St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

  • Thread starter Thread starter raikou
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
belorg said:
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.
Click to expand...
First of all, in general relativity gravity is not a force, and it is not something that exists between massive bodies and space-time. Instead, gravity - the apparent attraction between bodies - is what is explained by the space-time curvature.

Second, and much more importantly, the “connections” you just gave are only as good as the proposed connection between God and the universe. If the connection between massive bodies and space-time is gravity, then the connection between God and the universe is his creative power. If the connection between unstable nothing and something is the instability of the nothing, then the connection between omnipotent God and the universe is the omnipotence of God. So what gives?
But wha does causal power mean for an immutable entity? Applying any sort of power or force entails a change. That’s the whole problem that you do not seem to graps. Whatver ‘connection’ requires a change.
Click to expand...
Is that a metaphysical necessity? What if the world were to operate according to the laws of Conway’s Game of Life? Then some cells could bring others to life without themselves changing their state.

Sure, in our world it may be true that the laws of physics require that everything that exerts a force undergoes a change. But presumably you don’t want your argument to be as silly as “God can’t exist because then he would violate the laws of physics.”
belorg said:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s not an assertion. I am explaining what the standard view of the theist is. But I can hardly assert that view, as I do not believe it.
 
Yeah, and by the same token my trust in Krauss as a physicist does not entail that I think he is right about much of anything in philosophy.
 
Eleve said:
First of all, in general relativity gravity is not a force, and it is not something that exists between massive bodies and space-time. Instead, gravity - the apparent attraction between bodies - is what is explained by the space-time curvature.
Click to expand...
Massive bodies exert a force to space-time, which, as a result curves.
Second, and much more importantly, the “connections” you just gave are only as good as the proposed connection between God and the universe. If the connection between massive bodies and space-time is gravity, then the connection between God and the universe is his creative power.
Click to expand...
Grarvity bis the connection between two entities. The creative force is not a connection between two entities because one of them does not exist until this “connection” exists
If the connection between unstable nothing and something is the instability of the nothing, then the connection between omnipotent God and the universe is the omnipotence of God. So what gives?
Click to expand...
An unstable nothing IS something. Omnipotence only has a connection to God, not to the universe.
Is that a metaphysical necessity? What if the world were to operate according to the laws of Conway’s Game of Life? Then some cells could bring others to life without themselves changing their state.
Click to expand...
What if things could pop into existence from nothing? Is it a metaphysical impossibility?
If it is, the creation of something from nothing is indeed metaphysically impossible.
Sure, in our world it may be true that the laws of physics require that everything that exerts a force undergoes a change. But presumably you don’t want your argument to be as silly as “God can’t exist because then he would violate the laws of physics.”
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with the laws of physics, it has to do with the laws of logic. If something cannot come from nothing then nothing can be done to change that, no matter how omnipotent an entity is added to the nothing.
It’s not an assertion. I am explaining what the standard view of the theist is. But I can hardly assert that view, as I do not believe it.
Click to expand...
You just repeat the standard theist’s assertion. It’s not because a view is standard among some people that it isn’t an assertion.
Maybe you don’t assert this, but that does not mean it isn’t an assertion.
 
yppop said:
Belorg.
I suggest that you look up “Hilbert’s Hotel” paradox to get a better understanding of the nature of the intinite. The infinite set of people is still an infinite set of people no matter how many Peters and Johns you remove; infinitude is a characteristic “quality” of God. Removing P & J does not change the “quality” or quantity of God.

God is immutable no matter how many Belorgs are removed.

Yppop
Click to expand...
Sure it is still an infinite set of people, but it is not the same infinite set of people. So, if you remove anything from God, God cannot be immutable.
 
Eleve said:
Yeah, and by the same token my trust in Krauss as a physicist does not entail that I think he is right about much of anything in philosophy.
Click to expand...
He probably isn’t right about much of anything in philosophy .IIRC he thinks philosophy is useless.
So, I really do not understand why you brought him up in this discussion.
 
belorg said:
Grarvity bis the connection between two entities. The creative force is not a connection between two entities because one of them does not exist until this “connection” exists
Click to expand...
Then the same goes for the unstable nothing. It cannot possibly have a connection with stable matter, which does not yet exist.

Further, it’s now entirely unclear to me why something should have to be connected to another thing in order to bring it into existence.
I brought Krauss up as an authority on physics.

I wanted to make a point about physics. Not about philosophy, just about physics.

Krauss is a physicist.

So I cited him, as a physicist, to support my claim about physics.

Capisci?
 
Eleve said:
Then the same goes for the unstable nothing. It cannot possibly have a connection with stable matter, which does not yet exist.
Click to expand...
Matter comes from this unstable nothing, but there is nothing that can possibly come from God
Further, it’s now entirely unclear to me why something should have to be connected to another thing in order to bring it into existence.
Click to expand...
It’s not possible to bring something into existence.
I brought Krauss up as an authority on physics.
Click to expand...
I wanted to make a point about physics. Not about philosophy, just about physics.
Click to expand...
Krauss is a physicist.
Click to expand...
So I cited him, as a physicist, to support my claim about physics.
Click to expand...
Capisci?
Click to expand...
This discussion is not about physics. So Krauss was, is and will be completely irrelevent here. Capice?
 
Let me put that another way. I thought that your thesis is that nothing can come from God. So if that’s your argument, then it’s circular.
belorg said:
This discussion is not about physics. So Krauss was, is and will be completely irrelevent here.
Click to expand...
Insofar as physical possibility entails metaphysical possibility, yes, it’s relevant. I brought up Krauss to support my claim that things can begin to exist without being composed of pre-existing matter, since some people seemed to be denying that.
 
belorg said:
He probably isn’t right about much of anything in philosophy .IIRC he thinks philosophy is useless.
So, I really do not understand why you brought him up in this discussion.
Click to expand...
Actually, if I remember correctly, it was you who brought up Krauss first in this discussion – at least when it comes to his definition of ‘nothing’, and the funny ‘unstable nothing’.
 
Al_Moritz said:
Actually, if I remember correctly, it was you who brought up Krauss first in this discussion – at least when it comes to his definition of ‘nothing’, and the funny ‘unstable nothing’.
Click to expand...
Belorg,

Ok, I re-checked, and indeed from the beginning you did not defend Krauss’ position on ‘nothing’ (page 19 of this thread). My apologies for misreading you.
 
It came from God. There’s no problem with this unless you think that everything has to be made out of pre-existing matter. Which, for the 923d time, there is no reason to think - and, according to physicists who know more about this than either of us, plenty of reason to reject.
 
Eleve said:
It came from God. There’s no problem with this unless you think that everything has to be made out of pre-existing matter. Which, for the 923d time, there is no reason to think.
Click to expand...
Out of nothing comes nothing. You have presented no rational reason to think that something can pop out of nothing just because God willed it to.
 
belorg said:
Sure it is still an infinite set of people, but it is not the same infinite set of people. So, if you remove anything from God, God cannot be immutable.
Click to expand...
Belorg,
You apparently are talking about a different set of infinities , one in which you can transform an one infinite set into another infinite set merely by removing two members. I am not familiar with that mathematical form. Could you reference something for me?

You seem to be a reasonly intelligent person, what to do think about my contention that objective reality is constructed from discrete space? See post 291.
Yppop
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top