L
Linux
Guest
But metaphysical naturalism is all that is left if you reject Theism. What are your beliefs if you don’t mind me asking?
- Status
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
From a logical perspective that would seem to limit your choices. If the universe did not create itself and it was not created by the First Uncaused and Moveable Cause as Thomas argued then it would seem that the only choice left for you is an eternally, existing, uncaused universe. If there is one or more choices left I don’t see them.
You do realize that Thomas’ arguments assumed an eternally existing universe don’t you? He based his arguments on an eternally existing universe because he was arguing against the Greeks who believed the universe was eternal.
I will assume you understand Thomas’ arguments.
If you cannot explain how an eternally existing universe could be uncaused, you have no reason for your choice other than you would just prefer that it had no cause. In other words an act of negative faith.
I always am amazed that all of science and even our daily ordinary lives is based on the principle of causality. If I do something, something foreseen will happen. Call this the first principle of life and science, even of knowledge ( on a practical level ). If I mix certain chemicals together under carefully controlled conditions a known and desired result will occur or a new substance will come into being.
Yet you and others would allow no cause for the univerers’ existence. How explain an uncaused universe in which every motion/change in it has a cause ?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I don’t see how it could be since the purpose of philosophy is to discover Truth as The Philosopher ( Aristotle, Thomas had such high regard for him he often refered to him as The Philosopher). So I see the use of Philosophy to support faith and religious Truths as perfectly legitimate.
Well I certainly never did, nor would I. And further more no Christian even is certain of their own salvation - we are told to strive so as to win the prize.
But there is one thing that is certain. If there is a God ( the God of Christianity) all who ever lived will face an accounting on the minute of their death - believers and non-believers alike. And there won’t be any fancy lawyers present to argue our case, we will be judged by the facts.
J
John_Martin
Guest
I believe modern philosopy wants to discover truth as limited to corporeal reality, with a filter that would not allow anything outside what is touchable. Sort of the flip side of Plato, today with intellect, understanding, and will residing in the physical functioning of the “brain”.
The problematic part for everyone is that there is no sense (perception) of the actual functioning of the intellect, of understanding, of the development of Will (in Aristotelean or Thomistic terms, the Soul animating the body).
The concept of the Soul is, however, whether true or not, fully descriptive and accurate for explaing the observable, corporeal, phenomena of a human being. I can see its accuracy when I consider how words and paragraphs and thoughts and images appear in my conscious thought but where did they come from forming a meaningful block of words, or when I conclude about something that “this is true” as if I know it without consciously evaluating it. I see it in my behaviour, choices, the presence of Will driving free-will of means. I see in Thomas’ explanations something that really explains me. Which in a way is part of the truth I seek, to know myself realistically in the things I do each day. I am not a mystery to myself.
John Martin
B
belorg
Guest
If someone can give me an acurate definition of naturalism and supernaturalism, this discussion could lead to something. Right now, I do not rule out the possibility that everything is natural, but I do not rule out there may be something meta-physical.
And beside God, there are countless other possibke metaphysical entities.
B
belorg
Guest
Yes, I know that Thomas’ arguments assumed an eternally existing universe. So do I.
I can explain how an eternally existing univrese could be uncaused. The same way an allegedly eternal God could be uncaused.
That’s not exactly accurate. There are experiments whose results cannot be foreseen, no matter how carefully controlled the conditions are,.
And you would allow no cause for the cause of a universe. in which every motion/change has a cause. The difference is:: I see no reason to assume that every motion/change in this univrese has a cause. It hasn’t been proved that there are truly uncuased events, but there are pretty strong indications. Anyway, it hasn’t been proved that every event in the universe is caused either. So, let’s not assume too many things.Yet you and others would allow no cause for the univerers’ existence. How explain an uncaused universe in which every motion/change in it has a cause ?
B
belorg
Guest
“The Philosopher” was a proper philosopher, as he would have accepted everything his philosophy revealed. Thomas, on the other hand, had to a priori rule out certain things. That way, he did not start with an open mind. And of course, that does not mean he did not discover the truth, but it does cast doubts on his methodoloy and his results.
I apperciate that you didn’t. But lots of Christians, Catholics included, in fact do, and lots of them declare atheism the most dangerous development of our time. Even the Pope does this, so belive me, I know what it feels like to be stigmatized.
That, my friend, is an assertion. For starters: the number of universalists is growing, even within the Catholic Faith. Pope Benedict is coming very close to being a universalist in some of his writings and speeches.But there is one thing that is certain. If there is a God ( the God of Christianity) all who ever lived will face an accounting on the minute of their death - believers and non-believers alike. And there won’t be any fancy lawyers present to argue our case, we will be judged by the facts.
And, more importantly, under Thomism, God is immutable, so he cannot possibly ‘judge’ anything.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
An eternally existing First Cause ( Thomas’ Pure Act, Pure Existence ) is a logical necessity and Its nature is inferred from that conclusion. On the other hand the beings in the universe are not existence, they HAVE existence. The reason is because their acts of existence are limited, none is perfect in its possession of existence. Of none can we say, " this is perfect existence. " Of each we say " this is something which exists or has existence, " for it does not have the perfections of all the extents in the universe.
Also, each extent in the universe is a " possible " or " contingent " being, because it is known and has always been known that each comes to be and ceases to be. Therefore it is not necessary that they be. So at some time the universe itself would not have existed.
This implies several things. First, since all beings of the universe are contingent, then now there would be no universe. But it does exist so there is a Being which is Necessary, the First Cause.
If every being in the universe is limited in its existence, then the universe would not exist even now. Therefore there exists a Being, perfect in Existence, who gave existence to the universe, the Pure Act of Being, which simple Is, which simple EXISTS, as opposed to HAVING Existence. As such, It can and does cause the existence of all beings which merely HAVE existence, all the limited beings in the universe…
That does not mean that there is no explanation for the results. It means we don’t know the causes of the outcomes, not that there are none.
It isn’t a case of allowing or not allowing. It is a logically necessity that a universe of beings moving or changing are " moving " form a potential mode of being to another but actual mode of being. This requires that there be some Being, Itself having no potential to a different mode of being and which was not moved from a potential mode of being to its current mode of being. This Being is therefore Perfect Actuality and moves/changes all movement/change in the universe.
Again, I made no assumption. Mine and Thomas’ conclusion is a logical necessity.
And how then do you explain motion/change?
I assume you meant " caused " events rather than " uncaused events. " To which I would say, if events were uncaused science would not exist and we wouldn’t bother to get out of bed each morning.
Have we found any that hasn’t been caused?
You have not proven your case. Basically, you position is a simple matter of choice and has no reasons or logic or science behind it.
B
belorg
Guest
I have been through this more than once, Linus, so I amnot going into too many details.An eternally existing First Cause ( Thomas’ Pure Act, Pure Existence ) is a logical necessity and Its nature is inferred from that conclusion. On the other hand the beings in the universe are not existence, they HAVE existence. The reason is because their acts of existence are limited, none is perfect in its possession of existence. Of none can we say, " this is perfect existence. " Of each we say " this is something which exists or has existence, " for it does not have the perfections of all the extents in the universe.
Also, each extent in the universe is a " possible " or " contingent " being, because it is known and has always been known that each comes to be and ceases to be. Therefore it is not necessary that they be. So at some time the universe itself would not have existed.
This implies several things. First, since all beings of the universe are contingent, then now there would be no universe. But it does exist so there is a Being which is Necessary, the First Cause.
If every being in the universe is limited in its existence, then the universe would not exist even now. Therefore there exists a Being, perfect in Existence, who gave existence to the universe, the Pure Act of Being, which simple Is, which simple EXISTS, as opposed to HAVING Existence. As such, It can and does cause the existence of all beings which merely HAVE existence, all the limited beings in the universe…
That does not mean that there is no explanation for the results. It means we don’t know the causes of the outcomes, not that there are none.
It isn’t a case of allowing or not allowing. It is a logically necessity that a universe of beings moving or changing are " moving " form a potential mode of being to another but actual mode of being. This requires that there be some Being, Itself having no potential to a different mode of being and which was not moved from a potential mode of being to its current mode of being. This Being is therefore Perfect Actuality and moves/changes all movement/change in the universe.
Again, I made no assumption. Mine and Thomas’ conclusion is a logical necessity.
And how then do you explain motion/change?
I assume you meant " caused " events rather than " uncaused events. " To which I would say, if events were uncaused science would not exist and we wouldn’t bother to get out of bed each morning.
Have we found any that hasn’t been caused?
You have not proven your case. Basically, you position is a simple matter of choice and has no reasons or logic or science behind it.
The only thing I want to stress is that you simply do not have any proof. And if you do not have proof for a necessary entity, you do not have a necessary entity. Even the slightest possibility that you are wrong disproves the necessity of your Prime Mover.
BTW, I am not saying that you do not have an argument, but unfortunately you need more.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Of course you are welcome to your opinions. Eight hundred years of Philosophers, Theologians, and Scientests too would differ with you. And I might add that even Plato and Aristotle used similar arguments to arrive at a First Necessary Being, a source of all that exists in the universe. Even uneducated pagans believed in some sort of " god. "
Your opinions are definitely in the minority, even today.
Be that as it may, what would you consider proof? What would be the criteria that would be acceptible to you?
And I must point out that you still have not attempted to either prove or even to state clearly what do believe and how you prove it. It is all well and good to disagree with others endlessly, intimating that your " opinions " constitued reasonable refutation. That is easy to do, anyone can do it. It is quite another thing to state and prove your own position.
Now if you can’t defend your own position, whatever it is, then you, de facto, hold it on simple faith. Which means you have no reason at all. Indeed one of your persuasion admitted in one of these forums, that his/her atheism was held on faith, it was simply based on belief, not on facts or arguments.
B
belorg
Guest
I can defend my position, but in this thread I confine myself to stating the simple fact that, despite several assertions to the contrary, your positiion isn’t proven. So, it is your opinion against my opinion. And since this is not a popularity contest, whether my opion is in the minority or in the majority isn’t relevant, unless you take the fac that the majority of people is not as an indication the Catholicism is false. Moreover, the fact that uneducated pagans believed in some sort of God does not mean educated people have to believe in some sort of God too. As it is, nowadays “educatd” people believe in all sorts of Gods or in no God at all.Of course you are welcome to your opinions. Eight hundred years of Philosophers, Theologians, and Scientests too would differ with you. And I might add that even Plato and Aristotle used similar arguments to arrive at a First Necessary Being, a source of all that exists in the universe. Even uneducated pagans believed in some sort of " god. "
Your opinions are definitely in the minority, even today.
Be that as it may, what would you consider proof? What would be the criteria that would be acceptible to you?
And I must point out that you still have not attempted to either prove or even to state clearly what do believe and how you prove it. It is all well and good to disagree with others endlessly, intimating that your " opinions " constitued reasonable refutation. That is easy to do, anyone can do it. It is quite another thing to state and prove your own position.
Now if you can’t defend your own position, whatever it is, then you, de facto, hold it on simple faith. Which means you have no reason at all. Indeed one of your persuasion admitted in one of these forums, that his/her atheism was held on faith, it was simply based on belief, not on facts or arguments.
Now what I would consider proof is something that cannot possibly be explaiend by anything else than (a) God. That’s the burden you face when you declare something necessary.
And may I remind me that attempting to prove my position (I have stated clearly what I “believe” BTW) would amount to discussing atheism, something that isn’ allowed here.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
How very convenient for you. However you are still making assumptions. To assert that someone’s argument is wrong is NOT TO PROVE IT. Anyone can stand around and " assert " all day long, that doesn’t prove or disprove anything.
It is not a contest, I don’t think you are sincere at all. I can’t think of a single valid reason which keeps you here. Except that you are simply trolling.
What I say and what you say is being read by the whole world. They will judge.
B
belorg
Guest
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.How very convenient for you. However you are still making assumptions. To assert that someone’s argument is wrong is NOT TO PROVE IT. Anyone can stand around and " assert " all day long, that doesn’t prove or disprove anything.
It is not a contest, I don’t think you are sincere at all. I can’t think of a single valid reason which keeps you here. Except that you are simply trolling.
What I say and what you say is being read by the whole world. They will judge.
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.
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.
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.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
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.
B
belorg
Guest
Thank you for the support, Al. But to be honest, I won’t lose my sleep over Linus’ tone.
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.
That may be true, but I do not deny that the universe is fine-tuned.
I do not think I am trolling either. But is Linus likes to think that I am, he is entitles to his opinion. I do not take it as an insult, I only wished we could have a mature discussion.
E
Eleve
Guest
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.
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.
That being said, I’m likewise puzzled how you would get from science the idea that an event cannot be uncaused.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
You’re welcome.
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.
Good.
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.
Good, very good.
You seem to be more magnanimous than I am; I would be furious by now.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
You said it better than I did.
J
John_Martin
Guest
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).You do realize that Thomas’ arguments assumed an eternally existing universe don’t you? He based his arguments on an eternally existing universe because he was arguing against the Greeks who believed the universe was eternal.
I will assume you understand Thomas’ arguments.
Yet you and others would allow no cause for the univerers’ existence. How explain an uncaused universe in which every motion/change in it has a cause ?
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
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Eternal does not necessarily mean uncaused. An eternal universe would still be caused, but could exist from eternity. God would not be ‘temporally prior’ to it, but its existence would still wholly depend on Him.
See Edward Feser:
…when a thinker like Aquinas describes God as the First Cause, what is meant is not merely “first” in a temporal sense, and not “first” in the sense of the cause that happens to come before the second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. causes, but rather “first” in the sense of having absolutely primal and underived causal power, of being that from which all other causes derive their efficacy.
Link:
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/01/metaphysical-middle-man.html
- Status