St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[Eleve]

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

Then it sounds like the issue you take here is not that you think this isn’t “causation in any sort of meaningful way,” but just that you think it’s in fact impossible.

But the Thomist God cannot create the universe as that would be a violation of ex nihilo nihil fit.

Care to explain what exactly you mean by “Ex nihilo nihil fit”? And exactly why it prohibits the creation of the Universe by God?

And care to show where in Thomas or anywhere else in classical theism you find your interpretation of Ex nihilo nihil fit?

Please, write it up as a syllogism. I want to see exactly what your premises are and how they get to your conclusion. Instead of this eternally idiotic cat-and-mouse game where I press you and press you and then you say “Oh look over there, causation is meaningless (but only when you say it), oh, where were we, anyway Ex nihilo nihil fit means God can’t make the universe.”

Please. All I want is for you to act like a philosopher, tell me what your premises are, and make it clear how they get you to your conclusion. Modus ponens will suffice. Can you do that?

 

[belorg]

Care to explain what exactly you mean by “Ex nihilo nihil fit”? And exactly why it prohibits the creation of the Universe by God?

I have done that more than once already. It means that from nothing, nothing comes. Adding some immutable entity to this does not change this fact.

And care to show where in Thomas or anywhere else in classical theism you find your interpretation of Ex nihilo nihil fit?

In Thomas and virtually everywhere else they special plead by saying that nothing can come form nothing accept if God acts in some mysterious way.

Please, write it up as a syllogism. I want to see exactly what your premises are and how they get to your conclusion. Instead of this eternally idiotic cat-and-mouse game where I press you and press you and then you say “Oh look over there, causation is meaningless (but only when you say it), oh, where were we, anyway Ex nihilo nihil fit means God can’t make the universe.”

You started this ridiculous cat-and-mouse game.

But if you want a syllogiism, here is one

1 There is a possible wolrd (wG) with only God.
2 wG is immutable
3 Therefore nothing apart from God is possible in wG

 

[belorg]

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.

You did not write ‘lLinux’, you wrote "Llnus"n which is a misspelling of your own name. So, maybe you don’t understand English?

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

You probably mean ‘Eleve’

I give up, Elve is the only sane one on this thread.

Maybe that’s true. Maybe ‘Elve’ is the only sane one on this thread. I must say, I admire the fact that you recognize the fact that you are not sane either.

 

[Eleve]

I have done that more than once already. It means that from nothing, nothing comes. Adding some immutable entity to this does not change this fact.

Yes, I know what it means in English. I’m asking you to cash it out in clearer terms. Because right now it’s unclear whether you take it to mean:

1. 
   *]Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
   *]If in some possible world nothing exists at some time, then necessarily no thing will exist in that world at any later time.
   *]Everything that begins to exist is composed of pre-existing matter.
   *]Something else.
   

   You started this ridiculous cat-and-mouse game.

   But if you want a syllogiism, here is one

   1 There is a possible wolrd (wG) with only God.
   2 wG is immutable
   3 Therefore nothing apart from God is possible in wG

   I see no reason for anyone to affirm (2). There’s the Doctrine of Divine Immutability, but that just says that God doesn’t change, not that the world where God exists doesn’t change. Obviously this world changes, so anyone who thinks that God exists in the actual world won’t think that God rules out changes in the rest of the universe.

 

[tdgesq]

But if you want a syllogiism, here is one

1 There is a possible wolrd (wG) with only God.
2 wG is immutable
3 Therefore nothing apart from God is possible in wG

Um . . . . no, that isn’t a valid syllogism. The middle term appears in the conclusion, among a variety of other problems.

 

[belorg]

Yes, I know what it means in English. I’m asking you to cash it out in clearer terms. Because right now it’s unclear whether you take it to mean:

1. 
   *]Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
   *]If in some possible world nothing exists at some time, then necessarily no thing will exist in that world at any later time.
   *]Everything that begins to exist is composed of pre-existing matter.
   *]Something else.
   
   I see no reason for anyone to affirm (2). There’s the Doctrine of Divine Immutability, but that just says that God doesn’t change, not that the world where God exists doesn’t change. Obviously this world changes, so anyone who thinks that God exists in the actual world won’t think that God rules out changes in the rest of the universe.

1. 
   Per (1), there is nothing else in wG, so if God is immutable, there is nothing mutable in wG, hence wG cannot change. the fact that this world changes means that either (a)“ex nihilo nihil fit” is false, or(b) “God is immutable is false” or (c)that apart from God, something else is necessary, which would means that (1) is false.
   
   (a) means that God is redandant
   (b) means that the Thomist concept of God is false and
   (c) means that Catholic doctrine is false.

 

[belorg]

Um . . . . no, that isn’t a valid syllogism. The middle term appears in the conclusion, among a variety of other problems.

It needs some refining, but once you understand its (name removed by moderator)lications, you see the basic problem for the Thomist concept of God.

 

[Eleve]

Per (1), there is nothing else in wG, so if God is immutable, there is nothing mutable in wG, hence wG cannot change.

Suppose I have a jar, and the only thing in it is immutable. Then there is nothing mutable in the jar - and yet the jar can change if something else is added to it.

 

[belorg]

Suppose I have a jar, and the only thing in it is immutable. Then there is nothing mutable in the jar - and yet the jar can change if something else is added to it.

This analogy fails, since in this case the jar and whatever is in it do not constitute a possible world. In my argument, it follows logically that the possible world wG is immutable, which means it necessarily always stays the same.
Moreove, the something else that is added comes fom nothing, which is, again, a violation of ex nihilo …

 

[Eleve]

This analogy fails, since in this case the jar and whatever is in it do not constitute a possible world. In my argument, it follows logically that the possible world wG is immutable, which means it necessarily always stays the same.

It does not follow. You’re committing the fallacy of composition: God is the only thing in the world, God is immutable, therefore the world is immutable.

Maybe there is some more specific reason that God’s immutability rules out creation, but that reason is not exhibited in the two-step argument you’ve made.

 

[belorg]

It does not follow. You’re committing the fallacy of composition: God is the only thing in the world, God is immutable, therefore the world is immutable.

Maybe there is some more specific reason that God’s immutability rules out creation, but that reason is not exhibited in the two-step argument you’ve made.

The fallacy of composition does not apply here. The fallacy of composition is relevant in cases in which the whole can be quantitatively or qualitatively different from its parts. e.g. a world with only very small particles does not mean that world is small. A wordl filled with very simple particles is not necessarily a simple world.
But in this case, God combined with nothing cannot have diffrent properties than God because ‘‘nothing’’ has no properties.

So, you 'll have to come up with something different.

 

[Eleve]

Nonsense. God is not a possible world. Therefore the possible world that contains God is distinct from God, and may have different properties - such as mutability.

 

[belorg]

Nonsense. God is not a possible world. Therefore the possible world that contains God is distinct from God, and may have different properties - such as mutability.

That’s a violation of Catholic doctrine. A possible world with only God dos not have any other properties.

If you have nothing better to reply than this sort of nonsense, please do not waste my time anymore.

 

[Eleve]

Please, show me where Catholic doctrine says that God is identical with some possible world, or that God is indiscernible from some possible world.

 

[belorg]

Please, show me where Catholic doctrine says that God is identical with some possible world, or that God is indiscernible from some possible world.

God is the creator of everything visible and invisble. The Nicean Creed.

 

[Eleve]

OK. That isn’t what I asked you to show me. Nowhere in the Nicene Creed does it say that God and the world are the same object.

 

[belorg]

OK. That isn’t what I asked you to show me. Nowhere in the Nicene Creed does it say that God and the world are the same object.

Who has ever claimed that God and the world are th same object?
I am talking about the fact that if God is the creator of everything, then wG is a possible world.

Now matter how often you try to deny that, it is a logical conclusion, unless the creation of the universe by God is necessary, but that would have desastrous consequences for Catholic doctrine…

 

[Eleve]

Who has ever claimed that God and the world are th same object?

You said that “God combined with nothing cannot have diffrent properties than God because ‘nothing’ has no properties.”

But I’m not saying that “God combined with nothing” can have different properties from God. I’m saying that wG can have different properties from God, because God is not WG.

Your response was to claim that Catholic doctrine entails that wG has all the same properties as God.

And I’m asking for you to either find a source for that in Catholic doctrine or to retract your claim.

 

[belorg]

You said that “God combined with nothing cannot have difefrent properties than God because ‘nothing’ has no properties.”

But I’m not saying that “God combined with nothing” can have different properties from God. I’m saying that wG can have different properties from God, because God is not WG.

So, wG is God combined with…?

Your response was to claim that Catholic doctrine entails that wG has all the same properties as God.

wG has God + nothing else, which means that, unless’ nothin else’ has properties wG has the same properties as God. IIfnyou truly want to deny this, then I am done with you.

And I’m asking for you to either find a source for that in Catholic doctrine or to retract your claim.

I am asking you to prove that wG, which according to Catholic doctrine is a possible world with God and nothing else can have properties that God does not have, or to admit that you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

My argument is that if God is the cerator of everything, it follows that there is a possible world in which God is alone.
In such a world there is act but no potency. Hence, since God is immutable, there can never be potency. Hence God cannot create potency. Hence potency cannot have been crated by God. Hence, either potency is eternal and uncreated, which contradicts Cattholic doctrine, or potency can be crated, which contradicts the fact that God is pure act.

Not in the least. Potency is not a being, substance, or thing. If you knew anything about Thomism, you would know that. You can read it any time, nothing is stoping you. In the philosophy of St. Thomas " potency " is a " principle " or cause of being along with " act, " the second " principle of being. This applies to all created being. Angels are composed of essence ( the principle of potency for angels ) and existence ( the principle of act for angles.

In created things the potency principle is matter, the principle of act is form, through which material being gets its existence. In matter there any number of forms in potency which may be educed by a number of causes. For example, water contains in potency the forms of H2 and O. By a process of electroysis ( cause ) the potential forms of H2 and O can be educed from water, made actual.

As you see potency is a principle, not a thing, it is not being.
Now it is true that when the universe had not been created there existed only God. According to Catholic teaching God, Who is a living, intelligent being, having infinite wisdom and goodness and knowledge ( among other things ) knows all possible things that could be. These are facts of his knowledge, not principles of potency.

You are correct in saying God cannot create potency because as I showed above " potency " is not a thing but a principle. So to say God cannot create potency is to state the obvious. Hence there is no dilemma. Potency is neither " eternal and uncreated " nor " created. " Thus, there is no contradiction in Catholic Doctrine. You have errected a " red herring, " a " straw man. "

[QUOTEThere is nothing wrong with that, Al.
[/QUOTE]