St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

  • Thread starter Thread starter raikou
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Eleve said:
I think that causation has meaning, and I don’t see why you’d think that I don’t.

It’s precisely because I think causation has meaning, and because you think the same, that I don’t understand why you say that “Y bbkjkjkjnhkjed X” is just as meaningful as “Y caused X.”

“bbkjkjkjnhkjed” is gibberish. Causation is, as you say, meaningful. So if I tell you that theists believe that God caused the universe to exist, what is unclear about that?
Click to expand...
Everything.
 
belorg said:
What do you mean you are not familiar with that mathematical form? If Peter is removed from Hilberts hotel, then Hilbert’s hotel is still full, but there is a diffrenc between the two sets in that one contains Peter and the other doesn’t.
Click to expand...
I am not familiar with any mathematical form that allows you to subtract 1, 2, 3 or more members in order to create a “different” infinity from the one from which the members are subtracted… Do such infinities have transfinite numbers?

I am starting to believe that you do not have a full understanding of the nature of infinity. Do you realize that it is the nature of infinity that the parts are equal to the whole. It is easily shown that the set of odd integers is equal to the set of all integers.

Consequently, if we remove the number “2” and the number “3” from the infinite set , we are still left with an infinite set of numbers. Likewise if we remove two people from an infinite set of people, no matter what their names, in the same way the “2” and “3” are names, there is still an infinite set of people. Names are superfluous.

What we are talking about is the immutabilty of God. The nature of God that guarantees His immutability is infinitude. You can not change God’s infinitude because you cannot change infinity by subtraction of members whether or not the members are people or points of space.

I know the concept of infinity is not easily grasped. Cantor himself ended up in an asylum, so I understand how you might have confused “is different” with “it has changed” when referring to the infinite.
Objective rality could be constructed from discrete space I guess, but not if what/whoever created objective reality is immutable.
Click to expand...
That is true except if the what/whotever is infinite.

I see we have come to an impass, you are going to insist the infinite can be changed therefore cannot be a property that guarantees immutabilty and I take an opposite view, an infinite cannot be changed by simple addtion, subtraction, or multiplication; only by exponentiation.
I know I have mathematics on my side, God only knows where your ideas are coming from.

Yppop
 
tdgesq said:
From the theist’s standpoint? The answer is from God, obviously.
Click to expand...
I am a theist. But I can see that you still haven’t explained what you mean when you say that it came from God. How can that happen without violating the logical distinction between something and nothing?
 
Linux said:
I am a theist. But I can see that you still haven’t explained what you mean when you say that it came from God. How can that happen without violating the logical distinction between something and nothing?
Click to expand...
Here is an earlier quote from you.

#31 Jan 25, '13, 8:15 pm
Linux
Junior Member Join Date: November 21, 2012
Posts: 476

Re: St. Thomas’ Motion Argument and Modern Physics
All change is the actualization of potentiality. To explain the existence of change, you must begin with a being that is not the actualization of potentiality, but is instead that which actualizes potentiality. This being cannot be an object that is changing since the ultimate cause is not itself the actualization of potentiality.

If you remove the unmoved mover, then change cannot occur because there is nothing to actualize that which is merely potential. You would literally be getting change and being out of absolutely nothing. You cannot get change or being out of absolutely nothing, therefore there has to be an unmoved mover that gives being to potential objects or actualizes potentiality.

How an unmoved mover gives actuality to potential is irrelevant in so far as determining the necessity of such a being. Even if there is an apparent contradiction, Actual Existence logically and absolutely precedes potentiality or change. You cannot have potentiality or possibility without existence. Therefore we know that an unmoved mover exists."

Now you seem to understand somthing about the philosophy, so you ought to understand that he demonstrated that: 1. he proved that the existence of the universe requires a First Cause. 2. This a cause for its existence. 3. This is " creative cause " from no-being, from no prior existing matter. 4. Thomas believed on Faith that the universe was created by God from nothing.

How do you square being a theist with your post # 38 above? You cannot be a main stream Theist and think God created the universe out of Himself - that is Pantheism, that is not Theism. Don’t missunderstand. I am glad you at least " think " you are a Theist and I am glad you have read a little of St. Thomas. Nevertheless, I and others are going to hold you feet to the fire when you get off base. Linus
 
Linusthe2nd said:
How do you square being a theist with your post # 38 above? You cannot be a main stream Theist and think God created the universe out of Himself - that is Pantheism, that is not Theism. Don’t missunderstand. I am glad you at least " think " you are a Theist and I am glad you have read a little of St. Thomas. Nevertheless, I and others are going to hold you feet to the fire when you get off base. Linus
Click to expand...
Can you explain how God does not violate the absolute logical distinction between being and nothing.
 
Linux said:
I am a theist. But I can see that you still haven’t explained what you mean when you say that it came from God. How can that happen without violating the logical distinction between something and nothing?
Click to expand...
Linux,

With respect, I’m really not sure what you are asking of me or what you find to be a violation of logic. God is the first efficient cause of the existence of all material being, ie. the universe. I didn’t realize that any “logical distinction” is being violated. If you think there is, you will need to explain.
 
Linux said:
Can you explain how God does not violate the absolute logical distinction between being and nothing.
Click to expand...
You seem to know something about Thomism. Arguing from his philosophy, God is a Being, He a " something " that actually exists. " Being " includes all actually existing Extents. " Being " is logically applied to all Extents - God, Angels, animate and inaniment Extents alike - by analogy. " Being " is beyond all Categories, beyond Genus, Species, and Difference.

So how can God possibly violate the " absolute logical distinction between being and nothing ???

Linus
 
tdgesq said:
Linux,

With respect, I’m really not sure what you are asking of me or what you find to be a violation of logic. God is the first efficient cause of the existence of all material being, ie. the universe. I didn’t realize that any “logical distinction” is being violated. If you think there is, you will need to explain.
Click to expand...
I think LInus has a short somewhere in the circuit. Linus
 
Linusthe2nd said:
You seem to know something about Thomism. Arguing from his philosophy, God is a Being, He a " something " that actually exists. " Being " includes all actually existing Extents. " Being " is logically applied to all Extents - God, Angels, animate and inaniment Extents alike - by analogy. " Being " is beyond all Categories, beyond Genus, Species, and Difference.

So how can God possibly violate the " absolute logical distinction between being and nothing ???

Linus
Click to expand...
You have just demonstrated how God violates this distinction. God is immutable being, yet this immutable being without changing “extends” to other things. Some a bit less polite people than I would call this hogwash. I just call it logically impossible.
 
belorg said:
Causation is meaningful, the ‘causation’ you are talking about could just as well be described as bbkjkjkjnhkjed
Click to expand...
Well, you’re going to have to say a little more if you want to have any hope of a convincing argument. Why is God’s creation of the universe not causation?
 
Eleve said:
Well, you’re going to have to say a little more if you want to have any hope of a convincing argument. Why is God’s creation of the universe not causation?
Click to expand...
Don’t try to move the goalposts, Eleve. If you think this can be called causation in any sort of meaningful way, then you argue for it. Of course if God created the universe this would be causation, But the Thomist God cannot create the universe as that would be a violation of ex nihilo nihil fit. All you have responded to this is: God can do that because God is the cause of the universe. IOW God is the cause of the universe because God created the universe and God is the creator of the universe because he caused it. I have repeatedly asked you to clarify what excatly this means,and you have repeatedly failed to answer this question.
Until you do, I won’t respond to you anymore.
 
belorg said:
That first sentence may very well hit the nail on the head.
Click to expand...
The joke is on me. Linux is the one that has shorted his circuit, Belorg also. Do you guys understand the English language? I am beginning to wonder.

I think Elve is the only one that hasn’t shorted the circuits.

I give up, Elve is the only sane one on this thread.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
The joke is on me. Linux is the one that has shorted his circuit, Belorg also. Do you guys understand the English language? I am beginning to wonder.

I think Elve is the only one that hasn’t shorted the circuits.

I give up, Elve is the only sane one on this thread.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you just answer the questions being posed instead of insulting people? All I have seen from you so far is semantics, strawmen, Ad hominem attacks, and circular arguments in the form of dogma posing as philosophy .

You and Elve are merely asserting that the act of creating something from absolutely nothing makes rational sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top