St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[Eleve]

I suspect what Linus meant to say, or in any case what Aquinas meant, is not that he assumed an eternal universe, but rather that he thought his argument was compatible with an eternal universe. As it is, you’re right, John, that Aquinas thought that the universe began to exist, because he thought that God created it. But he didn’t think it would be impossible for the universe to be eternal; he didn’t think that you could rule out that possibility by philosophy alone. He just thought that the universe began because he believed, as a matter of revelation, that God created it.

 

[John_Martin]

Uncaused events should not sound like an absurdity to anyone who believes in Libertarian Free Will and belive me, I also think a universe from absolutely nothing is absurd, yet it is the position of among others the Catholic church that God cretaed the universe …from absolutely nothing.

It all starts with the understanding of the First Cause or God as intelligent being, knowing or understanding.
Without the first cause being living, intelligent, there is no argument for it.
Next there has to be the fact that an intelligent being knows itself, and knows itself knowing itself. Being fully in Act, there is, then an idea of two persons, one knowing itself, and one knowing itself being known. Why? Because for this First Cause, what it knows is real.
This first cause, in knowing itself, also knows the not self. The not self cannot be eternal, or it would be the self which is eternal.
In knowing the not self, the not self known is addressed as being (“Light, Be”) in order for the known to be really real as it is known. The not self is known as non-eternal, so it suddenly is at the moment of being spoken to (creation) and temporal and corporeal reality begin the clock of being. Yet each entity is known in the duration of its being (with the delight of the first cause), thus persistence of being actualizing from potentiality.

But basically, the First Cause must be intelligent. It does not move to cause. Anything that is caused (or created) is caused by being known specifically, and its objective being matches its understood being in and of the First Cause. We are known, specifically (individually), known within a context of what the First Cause knows as not-Him, called the Universe. He knows us, and, just as he knows himself knowing himself, he delights when he knows us delighting in understanding him.

That is how I see Aquinas explaining it, in a nutshell.

John Martin

 

[belorg]

Free will causes things, but not on a purely physical basis. And that I will something freely does not mean that it is ‘uncaused’ – the cause is precisely my will.

Which is uncaused.

But that has to do with act and potency, and God is pure act. The problem with a naturalistic universe from absolutely nothing is that it is pops up out of pure potency, or even less that that – where there is not act, there can also not be potency that is able to be enacted.

The problem with a Thomistic universe is that it pops out of even less than potency.
On a Thomist account there simply cannot be potency, unless this potency is eternal and uncreated, but that denies Catholic doctrine.

You seem to be more magnanimous than I am; I would be furious by now.

I can understand how precious a belief system can be and why the thought of someone threatening it can be unbearable.

 

[belorg]

Libertarian free will means belief in nondeterministic causation, not in the existence of uncaused events. If I roll a die, the result is (pseudo-)random, but it still has a cause, namely that I rolled it.

The problem with that concept is that there is it is indistiguishable from a pure random event.

And the doctrine that God created the universe from nothing is still a doctrine that God himself had to exist in order to create the universe. What theists find objectionable is the idea that there could be absolutely nothing and then a universe.

Let’s assume that you are the only existing entity, and there is nothing else. Does your presence in any way make the appearance out of nothing of a white rabbit more plausible than if you didn’t exist? I think in both cases, the popping into existence of the rabbit would be equally (im)possible.

That being said, I’m likewise puzzled how you would get from science the idea that an event cannot be uncaused.

I do not think there is anything in science that says that events cannot be uncaused.
What science does say, however, is that there is a necessary condition for every event.
And I think that’s the core of our disagreement: Thomists use the Aritotelean notion of cause, and would frdcribe e a necessary condition as a cause. But not everybody agrees with that and it isn’t without problems. Moreover, there is no consensus at all on the existence or non-existence of final causes. If one is not convinced that fianl causes exist, then the Thomistic arguments lose much of their strength.

 

[Eleve]

The problem with that concept is that there is it is indistiguishable from a pure random event.

I’m not sure I understand you.

Let’s assume that you are the only existing entity, and there is nothing else. Does your presence in any way make the appearance out of nothing of a white rabbit more plausible than if you didn’t exist? I think in both cases, the popping into existence of the rabbit would be equally (im)possible.

I agree, but I’m not sure what this is supposed to show. I don’t have the power to create white rabbits, so of course my addition to an empty universe doesn’t make it any more plausible that white rabbits can begin to exist. But surely the addition of an omnipotent God to an empty universe would make this plausible.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The problem with a Thomistic universe is that it pops out of even less than potency. On a Thomist account there simply cannot be potency, unless this potency is eternal and uncreated, but that denies Catholic doctrine.

I’m not sure I follow you.

I can understand how precious a belief system can be and why the thought of someone threatening it can be unbearable.

You think Linus feels threatened in his beliefs? Possibly, but I am not sure about that. Rather, he may feel a bit over-confident in the idea that all the theistic arguments have an infallibly universal persuasive power, and that anyone who rejects them is automatically insincere – as I said, people may differ in their basic intuitions, on which rational arguments and their persuasiveness are built.

I certainly don’t feel threatened. I have thought about atheism and naturalism long and hard, and kept my mind open in the search for truth, but ultimately rejected it anyway on rational grounds. I do know that I might be wrong after all (while atheism has more of them, theism also has its difficulties), but at this point I judge that a quite remote possibility. I can understand, however, when somebody is an atheist – I might have almost become one a few years ago.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I haven’t proven that your argument is wrong, but I have argued for why is is wrong and you haven’t refuted my argument. Moreover you claim that you have proof, and I don’t. That’s not a question of convenience, that’s just a matter of acknowledging one’s own limitations.

You have not given any explanations for why my argument is wrong, you have simply asserted it is wrong or they are wrong. I meant it was nice and convenient that you either cannot or will not prove your position is correct. You have claimed that you can’t because it would be arguing Atheism. I don’t think that is correct. If you think the world eternaly existed then I think the moderators would also be interested in how you can prove that.

I also assume that because that is the case that you must be convinced that nothing exists except matter - that which can in some way be sensed directly through our senses or indirectly by means of scientific measuring devices and technologies.

I think it perfectly admissible for you to attempt to establish the validity of these theories.

If you cannot do that we can only assume that your negative faith system has no rational bases but must be based on some other cause. And we can just leave that open for you to discuss or not as you please.

In fact, the reason I am here is to learn about arguments for theism in general and Catholicism in particular. But I must say, so far, what I have seen is disappointing.

We don’t claim to be anything but amatures here. And I must say I am equally disappointed in you lack of reasonable response.

And , Linus, either you want a discussion or you don’t, but I do not really appreciate being called a troll every time someone feels threatened by my arguments.
AFAIK, trolling is not allowed here, and I have been here for quite some time now without even getting an official warning about trolling. So, I do not think your accusation is based on anything at all.

Did I call you a troll, I’m afraid I didn’t. If you go back and read again I merely suggested that as a possiblity. I got demerits on the first day here for being a " troll. " And I still don’t know why !!! And I only made one short post that day !!

Yes, I know you have been " stirring " the waters for some time. And in that entire time you have not disproven any argument I could find. The summation of your responses is simple, " Well, you haven’t proven that…or that is not logical…" or some such remark, which is not an argument at all but a mere assertion. And that seems to quite a desease among those of your persuasion who appear on this forum.
Assert and deny seems to be the limit of your arguments.

And I am sure that what we say here can be read by a significant fracction of the world’s population, but I bet the number of people who actually read it is not so big.

My friend, you don’t seem to realize that the Truth always bears fruit. And the lie eventually comes to naught - one way or another. The numbers who follow do not matter in the least. The seed of truth has been planted. The Holy Spirit will make certain it grows.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I suspect what Linus meant to say, or in any case what Aquinas meant, is not that he assumed an eternal universe, but rather that he thought his argument was compatible with an eternal universe. As it is, you’re right, John, that Aquinas thought that the universe began to exist, because he thought that God created it. But he didn’t think it would be impossible for the universe to be eternal; he didn’t think that you could rule out that possibility by philosophy alone. He just thought that the universe began because he believed, as a matter of revelation, that God created it.

Righgt Elve, Belorg doesn’t read my stuff carefully. Se la Vive.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Watch your tone.

I do think Belorg is sincere. While I believe that Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy provides a solid understanding of the nature of God, I can also comprehend why someone would be less than convinced by the arguments for the existence of God flowing forth from that philosophy. Both sides can be sincere and nonetheless come to different conclusions. Rationality does not stand in a vacuum, but rational arguments can only be built on basic intuitions that cannot entirely be rationalized themselves; and these basic intuitions may vary between theists and atheists.

Having said that, atheists totally lose me when they talk about uncaused events (an absurdity to me as a scientist) and a ‘universe from nothing’.

They also totally lose me when they deny the fine-tuning of the laws of nature – it is strongly upheld as fact by even atheist cosmologists (only their interpretation of it differs from theistic ones). When that happens (rather often, shamefully), atheists are really not more rational than the most silly creationists, stubbornly denying evolution on the basis of an ignorance of science (and Victor Stenger, whose fringe opinions on cosmology many atheists love so much, is the atheist equivalent of Michael Behe).

Watch your tone.

I don’t think Belorg is trolling at all. However, your thoroughly obnoxious and self-inflated ad hominem tone (making dubious allegations about sincerity, trolling and ‘irrationality’) stretches even my nerves – and I am not the most soft-hearted guy either and can be rather brutal in discussions (this very post of mine may suggest that too). If you want to bring people over to your side, it surely backfires with your tone. It’s a huge turn-off – even for me.

Yes I have noticed.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

My reading of Thomas so far is in the Summa, but I can’t quite picture Thomas supporting an eternally existing universe. At most I could see him knowing of the universe as never ending after the point of its creation (as with his understanding of angels or of the stars, where these are created in Act rather than in potential to actualization). Only God or the First Cause would be uncaused and eternal (un-dimensioned by Time or Space or Matter or Energy).

If he did claim this about the universe (eternally existing) I would be interested in knowing where to understand something more.

But, not yet knowing that reference for study, I will have to say that there is no “container” called the Universe. The “Universe” is simply the cumulative total of all matter, energy, space - all corporeality. It has being only so long as there is corporeal being to add together as an Image of a Whole.

As to a First Cause, a cause can have two modes. One like a pool ball that, once struck by another ball (the cause), rolls until it stops. The second like a child learning to ride a bicycle rides upright - the child’s father is running alongside balancing it for him (the cause). Being and motion continue (and the universe continues) with both types of causes. From what I see of Thomas, the First Cause is more like the bicycle scene.

John Martin

Apparantly my English isn’t too good. Way back I said Thomas assumes, for the sake of argument, that the universe existed eternally. By faith he knew it had an absolute beginning in time but he did not think it could be proven philosophically. And since he was trying to answer Pagan philosophers who believed the universe always existed, he accepted that assumption in his proofs. So his proofs are valid for either an eternally existing universe or one created in time. Either way all five of his proofs and others he made require the existence of a First Cause which had the attributes he showed it had.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Let me attempt at one aspect, then please correct me if I got it wrong.

Newton’s first law of motion seems consistent with Aquinas’ concept: a body tends to stay at rest or to move at constant speed unless acted upon by an outside force.

Let’s apply it in the case of a person playing billiards.

A billiard ball will remain at rest, unless a moving white billiard ball moves it. This billiard ball has a “potential” to move, but this potential can only be “actualized” by the white billiard ball acting on it. In this case, the white billiard ball is in motion which enables it to cause the other biliard ball to be in motion as well.

Now, the white billiard ball couldn’t have moved, had it not been moved by the billiard stick which in its turn, also in motion.

The billiard stick couldn’t have moved, unless moved by the moving player’s hand.

The player’s hand couldn’t have moved, unless moved by the moving arm muscles.

The arm muscles couldn’t have moved, unless moved by chemical events in the neuron-muscle junction. Now this part is trickier because I don’t know if Newton’s first law applies to chemical events…

The chemical events wouldn’t have moved, unless moved by the moving neuronal impulses coming from the brain.

The neuronal impulses wouldn’t have moved, unless moved by the brain.

The brain couldn’t have moved (to move the impulses), unless moved by the human soul. This is also tricky. Was the brain moved by unintelligible material forces, hence denying free will? Or moved by the free human soul? Also, the first law probably don’t apply here anymore because the mover is now non-material/immaterial/spiritual.

The human soul couldn’t have moved, unless moved by God - who is perpetually in “motion” without being moved by another.

Am I correct in the application?

Excellent. Although the Church teaches and Thomas argues that God is not moved or changed in any way. Although it would seem that even God would have to have some activity of Intellect and Will. But I believe that Thomas would explain this as being simply knowing and willing what He knows, and loving what He wills - all as one eternal act.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You definitely can’t apply the first Law of motion to chemical events, but you can perfectly use the causality principle: any effect must have a cause. The part with a soul is tricky too, if you want to prove God through your reasoning, you can’t assume the existence of the soul. The brain is powered by electro-chemical reaction responding to exterior stimuli.

Obviously the brain is the physical structure acting as the center for collecting data from the external senses and as the nerve center for all of the body’s physical activities. However, as a physical structure, lacking understanding, it cannot collate all this external stimuli and the body’s own physical activities by itself. It requires an intellectual, immaterial principle to collate all incoming data and make sense out of it, to organize it so it will have meaning.

This is an immaterial not a physical process and requires an intelligent, immaterial, principle which collates, understands, and directs the body and its immaterial, mental activity. Thus man must have a soul which accounts for his immaterial, mental activities. He also requires a principle of life. So the vital activities of life and the mental activities of thought and understanding require an immaterial, directing principle - a spiritual soul.

It takes books and books and more books to cover this topic adequately, this is just a brief intro. See the Summa Theologiae and Aquinas by Edward Feser for starters.

 

[belorg]

I’m not sure I understand you.

I’s very difficult to see why this is a ‘will’ and how exactly the agent could change his will.

I agree, but I’m not sure what this is supposed to show. I don’t have the power to create white rabbits, so of course my addition to an empty universe doesn’t make it any more plausible that white rabbits can begin to exist. But surely the addition of an omnipotent God to an empty universe would make this plausible.

Because we are not talking about the addition but about that to which it is added. Adding something to nothing does not in any way change the potential of this nothing.

 

[belorg]

Righgt Elve, Belorg doesn’t read my stuff carefully. Se la Vive.

I do not think Eleve was responding to me, Linus. So, whether Belorg reads your stuff carefully or not has no bearing on what Eleve said.

 

[belorg]

I’m not sure I follow you.

My argument is that if God is the cerator of everything, it follows that there is a possible world in which God is alone.
In such a world there is act but no potency. Hence, since God is immutable, there can never be potency. Hence God cannot create potency. Hence potency cannot have been crated by God. Hence, either potency is eternal and uncreated, which contradicts Cattholic doctrine, or potency can be crated, which contradicts the fact that God is pure act.

I certainly don’t feel threatened. I have thought about atheism and naturalism long and hard, and kept my mind open in the search for truth, but ultimately rejected it anyway on rational grounds. I do know that I might be wrong after all (while atheism has more of them, theism also has its difficulties), but at this point I judge that a quite remote possibility. I can understand, however, when somebody is an atheist – I might have almost become one a few years ago.

There is nothing wrong with that, Al.

 

[Al_Moritz]

There is nothing wrong with that, Al.

Well, obviously I judged otherwise

 

[belorg]

Well, obviously I judged otherwise

I meant that there is nothing wrong with your open-minded appraoch. There’s obviously nothing wrong with atheism either, but that was not what I meant.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

My argument is that if God is the cerator of everything, it follows that there is a possible world in which God is alone.
In such a world there is act but no potency. Hence, since God is immutable, there can never be potency. Hence God cannot create potency. Hence potency cannot have been crated by God. Hence, either potency is eternal and uncreated, which contradicts Cattholic doctrine, or potency can be crated, which contradicts the fact that God is pure act.

In speaking of potency, you must understand that it is a mental construct, it has no ontological being. Thomas and other philosophers use it to describe forms which exist in matter in a state of potentiality. Therefore one cannot speak of potency as actually existing.

All possible and actual beings " exist " in the eternal knowledge of God as " ideas " not as potentialities. The universe represents the actualization of God’s knowledge and will. It never was a potentiality except in our own mode of thinking. In the Eternal Mind of God they are simply His Thought.

 

[belorg]

In speaking of potency, you must understand that it is a mental construct, it has no ontological being. Thomas and other philosophers use it to describe forms which exist in matter in a state of potentiality. Therefore one cannot speak of potency as actually existing.

All possible and actual beings " exist " in the eternal knowledge of God as " ideas " not as potentialities. The universe represents the actualization of God’s knowledge and will. It never was a potentiality except in our own mode of thinking. In the Eternal Mind of God they are simply His Thought.

So, if a Thomist is speaking about potentilaity moving towards actuality, he is actually claiming that “nothingness” moves to “somethingness”?

Or

If

1 all things exist in the eternal knwoledge of God
2 those things change

then

God changes and is not immutable.

 

[Eleve]

I’s very difficult to see why this is a ‘will’ and how exactly the agent could change his will.

Fair enough. AFAIK Aquinas is not committed to libertarian free will.

Because we are not talking about the addition but about that to which it is added. Adding something to nothing does not in any way change the potential of this nothing.

Who said anything about nothing having potential? Christians don’t think that the universe came from nothing; they think that it came from God.