St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[Linux]

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

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.

I know what nothing is and I have not contradicted your definition. Out of nothing comes nothing. How is it logically possible for God to will the universe into existence if there is no pre-existing materials out of which he can create. How does this not contradict the absolute distinction between being and nothing.

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.

That is irrelevant. This is not a theological discussion.

We humans will never understand how God performed the origin of Creation unless he wishes to reveal it to us.

That’s an assertion. If something looks like a metaphysical contradiction, then it is up to you to prove that it is not. Otherwise belorg has no rational obligation to agree with you

 

[nemesis001]

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

God is omnipotent, so how is it “strange” to think that being like God means being omnipotent.? I’m not even questioning whether we can be omnipotent — we are, by the power of prayer. All of God’s Power is freely given to us, through prayer. I’m saying that no creature will ever be God. Satan wished to make himself like God — that was his sin.

You are improvising on theology when you say that “being in Act” like God means beatitude. If not, then please show me from Catholic sources. Otherwise, it is your own twist on the words, and my contention is not, perhaps, to your understanding of things as much as it is to your expression, using theological terms. “Pure Act” has a meaning already in theology, and a creature will never be Pure Act. Creatures in heaven, experiencing the Beatific Vision, continually increase in happiness, forever. To increase clearly indicates potential for increase, hence, (1) creatures are not infinite, and (2) no creature is Pure Act. (Pure Act is an attribute of God alone, and it means specifically that nothing about God is potential.)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

That’s right. No one can explain " how. " And I don’t think God could explain it to us, even when we get to Heaven, because the human intellect would be incapable of understanding the " how. " That is just my personal opinion. So, no. No one can explain " how, " all we can do is show that it is a logical necessity that God did in fact create the universe, prior to which there was no matter in existence. If we my speak improperly, before the creation there existed only God. Linus

 

[Linux]

That’s right. No one can explain " how. " And I don’t think God could explain it to us,

You are asserting this. “You” don’t know how to explain how it is not a contradiction and so you are hiding behind a wall of invincible ignorance. If there is an apparent contradiction in God creating as much as there is an apparent contradiction in a universe that has no cause, then why not just go for the universe without a cause? Or be agnostic?

Please no dogma. I know what you believe. I want you to give a philosophical defense of what you believe; not a theological discourse.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You are asserting this. “You” don’t know how to explain how it is not a contradiction and so you are hiding behind a wall of invincible ignorance.

Don’t really know what you are saying here. Exactly what did I say that was a contradiction? I’m not hiding behind anything. You are a bright boy, you are reading Aquinas, you should be able to understand it.

If there is an apparent contradiction in God creating as much as there is an apparent contradiction in a universe that has no cause, then why not just go for the universe without a cause? Or be agnostic?

Again, what are you saying? I think you are allowing your emotions to get the best of you.
If the universe had no cause ? Really !!! Pure si-fi.

Please no dogma. I know what you believe. I want you to give a philosophical defense of what you believe; not a theological discourse.

Don’t like Dogma ? This is a Catholic site, if you don’t like it, go somewhere else.

If you care to refer to the Summa Theologiae you will find the explanation. Begin with the Five Ways and progress onwards until you acquire Wisdom, as the Philosopher.

Then come back in a better frame of mind. Linus

 

[Linux]

Don’t really know what you are saying here. Exactly what did I say that was a contradiction? I’m not hiding behind anything. You are a bright boy, you are reading Aquinas, you should be able to understand it.

Again, what are you saying? I think you are allowing your emotions to get the best of you.
If the universe had no cause ? Really !!! Pure si-fi.

Don’t like Dogma ? This is a Catholic site, if you don’t like it, go somewhere else.

If you care to refer to the Summa Theologiae you will find the explanation. Begin with the Five Ways and progress onwards until you acquire Wisdom, as the Philosopher.

Then come back in a better frame of mind. Linus

This is the philosophy section of Catholic answers. If you are not interested in a true philosophical discussion then don’t reply to my posts. I certainly won’t be replying to any of yours since all you seem to produce is avoidance tactics. Your favourite here seems to be “pass the buck”.

 

[Eleve]

That is irrelevant. This is not a theological discussion.

Let me be clear… you want us to discuss the creation of the universe according to theism without reference to God’s omnipotence?

 

[belorg]

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.

If the universe isn’t made out of God and neither out of nothing, then it’s very simple: the universe wasn’t created at all

But, since yiou call my ideas (and they are not even mine) ridiculous, it shouldn"t be a problem for you to explain exacttly what “theists” believe"

 

[belorg]

Let me be clear… you want us to discuss the creation of the universe according to theism without reference to God’s omnipotence?

This is a philosophical discussion;eleve, and if omnipotence is brought up in a philosophical discussion, it must be explained philosophically. It it can’t be, then it isn’t an explanation

I have no problems with dogmas, but they have no place in a philosophical discussion.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is a philosophical discussion;eleve, and if omnipotence is brought up in a philosophical discussion, it must be explained philosophically. It it can’t be, then it isn’t an explanation

I have no problems with dogmas, but they have no place in a philosophical discussion.

No. The problem is that you will not accept philosophical reasoning, at least not any philosophical reasoning that is opposed to yours.

St. Thomas clearly uses philosophical reasoning to prove that God created the universe from no prior existing matter of any kind, whereas prior to that creative act there was only God ( if we may so speak).

Thomas clearly demonstrates the " omnipotence " of God in the S.T., the S.C.G. and other places.

Even Aristotle and Plato and the Platonists do the same but in different terms. So the problem is just that you do not accept the demonstrations offered. Do you have a lock on philosophical truth? No, and neither do we. So we agree to disagree. We, at least I, will not abandon the sources of philosophical truth. Have you bothered to read Thomas yet or any of his commentaries? Linus

 

[belorg]

No. The problem is that you will not accept philosophical reasoning, at least not any philosophical reasoning that is opposed to yours.

Why don’t you try me and present some ‘philosophical reasoning’ to me.

St. Thomas clearly uses philosophical reasoning to prove that God created the universe from no prior existing matter of any kind, whereas prior to that creative act there was only God ( if we may so speak).

Please link me to where he proved that.

Thomas clearly demonstrates the " omnipotence " of God in the S.T., the S.C.G. and other places.

And does he prove that God can do impossible things?

Even Aristotle and Plato and the Platonists do the same but in different terms. So the problem is just that you do not accept the demonstrations offered. Do you have a lock on philosophical truth? No, and neither do we. So we agree to disagree. We, at least I, will not abandon the sources of philosophical truth. Have you bothered to read Thomas yet or any of his commentaries? Linus

No, I don’t accept the demonstrations offered, not because I don’t want to, but because I have serious arguments against them. Arguemnt, I might add, that up to now nobody has been able to counter.

 

[Linux]

Let me be clear… you want us to discuss the creation of the universe according to theism without reference to God’s omnipotence?

Eleve, asserting that there is a being for which nothing is logically impossible is not a rational answer. If there was in fact such a being then why not just say it is the universe that can do the logically impossible. What need is there for positing the existence of a God if logical impossibilities are in fact possible? One can just say that the universe brought itself into existence and leave it at that.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Eleve, asserting that there is a being for which nothing is logically impossible is not a rational answer. If there was in fact such a being then why not just say it is the universe that can do the logically impossible. What need is there for positing the existence of a God if logical impossibilities are in fact possible? One can just say that the universe brought itself into existence and leave it at that.

a being outside of time and matter that can create is not a logical impossibility. a universe that does not exist and creates itself is a logical impossibility.

 

[Linux]

a being outside of time and matter that can create is not a logical impossibility

Then explain how its logically possible to create without pre-existing materials, considering the fact that out of nothing comes nothing.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Then explain how its logically possible to create without pre-existing materials, considering the fact that out of nothing comes nothing.

lets clear up ‘out of nothing comes nothing’, first;
meaning, to me at any rate, that nothing creates nothing. but God creates in spite of nothing.
=> since we are created we have a creator, otherwise there would still be nothing.

how does He do it, you ask?
a theoretical physicist was interviewed on tv once a few years ago, suddenly, he stared into space and talked to himself, this is what he said, ‘…nothing really exists, everything is a dream…’

he had come to that startling realization that matter was not physical permanently, but like Scriptures say at the end of time, that the heavens, or creation will be rolled back.
in other words matter is a finely coiled thought in the Mind of God. but this thought is a real thought and has real being.

but when you unravel this thought of coiled matter then matter itself melts away before your eyes; first it stops being a physical matter, then it becomes both a wave and a particle at the same time; then it becomes an immaterial string or membrane or theoretical little arrows pointing relationships between theoretical dimensions.

it all becomes the substance of a thought. its order in creation reflects its own internally orderly thoughts. its variety reflects its delight in imagination creativity and newness.
its qualities of love, compassion, mercy, beauty, are not contained in an inanimate rock but are the guiding principles of the only creatures who can think about their origins.

the though which created us and continues to create us by maintaining us in existence finds a reflection of itself in us.

as the theoretical physicist said ‘reality is a dream’, and a dream lives in a mind, and this mind shares the qualities which we have a share in.

 

[Eleve]

If the universe isn’t made out of God and neither out of nothing, then it’s very simple: the universe wasn’t created at all

But, since yiou call my ideas (and they are not even mine) ridiculous, it shouldn"t be a problem for you to explain exacttly what “theists” believe"

Theists believe that the universe was made by God.

They do not believe that it was made “out of” God or “out of” nothing in the way that a table is made out of wood. They don’t believe that it was made out of anything.

Linux: Nobody has said that God can do the logically impossible. But if Krauss is right in his book, then it’s not even physically impossible, let alone logically or metaphysically impossible, for matter to begin to exist without its being composed of previously-existing matter.

 

[Eleve]

Linux, logic is the study of valid inference. You may like to think that everything must be built out of pre-existing materials, but even if this is true, it is not true as a matter of logic.

 

[robbodb]

Linux,my reply to your post 259 follows:

1. Your statement that “out of nothing comes nothing” is IMO incorrect.
   In a state of nothing, nothing can “come”- it is not possible.

2.It is quite logical that a supreme intelligent being (“God”) created
the universe as posited in my original post. God must have been outside
of space and time which only came to be at the instant of creation.
We Christians understand that atheists need to hold the view that there
must have been “pre-existing materials” because they reject the existence
of God. But the atheistic view of the origin of the universe is faith
based i.e. a religion. It is not based on any credible evidence( tested
and/or observed) whatsoever.My original post elaborates on this point. On
the other hand there is much evidence to support the reality of God’s
existence.My original post contains some of the available evidence and is
stated therein in a condensed manner.

3.My original post is not of a theological nature but more of a
Philosophical nature. In any event the 2 references quoted from
the Bible are intended only to back up the Christian belief and those of
other religions, that God created the universe when nothing other than
God existed.

3.Are you aware that in the formation of the canon and doctrine of the
Catholic Church considered all points of view including but not limited
to atheism and only accepted those based on the reality of God’s
revelation?
Christians believe that the sacred scriptures record events that
actually occurred.Sacred scripture strongly and emphatically evidence the
existence of God many times. The Catholic Church has accepted truth
revealed by God and has given reason(s) why it rejects or has rejected
the very many challenges to such truth ever since it’s foundation by
Jesus Christ about 2000 years ago.In other words the Church has clearly
and consistently stated the same fundamental truths over a period of
about 2000 years. No other institution or Church has done this.The Church
has successfully defended against attempts to falsify or discredit
Church doctrine over millennia.Such defences were almost always given in
a reasoned manner. The truth is what it is and can never be added to,
reduced or changed.

4.It seems to that atheists will never budge from their position unless
they are prepared to consider all available evidence of whatever kind
(material and theological) and not limit their investigations and
conclusions to physical science. My original post elaborates on the
severe limitations of physical science for explaining the whole truth
on just about everything.This is so because physical science is
essentially about discovering material things that already exists and
defining how a thing works.It fails to address the immaterial such as
the soul whose faculties are intelligence and free will.The soul in man
allows for abstract matters such as the the recognition of self,the
meaning of life, the recognition and appreciation of beauty and so on.the
soul is spiritual and is immaterial. The soul provides the appetite or
desire which in turn drives action.The imagined end drives action.
Physical science is rather poor at explaining why a material thing
exists and why it works the way it does.That is why it is paramount that
physical science should not be regarded as the sole harbour of truth.The
Catholic Church accepts scientific truths and is quite amenable in
incorporating it in its teachings.Again my original post provide more
details on the points in this paragraph.

4.It seems perfectly reasonable to ask belorg , yourself and your
supporters to back up their position on the creation of the universe and
the origin of motion not only with hard credible evidence but also in a
reasoned manner why the Catholic position is, in their opinion, false.It
seems to me that the Catholic contributors to this post have tried to not
only put their position but also to state why the atheist position is
false.It seems to me that the atheist position appears to be well stated
but they have not documented with reasoned argument and credible evidence
why the Catholic position is deemed to be false.In looking for truth
one should be free from bias and prejudice and be prepared to change
position. No matter what we (all of us) believe to be truth we must
acknowledge and accept any new evidence which proves without any doubt
that such previously held truth is false.

5.What is, is and what is not,is not.This truth applies to the material
and the immaterial.You probably know that theology is a branch of science
as are various physical sciences.Theology uses the same processes in
investigating and proving or disproving claimed truths as that used in
the physical sciences.It is quite reasonable and appropriate to use
theology in combination with physical science where appropriate to
define a truth in its totality.For example I know I exist but what is
that knowledge worth to me if I do not know why I exist. What would the
quality of human life be if it were solely driven by the material such as
the acquisition of stuff and the desires of the body? The reality is that
man’s nature constitutes a material body and a spiritual soul.The
combination of theology and physical science in appropriate instances is
critical to ascertain the whole truth.

To be continued

 

[robbodb]

Continued

1. My original post started off with the statement that either a supreme
   intelligent being (“God”) created the universe (and hence kicked off
   motion) or he did not. It MUST be one or the other. If God did not create
   the universe (and motion) then a non intelligent “what” must have done
   so. One point i make is that a what cannot of itself create
   intelligence.According to NASA the universe has intelligence (we are
   intelligent although I wonder sometimes).

7.My original post provide more details on the issues in this post
together with other issues and I ask that my original post be addressed
in an upfront manner if they are claimed to be false. In that case supporting
facts/evidence together with a reasoned commentary proving such falseness
is reasonably expected.

1. I wish to conclude by thanking belorg, yourself and your supporters
   for your contribution to this thread. If nothing else I would hope that
   it has provided insight and food for thought.

Truth, Love and Peace.

 

[robbodb]

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

Belorg. i hope your comment is not a disguised cop out.

I dispute my post is beyond the scope of this thread.Motion commenced with the creation of the universe by God. Therefore my post challenges the atheistic view that God does not
exist.
Hope you take up my challenge and you will respond in a manner set out in my post to Linux earlier today.

Truth, Love and Peace.