St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Oh, are you really just a Sophist or what. It is like I said, your efforts, Belorg too, by trying to be so clever make people think it is hopeless to reason with you, that is pointless to carry on a conversation with you. As I told you before, and Belorg too, St. Thomas showed what creation meant in Catholic Doctrine. He accepted creation as a matter of faith, so if you are trying to get us to prove it philosophically, it can’t be done, Big Bang or not.

So if you think it cannot be proveh, good, Catholics, ( thoughtful ones anyway ) would agree. This has always been true. So what is the big deal? It is a fact of Divine Revelation. If you don’t like that, tough toe nails. Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

“X comes from Y” = “Y caused X”, I think that’s a fine gloss.

Eleve, it would probably be better not to use " from" to explain the fact of creation. The minds you are dealing with either cannot understand the nuances of the English language or they are playing Sadducee, Pharisee with you. God caused ’ x " should do the trick.’

See if this helps in some of the current discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by belorg
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. ( End of Belorg’s quote )

My answer. ( Linus )
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. " ( End of my answer )

Eleve, you might also read S.T. Ques 44-47 on creation. I doubt if these birds can understand it, but you can give it a try.

Linus

 

[Eleve]

So, wG is God combined with…?

First of all, what are you arguing for here exactly? Because now it looks like you’re arguing that wG is God - but you just balked when I suggested that you show this.

But to answer your question directly, wG is not “God combined with” anything; that’s the wrong way of framing the question. wG is a world where only God exists. If we were to identify a world with its contents, we would have to say that the world containing only my socks is just my socks, and therefore that there is a possible world in my dresser drawer. Or that a world which contains God and a universe actually contains a separate possible world which is just God.

In set theory, {1} is not the same as 1, but it is also not “1 combined with something.” It’s just the set that contains only the number one. Possible worlds are like that. So to insist that they have the same properties as their constituents is false.

Look at it this way: if there is a possible world containing one object, O, until time t, and then at time t a second object pops into existence, then the world changes, but O does not change.

 

[tdgesq]

wG has God + nothing else, which means that, unless’ nothin else’ has properties wG has the same properties as God.

This is just bizarre; I mean, borderline gibberish. That there is a possible world with only one God (wG) doesn’t entail any of these conclusions. Almost all creative acts produce something different from the creator: parents begetting children, engineers designing bridges, biochemists creating creating pharmaceuticals. I mean, what?

You seem to argue that there is some special exception for God because he is immutable. But why should anyone accept your special exception? That a changeless God creates something (the universe) that changes is not logically inconsistent, at least not that you’ve demonstrated. Eleve wins. Time to move on.

 

[belorg]

First of all, what are you arguing for here exactly? Because now it looks like you’re arguing that wG is God - but you just balked when I suggested that you show this.

But to answer your question directly, wG is not “God combined with” anything; that’s the wrong way of framing the question. wG is a world where only God exists. If we were to identify a world with its contents, we would have to say that the world containing only my socks is just my socks, and therefore that there is a possible world in my dresser drawer. Or that a world which contains God and a universe actually contains a separate possible world which is just God.

In set theory, {1} is not the same as 1, but it is also not “1 combined with something.” It’s just the set that contains only the number one. Possible worlds are like that. So to insist that they have the same properties as their constituents is false.

Look at it this way: if there is a possible world containing one object, O, until time t, and then at time t a second object pops into existence, then the world changes, but O does not change.

If wG as a set is changeable, then that means that there is a necessary potency to change in the set,.But that potency does not depend on God, so Catholic doctrine is contradicted.

 

[belorg]

This is just bizarre; I mean, borderline gibberish. That there is a possible world with only one God (wG) doesn’t entail any of these conclusions. Almost all creative acts produce something different from the creator: parents begetting children, engineers designing bridges, biochemists creating creating pharmaceuticals. I mean, what?

All creative acts produce something from things that are already in the set.

You seem to argue that there is some special exception for God because he is immutable. But why should anyone accept your special exception? That a changeless God creates something (the universe) that changes is not logically inconsistent, at least not that you’ve demonstrated. Eleve wins. Time to move on.

I seem to argue that there is something special for God? God IS special.
And the fact that neither you not Eleve are capable of understanding my argument does not mean I haven’t demonstrated it. I can’t make blind men see.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

All creative acts produce something from things that are already in the set.

I seem to argue that there is something special for God? God IS special.
And the fact that neither you not Eleve are capable of understanding my argument does not mean I haven’t demonstrated it. I can’t make blind men see.

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

The Five Ways of ST. Thomas demonstrate not only how a power can be applied without the existence of change in the source of this power, it demonstrates that God is the source of this power. That you will not accept this as proof is based on the anti-metaphysical bias/prejudice of materialists. Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

To one who is irrational, nothing makes sense. Linus

 

[Al_Moritz]

To one who is irrational, nothing makes sense. Linus

Could you please cut it out? Linux has written good posts on this forum, and calling him irrational might be, um, irrational – maybe?

And indeed, please don’t bring Catholic dogma into philosophical discussions. Either the philosophy works, or it doesn’t – Catholic dogma won’t change that.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Linux from another thread:

Not only do you destroy the real distinction between esse and essence in contingent beings by asserting that esse is merely a principle having no real act of its own, also the consequence of rendering it a mere principle also renders the conjoining of existence with a potential essence objectively meaningless. What sense does it make to bring a potential being into existence if its act of existing is intrinsic to what it is by nature? No; the act of existing is by definition a real act in itself and remains truly distinct even after being conjoined with an essence as it was presented in the OP. Nothing is said about bringing esse into being or out of being, but rather a potentiality is said to become actual when esse is conjoined with it; and obviously it ceases to be actual when it is no-longer conjoined with esse. The underlying principle of bringing something “into” being does not speak true to what you are saying, or rather it certainly does not necessitate what you are asserting.

Also; consider the idea of God himself sustaining essences in existence. In God and through God with have our being. My thesis certainly makes more sense of that claim if God is the distinct esse of all essences. What sense does it make if God gives all potential essences their own sustaining act wholly apart from Gods own act?

If God is esse (being), and creatures have esse conjoined with their essence (i.e. have an actus essendi, an act of being, from God), then God indeed can create out of nothing. God simply gives being from His own being. Since His being is infinite, it is not in any way diminished (less infinite) by the act of creation.

 

[Linux]

Linux from another thread:

If God is esse (being), and creatures have esse conjoined with their essence (i.e. have an actus essendi, an act of being, from God), then God indeed can create out of nothing. God simply gives being from His own being. Since His being is infinite, it is not in any way diminished (less infinite) by the act of creation.

Hello Al Moritz. I agree that it makes rational sense to say that God can create an “essence” out of nothing since it doesn’t involve the same problem as bringing an act or reality of nothing, so long as we also agree that God is the esse of every essence. Thats how you get around the apparent contradiction. But I will never agree that God can create esse from nothing which is what linus and unfortunately most Catholic thinkers seem too think on this forum for fear of pantheism, which is not what I believe in.

God is the Being of all beings. Existence is absolute. It does not change or have quantity or distinction in it. There is no rational distinction between the esse of a hippo and the esse of a man. It is only essences that are distinct from each-other.

 

[Linux]

He accepted creation as a matter of faith, so if you are trying to get us to prove it philosophically, it can’t be done, Big Bang or not.

So if you think it cannot be proveh, good, Catholics, ( thoughtful ones anyway ) would agree. This has always been true. So what is the big deal? It is a fact of Divine Revelation. If you don’t like that, tough toe nails. Linus

If that is really the case (which it is not) then what is the point of the five ways?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Hello Al Moritz. I agree that it makes rational sense to say that God can create an “essence” out of nothing since it doesn’t involve the same problem as bringing an act or reality of nothing, so long as we also agree that God is the esse of every essence.

Yes, He can create an essence out of nothing.

Thats how you get around the apparent contradiction. But I will never agree that God can create esse from nothing which is what linus and unfortunately most Catholic thinkers seem too think on this forum for fear of pantheism, which is not what I believe in.

Agreed. God is the esse of every being in the sense that every being obtains an actus essendi (act of being) from God. God cannot create esse from nothing – He lends His own esse to creatures, to other essences. The Thomistic term of ‘actus essendi’ as a participation in God’s esse means that every actus essendi derives from God, and not from nothing. God is the Principal Act, from which all other acts derive, from which all potencies are actualized – that is ultimately what the Prime Mover and the other cosmological arguments boil down to.

Yes, pantheism would mean that God is all essences. But that the actus essendi of all beings is derived from God’s esse is not pantheism – it is Catholic theology, based on Aquinas’ (and perhaps others’, like Augustine’s) philosophy.

That God lends His esse to every creature is also the basis for the Catholic De Fide teaching that God sustains the world in being at every moment – if God would withhold His sustaining power the entire universe would instantly vanish into nothing.

God is the Being of all beings. Existence is absolute. It does not change or have quantity or distinction in it. There is no rational distinction between the esse of a hippo and the esse of a man. It is only essences that are distinct from each-other.

Agreed.

 

[tdgesq]

All creative acts produce something from things that are already in the set.

sigh In the set of what? Perhaps it’s the set of all mutable being, or maybe the set of all material being, or maybe the set of . . . . I can see now why you can’t draft a valid syllogism explaining your position.

I seem to argue that there is something special for God? God IS special.

No, what you do argue is that there is a special exception for what must proceed from God’s creative act - that it must only be one of God’s attributes perfectly ie. immutability. A position not advanced by any metaphysical construct available to us, and certainly not by your sad “syllogism.”

And the fact that neither you not Eleve are capable of understanding my argument does not mean I haven’t demonstrated it. I can’t make blind men see.

You aren’t understandable because your arguments do not conform to the laws of logic. It’s really just that simple.

 

[Linux]

Yes, He can create an essence out of nothing.

Agreed. God is the esse of every being in the sense that every being obtains an actus essendi (act of being) from God. God cannot create esse from nothing – He lends His own esse to creatures, to other essences. The Thomistic term of ‘actus essendi’ as a participation in God’s esse means that every actus essendi derives from God, and not from nothing. God is the Principal Act, from which all other acts derive, from which all potencies are actualized – that is ultimately what the Prime Mover and the other cosmological arguments boil down to.

Yes, pantheism would mean that God is all essences. But that the actus essendi of all beings is derived from God’s esse is not pantheism – it is Catholic theology, based on Aquinas’ (and perhaps others’, like Augustine’s) philosophy.

That God lends His esse to every creature is also the basis for the Catholic De Fide teaching that God sustains the world in being at every moment – if God would withhold His sustaining power the entire universe would instantly vanish into nothing.

Agreed.

Its always a pleasure. God bless.

 

[belorg]

If God is esse (being), and creatures have esse conjoined with their essence (i.e. have an actus essendi, an act of being, from God), then God indeed can create out of nothing. God simply gives being from His own being. Since His being is infinite, it is not in any way diminished (less infinite) by the act of creation.

No, God cannot create out of nothing.
, What you are describing here is creatio ex deo Some of the esse of God becomes the esse of something else, or gets conjoined with some essence. that is a change, which is impossible for an immutable being.
Your answer also commits the fallacy of confusing the cardinality of an infinite set with its quality. Although it may be true that if you remove one element from an infinity of elements
the result is still infinite, it is nevertheless a fact that the element in question is missing from the original set. Imagine an set containing an infinite number of people. If we remove Al Moritz from the set, the set is still infinite but does not contain Al Moritz.

 

[belorg]

sigh In the set of what? Perhaps it’s the set of all mutable being, or maybe the set of all material being, or maybe the set of . . . . I can see now why you can’t draft a valid syllogism explaining your position.

No, what you do argue is that there is a special exception for what must proceed from God’s creative act - that it must only be one of God’s attributes perfectly ie. immutability. A position not advanced by any metaphysical construct available to us, and certainly not by your sad “syllogism.”

You aren’t understandable because your arguments do not conform to the laws of logic. It’s really just that simple.

I’ll respond to you once you have something more than baseless assertions. For now, there is nothing to respond to.

 

[Al_Moritz]

No, God cannot create out of nothing.
, What you are describing here is creatio ex deo

Not if you consider the creation of essence out of nothing. Again, as Linux pointed out, creatio ex nihilo is only an apparent contradiction.

Some of the esse of God becomes the esse of something else, or gets conjoined with some essence. that is a change, which is impossible for an immutable being.

The discussion here has been over this before.

The article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

plato.stanford.edu/entries/immutability/

shows that while the concept of Divine Immutability has problems, they are not necessarily insurmountable (perhaps you want to read the article again).

Your answer also commits the fallacy of confusing the cardinality of an infinite set with its quality. Although it may be true that if you remove one element from an infinity of elements
the result is still infinite, it is nevertheless a fact that the element in question is missing from the original set. Imagine an set containing an infinite number of people. If we remove Al Moritz from the set, the set is still infinite but does not contain Al Moritz.

But that is the point. There is qualitatively no esse in creatures that is not contained in, or subtracts something from, the esse of God.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The discussion here has been over this before.

The article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

plato.stanford.edu/entries/immutability/

shows that while the concept of Divine Immutability has problems, they are not necessarily insurmountable (perhaps you want to read the article again).

The Summa of Aquinas sheds additional light on the issue:

newadvent.org/summa/1009.htm