I have no problem replying to you, robbodb, once you make some sort of point. I do not have the time nor the patience to read pages and pages, only a farction of which actually have anything to do with this discussion."Re: St. Thomas’ Motion Argument and Modern Physics
Quote:
Originally Posted by belorg
Because a pre-existing condition must have a relation to whatever it is a condition for and by definition, the Thomist God is unrelated to anything
That is not a view of Thomism or of any other theistic view I’ve ever encountered. Frankly it sounds like gibberish."
Eleve, i agree with your comment.
IMO the atheists who posted to this thread lack credibility. They come up with flawed thinking (to be kind) such as the one quoted above,and do not reply to contributors who respond to their posts.Time and again they have put forward their views of Christian beliefs which caused a response from the theists pointing out their flawed thinking and to set them straight so to speak.I don’t think i need to say what the reaction was from the atheists for the most part but it was more of in the way of reaffirming their position rather than a credible response.
I wholeheartedly agree that most theists do not know what they are talking about. The same holds for lots of atheists, unfortunately.Candidly, the theists IMO do not know what they are talking about most of the time and this has been pointed out to them on many occasions to which they have either failed to respond or respond with twaddle. For the most part they do not understand the Christian position or their own for that matter IMO.
I do not knwo what you are talking about, but I have not referenced any author in this thread.It is regrettable that we did not have the atheist position put forward with clarity, rational thinking and credible supporting evidence.Several of their posts referenced authors who proved to lack credibility.In addition their position was not backed with credible supporting evidence which had been tested or observed.
Oh really? Lots of philosophers? Pray tell, now who are those “lots of philosophers”? Cosmologists like Krauss and Hawking who have no clue about philosophy, in fact, who disdain philosophy, claiming that it has been “superseded by physics”?Sure, but lots of philosphers argue that such a state is impossible, and that the only possible state is “unstable nothing”, which of course is not really nothing.
Then could you explain what a “connection” is, before we go any further? Might as well know where the goalposts are before I bother writing anything else.I probably should have used “connection” instead of “relation”.I realize that" relation" is too broad a term.
X is more powerful than Y is a relation but not a connection.
What I claim is that the phrase "(the Thomist) God is the creator of the universe " is completely meaningless unless it is shown how God and the universe can be connected.
Well why can’t I? I wasn’t citing Krauss to say that something can come from nothing; I was citing him to say that things can begin to exist without being composed of pre-existing matter.I merely assume the Krauss is either right or wrong with respect to what you try to argue for. If the nothing Krauss describes is truly nothing, then Thomism is proven wrong. If he isn’t, you cannot use him in your argument.
A connection is something that connects two things.So far, Thomiist haveThen could you explain what a “connection” is, before we go any further? Might as well know where the goalposts are before I bother writing anything else.
I have never claimed that things cannot begin to exist without pre-existing matter. But what I am claiming is that things can only come into existence out of something else.Well why can’t I? I wasn’t citing Krauss to say that something can come from nothing; I was citing him to say that things can begin to exist without being composed of pre-existing matter.
How illuminating.A connection is something that connects two things.
I just read your post and I am prompted to agree with your view, with enthusiasm. I really like your two space modality idea, and your math association with that space. Also, your analogy associating physical reality with discrete space/rational numbers, and spiritual reality with continuous space/real numbers. I never thought of doing that - sort of Pythagorean style philosophy. That is, associating the two different number sets with the two different worlds; i.,e., the physical and spiritual. (body and soul - Cartesian duality). Also, i like your expressed ideas relating Cantor/Dedekind transfinite number theory as associated with space and string theory of matter. I have wrestled with these subjects for many years. I am now 83, and still wondering about them. BTW, how does the body interact with the soul - in this duality scheme of discrete vs continuous space scenario?Creatio ex nihilo, creation from nothing, is a fundamental doctrine of Catholicism. Furthermore, it is the position of Catholic theology that the Big Bang theory does not contradict the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo as long as the BB theory implies an absolute beginning.
The Big Bang theory states that not only did matter, time, and energy emerge from a singularity, but so too did the space that gives dimensionality to the universe.
How “space” emerged from whatever the singularity was immersed in can only be imagined by assuming two modalities of space.
This is not a problem because we can identify two modalities of space: the continuous and the discrete, both of which can be modeled mathematically. The Cantor-Dedekind axiom states that that the real numbers are order-isomorphic to the linear continuum of geometry. In other words the axiom states that there is a one to one correspondence between real numbers and points on a line. Cantor also showed that there are as many points on the real number line as there are in two or three-dimensional space. Hence all points in 3-dimensional space can be associated with the real numbers.
The real numbers, hence continuous space, are described by the second transfinite number, aleph-1. The rational numbers also lie on the real number line, are denumerable, and are described by the first transfinite number aleph-0. Rational numbers define discrete space.
The two modalities of space, discrete and continuous, allow us to explain the duality nature of reality. Objective reality, consisting of space, time, matter, energy, is constructed from discrete space, while continuous space provides a spiritual aspect of reality.
Thus, the mathematical properties of the infinite allow us to describe a scenario in which discrete space is crunched into a singularity and is caused to emerge from continuous space.
Because [aleph(1) - aleph(0) = aleph(1)] an infinite amount of discrete space can be removed from an infinite amount of continuous space without changing continuous space one iota; God can create the universe (or an infinite number of universes) from Himself without change. That is the nature of God, the Infinite.
Relative to God, aleph(0) is nihilo. And even more so, God does not require an infinite number of “points” to create the universe, some large finite number will do.
To those skeptics that may bridle at the thought the matter is composed of some form of space, consider what string theory implies. Also consider that the typical atom whose material size is determined by the position of “point-particle” electrons, is 50,000 times the size of the nucleus and the nucleus is composed of “point-particle” quarks. In other words, matter is mostly empty space.
I contend that the empty space that provides the materiality is the continuous space that provides the spiritual aspect of reality. I call, the continuous space from which the universe emerged, infinite nothingness. It is the Mind of God. We are immersed in the Mind of God.
I contend that what I have presented may not be the truth; I offer it as a plausible “philosophical” explanation for the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.
Yppop
It’ll have to do. That’s all I am asking of the theists around here. They just have to give one possible connection between God and creation. Should be a piece of cakeHow illuminating.
Not an assertion, a logical, philosophical necessity. God is the Great Connector !A connection is something that connects two things.So far, Thomiist have
1 An immutable entity
2 A universe
But nothing to connect the dots. Just the assertion: God is the creator of the universe.
And where did Krauss’ " nothingness " come from. Your error is in assuming Krauss’ arbitrary redefining of " nothing " is valid. By the way Krauss’ critics included some very well known atheists. " …The fool says in his heart, there is no God. Such do adbomnible things…" ( King David )I have never claimed that things cannot begin to exist without pre-existing matter. But what I am claiming is that things can only come into existence out of something else.
The thing is; Krauss’ critics say that the nothoingness of Krauss is not real nothingenss because it has properties. That means that the universe came from something, not form nothing. So, nowhere does Krauss support anything you are saying.
Belorg,Yppop, I appreciate that you at least see the problem with an immutable God creating something. The problem is that you claim that you can remove an infinity from an infinite set while the set still remains infinite. That’s true, but that only applies to the cardinality of the set. It is clear that, after removing certain elements from a set, the set qualitatively changes. God, if truly immutable cannot change in any sort of way.
The connection is God’s causal power… you might as well ask what the connection is between any other objects that interact causally. What is the connection between massive bodies and the shape of space-time? What is the connection between an unstable nothing and a something?It’ll have to do. That’s all I am asking of the theists around here. They just have to give one possible connection between God and creation. Should be a piece of cake
Why don’t you just say that you don’t know what it is?The connection is God’s causal power… you might as well ask what the connection is between any other objects that interact causally. What is the connection between massive bodies and the shape of space-time? What is the connection between an unstable nothing and a something?
Because that would be a lie?Why don’t you just say that you don’t know what it is?
Because I do know what it is. God (allegedly) created the universe. That is a connection, unless belorg gives us some more specific account of what a connection is.Why don’t you just say that you don’t know what it is?
Hello DamscottI just read your post and I am prompted to agree with your view, with enthusiasm. I really like your two space modality idea, and your math association with that space. Also, your analogy associating physical reality with discrete space/rational numbers, and spiritual reality with continuous space/real numbers. I never thought of doing that - sort of Pythagorean style philosophy. That is, associating the two different number sets with the two different worlds; i.,e., the physical and spiritual. (body and soul - Cartesian duality). Also, i like your expressed ideas relating Cantor/Dedekind transfinite number theory as associated with space and string theory of matter. I have wrestled with these subjects for many years. I am now 83, and still wondering about them. BTW, how does the body interact with the soul - in this duality scheme of discrete vs continuous space scenario?
The truth is hard to nail down. I would like to know some such things more solidly before I expire, but i guess that’s not likely for most of us; perhaps not even possible. Damscott
The connection between massive body and the shape of space-time is gravity. It is a force that applies to space-time. The connection between the unstable nothing and the something is the instability of the nothing.The connection is God’s causal power… you might as well ask what the connection is between any other objects that interact causally. What is the connection between massive bodies and the shape of space-time? What is the connection between an unstable nothing and a something?
There are points from aleph(1) that are removed. hence aleph(1) has qualitatively changes.Belorg,
Am I going to learn something new? I know that aleph(1) does not change quantitatively, could you please describe how aleph(1) changes qualitatively?
Yppop
No, Eleve, that’s an assertion. You yourself described this connection, but unless you or some theist can show how a power can possibly apply without any change, you still have no connection whatsoever.Because I do know what it is. God (allegedly) created the universe. That is a connection, unless belorg gives us some more specific account of what a connection is.
How is this ‘not an assertion’?Not an assertion, a logical, philosophical necessity. God is the Great Connector !
I have no idea where Krauss’ nothingness came from. Nor do I assume that Krauss’ arbitrary redifining of ‘nothing’ is valid.What on earth gave you the impression that I am defending Krauss’ position?And where did Krauss’ " nothingness " come from. Your error is in assuming Krauss’ arbitrary redefining of " nothing " is valid. By the way Krauss’ critics included some very well known atheists. " …The fool says in his heart, there is no God. Such do adbomnible things…" ( King David )
Perhaps this statement?I have no idea where Krauss’ nothingness came from. Nor do I assume that Krauss’ arbitrary redifining of ‘nothing’ is valid.What on earth gave you the impression that I am defending Krauss’ position?
Or this one?The connection between the unstable nothing and the something is the instability of the nothing.
The latter debunked here:Sure, but lots of philosphers argue that such a state is impossible, and that the only possible state is “unstable nothing”, which of course is not really nothing.
Belorg.There are points from aleph(1) that are removed. hence aleph(1) has qualitatively changes.
Imagine an infinite set of persons. Then remove Peter and John from the set. The remaining set, although its cardinality hasn’t changed, lacks Peter and John. Hence the set has qualitatively chnaged.