St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[belorg]

Belorg, I believe I answered your points of view in my posts yesterday refer posts 218 -224. I would ask you respond to each of my points with any evidence and rational thinking which may counter each of the arguments I have presented .Individually and even more so as a whole such arguments support the truth that God that created the Universe.

Truth,Love and Peace.

I could respond to each of the arguments you presented. Hwoever, this would go far beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[tonyrey]

On the other hand, books like Krauss’s A Universe from Nothing (in spite of its other flaws) seem to make short work of the idea that everything literally needs to be composed of pre-existing matter.

If everything is not composed of pre-existing matter how did everything originate?

 

[tonyrey]

In conclusion it is perfectly sensible and reasonable to say God exists and is the Creator of everything.Any other conclusions are nothing more than ideas and hypothesis and more accurately termed as speculation not backed up with hard evidence. Such speculation can never be tested to prove or disprove their claims. Indeed their speculations on the origin of the universe are widely discredited by many credible cosmologists and scientists whether Christian or not As a particularly “Granny” has stated “Revelation Trumps”.Incidentally there are many scientists that are Christian and believe that God is the Creator of everything.We have provided evidence and reason to justify our belief that God exists and is the Creator of everything.Those of a contrary position have not, IMO,done likewise.

I apologise for the long post. Writers better than i could probably have condensed my post and made the points i tried to make. i hope it adds to the debate.

Truth,Love and Peace to all.

Thank you for your impressive contributions to the discussion.

God bless

 

[Linux]

It is logically possible with the God described by Aquinas being the premise of the logical argument.

Why is it logically possible.

You first say, "Given that the God described by Aquinas is real, all ‘not-God being’ can suddenly ‘Be’ where nothing was." Then, following that premise, you have the explanation of how this God knows, desires, wills, and speaks into reality the temporal and corporeal being of all the universe.

But this assumes the existence of God, and then it also assumes that God can do what is generally thought to be imposssible.

 

[Linux]

You are falling into the trap of scientism.

Explain why?

…Reply to Objection 3: When anything is said to be made from nothing, this preposition “from” [ex] does not signify the material cause, but only order; as when we say, “from morning comes midday”–i.e. after morning is midday. But we must understand that this preposition “from” [ex] can comprise the negation implied when I say the word “nothing,” or can be included in it. If taken in the first sense, then we affirm the order by stating the relation between what is now and its previous non-existence. But if the negation includes the preposition, then the order is denied, and the sense is, “It is made from nothing—i.e. it is not made from anything”—as if we were to say, “He speaks of nothing,” because he does not speak of anything. And this is verified in both ways, when it is said, that anything is made from nothing. But in the first way this preposition “from” [ex] implies order, as has been said in this reply. In the second sense, it imports the material cause, which is denied. "

John Martin

Linus

Aquinas is talking about the logical order in which one speaks of God creating something from nothing. He is not talking about whehther it is logically possible for God to create something from nothing. He explains that nothing is not the material cuase of something. None of this is answering the question of how it is logically possible for God to create something where there was nothing without any materials. That has not been adressed, only avoided with straw-men as i said before.

I don’t see why you guys are finding this question hard to understand. It is very simple.

 

[John_Martin]

But this assumes the existence of God, and then it also assumes that God can do what is generally thought to be imposssible.

Yes, that is what a premise does. Do you know how to put yourself in someone elses shoes, to see with their eyes, to follow a logical progression with their premise as a starting point, then see that with their premise they have correctly progressed logically? I know how to follow a logical argument with the premise that “There is no God”, even believing that there is a God. You cannot read Thomas with your starting point of “No God” and expect to hear him.
But, I think you are very young and do not realize this, but instead think all must have the same premises to the beginning of their logical deductions.

John Martin

 

[John_Martin]

Aquinas is talking about the logical order in which one speaks of God creating something from nothing. He is not talking about whehther it is logically possible for God to create something from nothing.
I don’t see why you guys are finding this question hard to understand. It is very simple.

Here is Thomas’ answer, but you will need to understand God “knowing”, his Intellect, his Will, and his Being, to understand it. You have to put on Thomas’ shoes and see who and what this God is that he has as his premise:
“Now it is manifest that God causes things by His intellect, since His being is His act of understanding; and hence His knowledge must be the cause of things, in so far as His will is joined to it.”
Here is the link: ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q14_A8.html

John Martin

 

[Linux]

Here is Thomas’ answer, but you will need to understand God “knowing”, his Intellect, his Will, and his Being, to understand it. You have to put on Thomas’ shoes and see who and what this God is that he has as his premise:
“Now it is manifest that God causes things by His intellect, since His being is His act of understanding; and hence His knowledge must be the cause of things, in so far as His will is joined to it.”
Here is the link: ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q14_A8.html

John Martin

This again, without further modification, still doesn’t explain how one can logically get something from nothing. It merely describes the supposed source of contingent things, not how it is logically possible for God to create contingent beings without pre-existing materials.

 

[Eleve]

The problem is that Aquinas argued for Pure Act (God) and act mixed with potentiality (all other entities) but did not establish any sort of causal link between the two. So we have a guy somewhere and a rabbit somewhere else popping into existence. But the question is: what is the causal connection between those two. The only connection we have so far is an assertion.

Umm, the causal link is that God is omnipotent. I’m not sure what kind of account of causation you could give that wouldn’t always give rise to the same further question: “A causes B through X? Well then what causes X?” ad infinitum.
belorg/:

I do not think everything needs to be composed of pre-existing matter, but in order for something to come into existence, there must be a pre-existing condition out of which it can arise. And ‘nothing’ is not such a condition.

Which is fine, because theists do not believe that nothing existed before the creation of the universe. They believe that God existed.

 

[draco_cupri]

It is logically possible with the God described by Aquinas being the premise of the logical argument. You first say, "Given that the God described by Aquinas is real, all ‘not-God being’ can suddenly ‘Be’ where nothing was." Then, following that premise, you have the explanation of how this God knows, desires, wills, and speaks into reality the temporal and corporeal being of all the universe.

I was under the impression you were speaking for yourself in the exchange with Linus. So, if this should be for belorg, then, Belorg, any positional statement about the way things work has to begin with a statement of the assumptions of that statement. For Aquinas, the “Given” assumption is this God. If your “given” assumption is no God, then you have to provide a logical framework for physical being that works without a God. With the “given” of “no God”, it would likely be impossible for something to “pop” into being (although, with the Big Bang theory, all are trying to postulate how the universe could pop into being at a scientific level, resulting in string theory, et. al.)

While I might find difficulty with the logic of an eternal sequence of causation and of the physical universe, if that satisfies your understanding then that is what gives your life meaning. For me, I move myself to unity with the Prime Mover. I am potentially like Him and will be in Act.

John Martin

Respectfully, John Martin, you will never be like God in Act. God alone is Pure Act, and “who is like God?” That is the name of Saint Michael, and his battle cry as he casts Satan into hell for his sin of presuming that he would be like God. No one is like God. We are made in His Image, but the image differs from the Original in several ways. God is Actually Infinite; we will never be that. So we will never be like God in Act.

 

[belorg]

Umm, the causal link is that God is omnipotent. I’m not sure what kind of account of causation you could give that wouldn’t always give rise to the same further question: “A causes B through X? Well then what causes X?” ad infinitum.

God is omnipotent means that God can do everything that is logically possible. But the question is: is there any sort of reason to think that things can come into existence from nothing? I have never heard of one.
What you need is a logically possible way for one entity to transform nothingness into something.

Which is fine, because theists do not believe that nothing existed before the creation of the universe. They believe that God existed.

I said “out of which”. If the universe is made out of God, then God changes.
Instability of nothingness is such a condition. Lots of philosophers belive that nothingness is necessarily unstable, and that sort of condition could in principle result in nothingness becoming something.

 

[draco_cupri]

This again, without further modification, still doesn’t explain how one can logically get something from nothing. It merely describes the supposed source of contingent things, not how it is logically possible for God to create contingent beings without pre-existing materials.

Why would it be impossible for God? Are you familiar with the term, “omnipotence?” How is it defined? Does it not mean the ability to do anything at all?

It is generally acknowledged that logical impossibilities simply cannot be, so it is not asserted that God can produce anything that is logically impossible to exist. But the universe is not logically impossible to exist (plainly, since it clearly exists). And also, scientists have proven to at least their own satisfaction that the universe had a beginning in time. Catholics believe that God created everything from nothing, which is not at all the same thing as saying that everything popped into existence from nothing by its own power. That would be a logical impossibility, since in order to have power at all, something would need to exist first. But I see no reason to think that the logical impossibility just elucidated would extend to God creating everything from nothing, since in this case the Power lies in God, who has existed from all eternity. Since the possessor of the requisite power existed already, the impossibility of something creating itself from nothing does not present. If it is impossible for God, that must be for some other reason than failure to exist. So what is your reason?

Thanks in advance.

 

[tonyrey]

Umm, the causal link is that God is omnipotent. I’m not sure what kind of account of causation you could give that wouldn’t always give rise to the same further question: “A causes B through X? Well then what causes X?” ad infinitum.

Which is fine, because theists do not believe that nothing existed before the creation of the universe. They believe that God existed.

A minor detail…

 

[draco_cupri]

God is omnipotent means that God can do everything that is logically possible. But the question is: is there any sort of reason to think that things can come into existence from nothing? I have never heard of one.
What you need is a logically possible way for one entity to transform nothingness into something.

Which is fine, because theists do not believe that nothing existed before the creation of the universe. They believe that God existed.

I said “out of which”. If the universe is made out of God, then God changes.
Instability of nothingness is such a condition. Lots of philosophers belive that nothingness is necessarily unstable, and that sort of condition could in principle result in nothingness becoming something.

The instability you attribute to “nothingness” is misleading. True Nothing has no properties, and instability is a property, so true Nothing can’t have it. The instability you refer to is a property of empty space, or vacuum, or zero-point-energy field. Space is not, in fact, “nothing.” It is space, which physicists believe to be a “quantum foam.” Zero-point energy is in fact a form of energy, and from this energy, particles (e.g. positron-electron pairs) can be observed “popping into existence.” But this is not “something from nothing,” rather, it is matter from energy.

There are countless heresies based on Emanationism, to which you refer above without naming it as such. Simon Magus has been called the “father of all heretics,” and his scheme is called Simonianism, you can look it up and see for yourself how much it has in common with other variants of Emanationsim like Kabbalah and Advaita Vedanta.

Essentially, all such schemas boil down to a human attempt to explain the Mystery of Creation. Human beings cannot produce something from nothing, but God can. It is human incredulty that God can, that causes humans to attempt to explain Creation in two different but similar ways: either, as modification of some pre-existing proto-matter, or, as God’s modification of His Own Substance. Which, when it comes down to it, might be the same thing after all, so maybe these are not two different ways but only one way expressed two ways verbally.

It is understandable that you and others would want to do this. Our intellects are designed to seek explanations that we can grasp. Our intuition is that something cannot come from nothing, and our experience is that in creating anything, ourselves, we need pre-existing material. If it is posited that at one time, or more accurately in eternity before time, God alone existed, then it is logical to conclude, given the above, that He must have created everything from His own Substance.

This is, of course, Pantheism. That which begins as God’s Substance cannot cease to be God’s Substance by undergoing modification. That is the basis of our belief that Mary is the Mother of God, and that Jesus is God. Since the Word is consubstantial with the Father, He cannot cease to be consubstantial with the Father by undergoing the modification of becoming a human being. He is fully human but He does not cease to be, at the same time, fully God. The Catholic Faith does assert this of Jesus. But if she asserts this of Jesus, and at the same time asserts it of every particle of matter in the universe, then what becomes of the doctrine of Jesus as the unique Son of God? Plainly, it becomes meaningless. If “everything is God,” then there can be no way in which Jesus is “especially God.”

Consequently, Christianity is incompatible with the doctrine of Pantheism, and since Pantheism is the logical outcome of Emanationism, Christianity is likewise incompatible with Emanationism. It is inconsistent with the unique status of Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God, to assert that God made the universe out of His Own Substance. Consubstantiality with the Father is reserved only to the Son and the Holy Spirit, and God says,

Isaias 42:8 I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another. . .

Since there was nothing at all in existence apart from God before (i.e., in eternity before) God began to create, consequently, God made everything from nothing. This is not to be misconstrued as Space or Vacuum or “Nothingness,” as if “nothing” were some particular kind of substance. Nothing means literally not any thing. Space or Vacuum is in fact a created entity, a substance in its own right, as Quantum Physics confirms. Eternity before Creation includes “before” the creation of time and space, as created entities. God created these also, from nothing.

 

[Linux]

Does it not mean the ability to do anything at all?

No.

It is generally acknowledged that logical impossibilities simply cannot be, so it is not asserted that God can produce anything that is logically impossible to exist.

Out of nothing comes nothing. How does one turn the absence of things in to something without pre-existing materials? To do so would be to contradict the absolute distinction between existence and nothing.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

God is omnipotent means that God can do everything that is logically possible. But the question is: is there any sort of reason to think that things can come into existence from nothing? I have never heard of one.
What you need is a logically possible way for one entity to transform nothingness into something.

Which is fine, because theists do not believe that nothing existed before the creation of the universe. They believe that God existed.

I said “out of which”. If the universe is made out of God, then God changes.
Instability of nothingness is such a condition. Lots of philosophers belive that nothingness is necessarily unstable, and that sort of condition could in principle result in nothingness becoming something.

it isn’t from nothing so much as something comes into being into nothing. remember that nothing does not exist, it cannot be made into something.

nothing cannot be unstable because nothing does not exist to be unstable. instability is an aspect or quality of a thing.

the universe is not made out of God, in the way i know you suggest. it is made by God in God. it doesn’t change God any more than an idea in your head changes you. you are not defined by your ideas. you are always a human whether you have ideas or not.

 

[John_Martin]

Respectfully, John Martin, you will never be like God in Act. God alone is Pure Act, and “who is like God?” That is the name of Saint Michael, and his battle cry as he casts Satan into hell for his sin of presuming that he would be like God. No one is like God. We are made in His Image, but the image differs from the Original in several ways. God is Actually Infinite; we will never be that. So we will never be like God in Act.

Satan wanted to be like the God who was the object in his intellect. He did not turn to face God after first knowing himself in his intellect. And, so he did not see the beatific vision, and love God.
Beatitude is “being in Act” like God, fully, face to face knowing him knowing me and knowing myself knowing him. “Have you not read where it says, ‘you are gods’”.
Unless you think that being like God means being omnipotent or some such strange thing. That is perhaps the characature that Satan had envisioned of God.
John Martin

 

[robbodb]

No.

Out of nothing comes nothing. How does one turn the absence of things in to something without pre-existing materials? To do so would be to contradict the absolute distinction between existence and nothing.

IMO the debate about God’s creation of the universe is unnecessarily complicated.

God did not create the universe from nothing or out of nothing.God created the universe when there was nothing other than God.There was no space, no time ,just nothing.God willed the universe into existence.The Gospels state at least on 2 occasions that “Nothing is impossible for God” and these are at the Annunciation and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
We humans will never understand how God performed the origin of Creation unless he wishes to reveal it to us.
What is of paramount importance for mankind is the realisation of God’s existence (and what that means).I believe I have proved God’s existence in my previous post.
Can we please move on and stop trying to unravel a mystery which is beyond our capacity.

Love,Truth,and Peace.

 

[Eleve]

God is omnipotent means that God can do everything that is logically possible. But the question is: is there any sort of reason to think that things can come into existence from nothing? I have never heard of one.
What you need is a logically possible way for one entity to transform nothingness into something.

I said “out of which”. If the universe is made out of God, then God changes.
Instability of nothingness is such a condition. Lots of philosophers belive that nothingness is necessarily unstable, and that sort of condition could in principle result in nothingness becoming something.

Again, theists do not think that “things can come into existence from nothing” or that God can “transform nothingness into something.” Nor do they think, in general, that “the universe is made out of God.” Where are you getting these ridiculous ideas? You are arguing with a bunch of strawmen.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Again, theists do not think that “things can come into existence from nothing” or that God can “transform nothingness into something.” Nor do they think, in general, that “the universe is made out of God.” Where are you getting these ridiculous ideas? You are arguing with a bunch of strawmen.

Scored again. Good work. Linus