholics out in the Web World to know they don’t have to be shy about speaking about the Faith any time or any where. We won’t be " Ghettoized " like many of your secular comrads would like. And I make no apologies.

 

[John_Martin]

So who is using God as a starting point, not me ? If that is what you thought you need to reread my posts. I do speak of God and of Divine Revelation but I don’t use God to prove the philosophy.

Thomas was a different matter. He was a Theologian. He used philosophy to help define and explain Divine Revelation and Catholic Teaching.

And as I said before I am not so much interested in you or in anyone else at C.A. But I want my fellow Catholics out in the Web World to know they don’t have to be shy about speaking about the Faith any time or any where. We won’t be " Ghettoized " like many of your secular comrads would like. And I make no apologies.

Please, not so harsh, Linus; belorg is one of us, one of the baptized, one of the elect, one of the People in the world but not of the world. Aristotle wrote, rightly, that man is born for citizenship, and belorg was granted this citizenship in the Kingdom established by God when he was baptized. Personally he is claiming atheism, but for our part, we (the Church) granted him citizenship as one of us, a fact that cannot be altered.
Myself, I was filled with a gladness when I saw him write he was baptized, and to a great degree because of the understanding I have been gaining in the study of St. Thomas.

John Martin

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Please, not so harsh, Linus; belorg is one of us, one of the baptized, one of the elect, one of the People in the world but not of the world. Aristotle wrote, rightly, that man is born for citizenship, and belorg was granted this citizenship in the Kingdom established by God when he was baptized. Personally he is claiming atheism, but for our part, we (the Church) granted him citizenship as one of us, a fact that cannot be altered.
Myself, I was filled with a gladness when I saw him write he was baptized, and to a great degree because of the understanding I have been gaining in the study of St. Thomas.

John Martin

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, this is not correct. What you have here is a prime mover that is in motion, but Aristotle’s and Aquinas’ Prime Mover is not in motion.
But I agree, starting the chain of moving objects with a non-moving one is nonsense. It’s like saying that the white billiard ball stays exactly where it is , but still makes the red ball move.

That is the beauty of Thomas’ logic. Thomas proved that the First Cause is Pure Act. As such the First has no potentiality to change/move or to be changed/moved. Therefore, no matter how contrary to human logic and science this may seem, It does create, move and direct the universe without being changed/moved.

If certain human minds do not find it contrary to logic/reason/science that the universe could have " created " itself, and alone cause change/movement, sustain itself in existence, and direct itself to its proper end, should have no trouble in seeing the universe had such a First Cause as Thomas says it does.

See, all logic/reason.

 

[belorg]

Please, not so harsh, Linus; belorg is one of us, one of the baptized, one of the elect, one of the People in the world but not of the world. Aristotle wrote, rightly, that man is born for citizenship, and belorg was granted this citizenship in the Kingdom established by God when he was baptized. Personally he is claiming atheism, but for our part, we (the Church) granted him citizenship as one of us, a fact that cannot be altered.
Myself, I was filled with a gladness when I saw him write he was baptized, and to a great degree because of the understanding I have been gaining in the study of St. Thomas.

John Martin

No, John, I hate to disappoint you, but I am not one of yours. I was not my choice to be baptized.
I am an apostate.

 

[belorg]

That is the beauty of Thomas’ logic. Thomas proved that the First Cause is Pure Act. As such the First has no potentiality to change/move or to be changed/moved. Therefore, no matter how contrary to human logic and science this may seem, It does create, move and direct the universe without being changed/moved.

If certain human minds do not find it contrary to logic/reason/science that the universe could have " created " itself, and alone cause change/movement, sustain itself in existence, and direct itself to its proper end, should have no trouble in seeing the universe had such a First Cause as Thomas says it does.

See, all logic/reason.

I do not accept that ‘the universe created itself’ for the same reason I do not accept Thomas’ First Cause.

 

[belorg]

So who is using God as a starting point, not me ? If that is what you thought you need to reread my posts. I do speak of God and of Divine Revelation but I don’t use God to prove the philosophy.

Thomas was a different matter. He was a Theologian. He used philosophy to help define and explain Divine Revelation and Catholic Teaching.

That’s improper use of philosophy.

And as I said before I am not so much interested in you or in anyone else at C.A. But I want my fellow Catholics out in the Web World to know they don’t have to be shy about speaking about the Faith any time or any where. We won’t be " Ghettoized " like many of your secular comrads would like. And I make no apologies.

I do not want you to be “Ghettoized” because as an atheist I do know what being “Ghettoized” feels like. Or do you think it is actually pleasant when people tell you that you deserve eternal punishment? Even though I know this is nonsense, I do not like it.

 

[John_Martin]

No, John, I hate to disappoint you, but I am not one of yours. I was not my choice to be baptized.
I am an apostate.

Well, to us you are one with us.
Baptism is not the action of the one baptized but an action of the one baptizing - only that one could cancel it (but will not).
It is never the choice of the one baptized; it may be their desire (or not), but the choice of baptizing is that of the one baptizing. Many people confuse this, thinking it is an act of the recipient. You were granted oneness with us, whether you now wish it had not happened cannot change it. You are one of the baptized.

 

[belorg]

I wouldn’t be so rough, Linus. I almost became an atheist a few years ago, but I ultimately found naturalism a too weak position. Yes, I think that theism is more rational; I can understand the lure of naturalism, however (the acceptance of naturalism would be a prerequisite for me, if I were to become an atheist; most atheists are naturalists anyway).

Maybe most atheists are, but I am not.