St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[1AugustSon7]

One way St. Thomas proved the existence of God

St. Thomas never “proved” God’s existence, nor would he have ever even tried. I think this is becoming a serious misconception that can have very problematic consequences. Trying to “prove” God’s existence (or non-existence) is impossible, because of what/who we mean by God: God by proper definition and what we mean conventionally cannot be put to the proof or subject to it: if He could He would not satisfy the definition of what we mean by “God”; He would not be God. St. Thomas’ whole system is better thought of as reasons or motives for believing, and that the content of our Faith is not actually contrary to sound reason, which in his day was basically Platonism, strict logic and increasingly specifically Aristotelianism, which proved at first problematic for the Faith. St. Thomas’ demonstrated that Aristotelianism, when held correctly, was not necessarily contrary to Faith. Job done.

We all know the saying, “Faith and Reason.” Most Catholics here probably also know that Faith has a certain priority over reason; that Faith, in a sense, comes first (even if not chronologically). This saying means that Faith is not contrary to reason; it does not mean that what we call reason absolutely and always will be a motive for Faith. The truth -the fact- that I, e.g., began my life in a womb and developed in stages does not immediately mean I should believe in the one true God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Our Faith is reasonable : it has, at it were, motives or justifications and, at the end of the day, Faith cannot be actually contrary to reason- but this itself requires Faith, is a belief.

You cannot prove or disprove God’s Existence: He is Existence.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

St. Thomas never “proved” God’s existence, nor would he have ever even tried. I think this is becoming a serious misconception that can have very problematic consequences. Trying to “prove” God’s existence (or non-existence) is impossible, because of what/who we mean by God: God by proper definition and what we mean conventionally cannot be put to the proof or subject to it: if He could He would not satisfy the definition of what we mean by “God”; He would not be God. St. Thomas’ whole system is better thought of as reasons or motives for believing, and that the content of our Faith is not actually contrary to sound reason, which in his day was basically Platonism, strict logic and increasingly specifically Aristotelianism, which proved at first problematic for the Faith. St. Thomas’ demonstrated that Aristotelianism, when held correctly, was not necessarily contrary to Faith. Job done.

We all know the saying, “Faith and Reason.” Most Catholics here probably also know that Faith has a certain priority over reason; that Faith, in a sense, comes first (even if not chronologically). This saying means that Faith is not contrary to reason; it does not mean that what we call reason absolutely and always will be a motive for Faith. The truth -the fact- that I, e.g., began my life in a womb and developed in stages does not immediately mean I should believe in the one true God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Our Faith is reasonable : it has, at it were, motives or justifications and, at the end of the day, Faith cannot be actually contrary to reason- but this itself requires Faith, is a belief.

You cannot prove or disprove God’s Existence: He is Existence.

Well, you are just wrong. If you care to read St. Thomas, there was not a doubt in his mind that he proved that God exists and that this is the God of Christianity.

Furthermore : From the Catechism ( CCC #s 31-36 ) " The world: starting from movement , becoming, contengency, and the world’s order and Man can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and end of the universe. "

" '…The soul, the ’ seed of eternity ’ we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material, ’ can have its origin only in God. "

" Our Holy Mother the Church , holds, and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason…" ( De fide, Vatican Council 1 ) " " Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created " in the image of God. " ( CCC # 36 )

" Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God…The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one see that faith is not opposed to reason. " ( CCC # 35 )

However not all men, for one reason or another, are able to use the light of reason to come to this rudimentary knowledge, therefore many come to a knowledge of God simply by faith in Divine Revelation. And all men, indeed, must accept all the data of Divine Revelation, especially what is taught about God’s existence, nature, and plan for our salvation by faith and that as taught not only through Holy Tradition, but also by the Holy Scriptures, always as determined by the Magisterium of Holy Mother the Church. ( CCC, in the whole catechism basically and the various documents of the Church. )

 

[MilesVitae]

Well, you are just wrong. If you care to read St. Thomas, there was not a doubt in his mind that he proved that God exists and that this is the God of Christianity.

Furthermore : From the Catechism ( CCC #s 31-36 ) " The world: starting from movement , becoming, contengency, and the world’s order and Man can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and end of the universe. "

" '…The soul, the ’ seed of eternity ’ we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material, ’ can have its origin only in God. "

" Our Holy Mother the Church , holds, and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason…" ( De fide, Vatican Council 1 ) " " Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created " in the image of God. " ( CCC # 36 )

" Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God…The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one see that faith is not opposed to reason. " ( CCC # 35 )

However not all men, for one reason or another, are able to use the light of reason to come to this rudimentary knowledge, therefore many come to a knowledge of God simply by faith in Divine Revelation. And all men, indeed, must accept all the data of Divine Revelation, especially what is taught about God’s existence, nature, and plan for our salvation by faith and that as taught not only through Holy Tradition, but also by the Holy Scriptures, always as determined by the Magisterium of Holy Mother the Church. ( CCC, in the whole catechism basically and the various documents of the Church. )

:clapping:

 

[MilesVitae]

St. Thomas never “proved” God’s existence, nor would he have ever even tried. I think this is becoming a serious misconception that can have very problematic consequences. Trying to “prove” God’s existence (or non-existence) is impossible, because of what/who we mean by God: God by proper definition and what we mean conventionally cannot be put to the proof or subject to it: if He could He would not satisfy the definition of what we mean by “God”; He would not be God. St. Thomas’ whole system is better thought of as reasons or motives for believing, and that the content of our Faith is not actually contrary to sound reason, which in his day was basically Platonism, strict logic and increasingly specifically Aristotelianism, which proved at first problematic for the Faith. St. Thomas’ demonstrated that Aristotelianism, when held correctly, was not necessarily contrary to Faith. Job done.

I believe you are quite mistaken about Thomas.

From the ST, question 2, article 2, “Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?”
*I answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called “a priori,” and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration “a posteriori”; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.

Reply to Objection 1. The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

Reply to Objection 2. When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause’s existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word “God”.

Reply to Objection 3. From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence. *

And, from article 3, “Whether God exists?”
"The existence of God can be proved in five ways…

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article. "
(from newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm)

And, as Linus has already pointed out, the Catholic Church teaches that man can know the existence of God through natural reason (as Thomas himself says in article 2, above).
Of course, Thomas teaches that we cannot come to know God’s essence as it is in itself through natural reason - even divine revelation does not give us that knowledge. None the less, we can prove that He exists, that there is one God, and various other truths about Him. Also, of course, neither Thomas nor the teachings of the Church hold that we can know through natural reason/philosophy all the truths about God that we know through Revelation - we cannot prove that He is Trinitarian, for instance.

 

[MilesVitae]

Edward Feser recently published a paper which I think would probably be relevant to this thread.
It is called “The Medieval Principle of Motion and the Modern Principle of Inertia,” and is linked to from this page edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/12/aquinas-versus-newton.html#more (I haven’t finished reading it yet, myself).

 

[RobbyS]

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./QUO
One ought not to assume that the “soul” is generated by the brain.The brain itself cannot be separated apart from the rest of the body, nor even can the nervous system be so considered, What the brain does, or at least part of it, is to integrate sensual imput. Much beyond that, we cannot go.

 

[RobbyS]

Well, you are just wrong. If you care to read St. Thomas, there was not a doubt in his mind that he proved that God exists and that this is the God of Christianity.

Furthermore : From the Catechism ( CCC #s 31-36 ) " The world: starting from movement , becoming, contengency, and the world’s order and Man can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and end of the universe. "

" '…The soul, the ’ seed of eternity ’ we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material, ’ can have its origin only in God. "

" Our Holy Mother the Church , holds, and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason…" ( De fide, Vatican Council 1 ) " " Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created " in the image of God. " ( CCC # 36 )

" Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God…The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one see that faith is not opposed to reason. " ( CCC # 35 )

However not all men, for one reason or another, are able to use the light of reason to come to this rudimentary knowledge, therefore many come to a knowledge of God simply by faith in Divine Revelation. And all men, indeed, must accept all the data of Divine Revelation, especially what is taught about God’s existence, nature, and plan for our salvation by faith and that as taught not only through Holy Tradition, but also by the Holy Scriptures, always as determined by the Magisterium of Holy Mother the Church. ( CCC, in the whole catechism basically and the various documents of the Church. )

That Plato could come to much the same conclusion as the Bible, shows that reason can “prove” the existence of God, though the God of the philosophers is not the God of Abraham, who is the god communicates with us though special messengers. St. Thomas knows that we cannot by our own power know God except asyntopically. Only God can bridge that gap and begin a converstaion with us.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I stand corrected!

I believe you are quite mistaken about Thomas.

From the ST, question 2, article 2, “Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?”
*I answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called “a priori,” and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration “a posteriori”; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.

Reply to Objection 1. The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

Reply to Objection 2. When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause’s existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word “God”.

Reply to Objection 3. From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence. *

And, from article 3, “Whether God exists?”
"The existence of God can be proved in five ways…

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article. "
(from newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm)

And, as Linus has already pointed out, the Catholic Church teaches that man can know the existence of God through natural reason (as Thomas himself says in article 2, above).
Of course, Thomas teaches that we cannot come to know God’s essence as it is in itself through natural reason - even divine revelation does not give us that knowledge. None the less, we can prove that He exists, that there is one God, and various other truths about Him. Also, of course, neither Thomas nor the teachings of the Church hold that we can know through natural reason/philosophy all the truths about God that we know through Revelation - we cannot prove that He is Trinitarian, for instance.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

If movement is an aspect of Him, then He is not immutable.

that depends on how you want to view it.
if you imagine him as a stream flowing, then the water remains immutable but movement is an aspect of the stream.
if you imagine him as the north wind, then the wind remains immutable but movement is an aspect of the north wind.

 

[Fomalhaut]

that depends on how you want to view it.
if you imagine him as a stream flowing, then the water remains immutable but movement is an aspect of the stream.
if you imagine him as the north wind, then the wind remains immutable but movement is an aspect of the north wind.

But the stream doesn’t actually exist. This is an abstract idea to designates the constant renewing of moving water. Would you say God is an abstract idea ?

 

[Linux]

All change is the actualization of potentiality. To explain the existence of change, you must begin with a being that is not the actualization of potentiality, but is instead that which actualizes potentiality. This being cannot be an object that is changing since the ultimate cause is not itself the actualization of potentiality.

If you remove the unmoved mover, then change cannot occur because there is nothing to actualize that which is merely potential. You would literally be getting change and being out of absolutely nothing. You cannot get change or being out of absolutely nothing, therefore there has to be an unmoved mover that gives being to potential objects or actualizes potentiality.

How an unmoved mover gives actuality to potential is irrelevant in so far as determining the necessity of such a being. Even if there is an apparent contradiction, Actual Existence logically and absolutely precedes potentiality or change. You cannot have potentiality or possibility without existence. Therefore we know that an unmoved mover exists.

 

[belorg]

that depends on how you want to view it.
if you imagine him as a stream flowing, then the water remains immutable but movement is an aspect of the stream.
if you imagine him as the north wind, then the wind remains immutable but movement is an aspect of the north wind.

If the stream is an aspect of water and the stream flows, then one aspect of water changes, which means there is a change and water is not immutable.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

But the stream doesn’t actually exist. This is an abstract idea to designates the constant renewing of moving water. Would you say God is an abstract idea ?

its an analogy; you can push analogies argument to distract attention. the Holy Spirit was described by God in the scriptures as being like the north wind, no-one knows where it comes from nor where it goes to. is God an abstract idea because he describes his spirit as being like the north wind?

 

[Paddy_Walker]

If the stream is an aspect of water and the stream flows, then one aspect of water changes, which means there is a change and water is not immutable.

no, one aspect of the stream is movement, movement doesn’t change. perhaps you want to visualize God standing in heaven with heavenly winds flapping his robes. movement can be an aspect of him without affecting his immutability.

 

[belorg]

no, one aspect of the stream is movement, movement doesn’t change. perhaps you want to visualize God standing in heaven with heavenly winds flapping his robes. movement can be an aspect of him without affecting his immutability.

Look, Paddy, “movement” in the Aristotelean-Thomist sense is a synonym for “change”, so it’s quite simple, actually, if change is an aspect of God, then God is not immutable.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Look, Paddy, “movement” in the Aristotelean-Thomist sense is a synonym for “change”, so it’s quite simple, actually, if change is an aspect of God, then God is not immutable.

but we were not talking about movement, but the concept and source of the concept of movement. i might say that i originate an idea in my mind, that is a concept, i am the source, it is an aspect of my creative mind. but this does not necessarily mean that i change myself.

 

[belorg]

but we were not talking about movement, but the concept and source of the concept of movement. i might say that i originate an idea in my mind, that is a concept, i am the source, it is an aspect of my creative mind. but this does not necessarily mean that i change myself.

No, Paddy, we are definitemy talking about movement and not just about co,cepts (of concepts). If movement exists, then it is not just a concept. If your idea becomes concrete, then your idea is not just a concept anymore.

 

[jimmy]

All change is the actualization of potentiality. To explain the existence of change, you must begin with a being that is not the actualization of potentiality, but is instead that which actualizes potentiality. This being cannot be an object that is changing since the ultimate cause is not itself the actualization of potentiality.

If you remove the unmoved mover, then change cannot occur because there is nothing to actualize that which is merely potential. You would literally be getting change and being out of absolutely nothing. You cannot get change or being out of absolutely nothing, therefore there has to be an unmoved mover that gives being to potential objects or actualizes potentiality.

How an unmoved mover gives actuality to potential is irrelevant in so far as determining the necessity of such a being. Even if there is an apparent contradiction, Actual Existence logically and absolutely precedes potentiality or change. You cannot have potentiality or possibility without existence. Therefore we know that an unmoved mover exists.

Are you including all change or motion in this? Do you include the motion of two billiard balls in the path of collision? Are you saying that is impossible unless you have an unmoved mover? If so, why? Does all motion also imply an end (teleology) as well? Or is there such a thing as perpetual motion?

 

[Paddy_Walker]

No, Paddy, we are definitemy talking about movement and not just about co,cepts (of concepts). If movement exists, then it is not just a concept. If your idea becomes concrete, then your idea is not just a concept anymore.

no. my concept is in my mind. i may chose to make it concrete or not. that choice does not affect me only the concreteness or not of what i make or chose not to make.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Are you including all change or motion in this? Do you include the motion of two billiard balls in the path of collision? Are you saying that is impossible unless you have an unmoved mover? If so, why? Does all motion also imply an end (teleology) as well? Or is there such a thing as perpetual motion?

Thomas’ argument from motion does not include an infinite regress of action and reaction into the infinite past. He concedes that this can exist. It has no bearing on his argument, as he points out. In fact his argument assumes an eternally existing universe. What Thomas is saying that every effect, here and now, taking place anywhere in the universe, from the macro to the nano states of existence, even those having more than one instrumental cause, must have an ultimate cause that is Uncaused, and this we call God. So you must think Vertically, simultaneously, here and now - not horozontially into the past.

The same goes for the argument from Effecent Cause and from Existence.