St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[Love4All]

So, wG is God combined with…?

wG = {G}. G {- {G}.

The world wG is the set {G}. The set {G} is not the same thing as its element, G. Rather, G is an element of {G}. Therefore,

{G} =/= G.

The possible world with God alone in it is not the same thing as God in Himself.

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.

{} = 0.
{0} = 1. ( {{}} = 1. )
{0, 1} = 2, etc. ( { {}, {{}} } = 2. )

Every set contains the null set as an element. Thus the set, wG = {God}, which is the same thing as to say, { {}, God}. God is One. (Theologically accurate!) Thus, God = {0}, whereas the set containing God AND nothing else, would have to be {0, {0}}, or 2.

Thus, G = 1 and wG = 2; they are not equal.

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.

2 does not have identical properties to 1.

 

[yppop]

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,
I assume that you are never going to understand the subtleties of God and His infinitude. Your inability to understand how an immutable being can create a separate entity and still remain immutable borders on the juvenile. For example, here is part of my post 359:

*"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 immutability of God. The nature of God that guarantees His immutability is infinitude. You cannot 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 fail to see and you did not disprove that my explanation did not make sense. Hence, I can only assume that you are a juvenile and no amount of mature explanation will sway you. I will give up trying with this one last attempt with a “Sesame Street” approach:

On day 1 a chicken-licken reaches maturity.
On day 2, chicken-licken creates and lays an egg.
On the evening of day 2, chicken-licken is still chicken-licken in the same way that chicken-licken was on day 1.

Chicken-licken was not changed by the simple expedient of laying and egg. I know! I know! not a direct analogy but simple enough to illustrate the point that it is possible to create something without changing the creator.

Yppop

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

God does not give any thing from his own Being ( esse ) to his creation. Their esse they have through the creative act of God. The Esse of God is absolutely other than and outside of the esse he bestowed on creatrues as a necessity of their being.

The phrase " from God " cannot be interpreted as meaning that the esse of creatures is a " part " of the esse of God. Rather it means creatures have esse as a part of their created substance bestowed by God when he created each substance ( being ) out of nothing or non being.

What you suggested in an earlier post that God bestows his own esse on creatures is Pantheism. You seem to see this as a way to get around the problem of " creation ex nihil. " When Thomas uses the phrase " participates in " he means " caused by, " not " shared in. "

How God can do this of course is a great mystery. One we may never know the answer to even if we get to Heaven. But it is a logical necessity if we are to escape Pantheism.

Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

That is the problem with " thought problems. " Generally they are nothing but " red herrings, " clever attempts at Sophism.

In reality we have three choices. 1. The universe always existed without cause. 2. The universe created and sustains itself. 3. God created the universe out of nothing, no being, not even out of his own being.

It is more reasonable to, more logical, to conclude that God created the universe out of nothing, no being ( choice # 3) . And certainly not out of his own esse, since this would be the same as choice # 2.

And we have it on Divine Authority that God did indeed create the universe ex nihil, as defined by the Catholic Church and as taught by St. Thomas and the Scholastics.

Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes, He can create an essence out of nothing.[/QOTE]

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

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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?

It is a logical necessity as Thomas has shown. You can’t be a theist and hold your views. If anything you would be a Pantheist and that is not a Theist.

In the interaction between creatures " something can not come from nothing. " But the only way we can have a universe and escape Pantheism is for God to have created the univers ex nihil, from no being. This is the most logical and reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe and for its continued existence.

Linus

 

[Eleve]

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.

Why can’t the potency depend on God? The world now is full of potencies, and it’s also supposed to depend on God.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Absolutely wrong, That is not Catholic theology. And the position you have taken here is indeed Pantheism.

Absolutely wrong? Not Catholic theology?

Prove it.

Source, chapter, verse, please.

 

[belorg]

wG = {G}. G {- {G}.

The world wG is the set {G}. The set {G} is not the same thing as its element, G. Rather, G is an element of {G}. Therefore,

{G} =/= G.

The possible world with God alone in it is not the same thing as God in Himself.

{} = 0.
{0} = 1. ( {{}} = 1. )
{0, 1} = 2, etc. ( { {}, {{}} } = 2. )

Every set contains the null set as an element. Thus the set, wG = {God}, which is the same thing as to say, { {}, God}. God is One. (Theologically accurate!) Thus, God = {0}, whereas the set containing God AND nothing else, would have to be {0, {0}}, or 2.

Thus, G = 1 and wG = 2; they are not equal.

2 does not have identical properties to 1.

In mathematics, that is true, just like in mathematics, there are actual infinities.The question is: are mathematical sets real? If they aren’t, your reply to me is meaningless, and if they are, that would completely contradict Catholic doctrine of creation from nothing, since even an empty set would not be nothing.

 

[belorg]

Why can’t the potency depend on God? The world now is full of potencies, and it’s also supposed to depend on God.

If, after so many pages of discussion, you still ask this question, I have nothing more to say to you.
I am a very patient man, but my patinece is not infinite.

 

[Linux]

God does not give any thing from his own Being ( esse ) to his creation. Their esse they have through the creative act of God. The Esse of God is absolutely other than and outside of the esse he bestowed on creatrues as a necessity of their being.

The phrase " from God " cannot be interpreted as meaning that the esse of creatures is a " part " of the esse of God. Rather it means creatures have esse as a part of their created substance bestowed by God when he created each substance ( being ) out of nothing or non being.

Firstly nobody said that creatures have a “part” of God in them.

Secondly, that something cannot come from nothing (the absence of reality) is the underlying bases of Aquinas’ arguments. His Arguments simply don’t work without that logical principle. You cannot create esse out of nothing without violating the absolute logical distinction between something and nothing. Its a logical impossibility, no more logical than saying that a magician really did pull a rabbit out of nothing. The act of reality is absolute, and what your proposing is magic. Not a miracle.

The only way that creation can exist is for it to participate in Gods esse, for there is no esse other than God; there is only one God. Through God and in God we have our being. That is in no way saying that God is the essence of creatures. Therefore it is not pantheism; rather it is Existential-Thomism.

 

[Linux]

Absolutely wrong? Not Catholic theology?

Prove it.

Source, chapter, verse, please.

I second that motion.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Firstly nobody said that creatures have a “part” of God in them.

Secondly, that something cannot come from nothing (the absence of reality) is the underlying bases of Aquinas’ arguments. His Arguments simply don’t work without that logical principle. You cannot create esse out of nothing without violating the absolute logical distinction between something and nothing. Its a logical impossibility, no more logical than saying that a magician really did pull a rabbit out of nothing. The act of reality is absolute, and what your proposing is magic. Not a miracle.

The only way that creation can exist is for it to participate in Gods esse, for there is no esse other than God; there is only one God. Through God and in God we have our being. That is in no way saying that God is the essence of creatures. Therefore it is not pantheism; rather it is Existential-Thomism.

All very well said. I cannot wait for Linus to try to refute any of this.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Absolutely wrong? Not Catholic theology?

Prove it.

Source, chapter, verse, please.

You made the assertion, you are the one who needs to cite chapter and verse.
The problem you are having is an incorrect reading of Thomas and perhaps an over eager willingness to agree with some of your scientific comrads. Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

All very well said. I cannot wait for Linus to try to refute any of this.

Well Al, you and Linux are absolutely wrong. All you have to do is call your local Bishop and ask him. It is simple logic that for Him who is Pure Existence to share part of his esse with creatures is Pantheism. Of course I don’t have precise sources at my finger tips and indeed there may not be a precise source since I can’t remember the issue being raised. But I will try when I get time. I’m certain of one thing however. If you were to make a big issue of this point and a school grew up making the same claim that at some point corrections would be coming from authoritative sources.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Firstly nobody said that creatures have a “part” of God in them.

Secondly, that something cannot come from nothing (the absence of reality) is the underlying bases of Aquinas’ arguments. His Arguments simply don’t work without that logical principle. You cannot create esse out of nothing without violating the absolute logical distinction between something and nothing. Its a logical impossibility, no more logical than saying that a magician really did pull a rabbit out of nothing. The act of reality is absolute, and what your proposing is magic. Not a miracle.

The only way that creation can exist is for it to participate in Gods esse, for there is no esse other than God; there is only one God. Through God and in God we have our being. That is in no way saying that God is the essence of creatures. Therefore it is not pantheism; rather it is Existential-Thomism.

You are contrdidting yourself. God is His Own Existence for His Essence is His Exestence, as Thomas says. If He gives or shares part of His Own Existence with creatures, He would be giving part of Hiw Own Being to creatures. That is Pantheism.

Creatures exist because God causes their existence. They He does this when He creates each substance.

As I said, you and Al have a missunderstanding of what Thomas meant by " participation " in this context. By " participation " he means " to be caused by…"

Linus

 

[Linux]

You made the assertion, you are the one who needs to cite chapter and verse.
The problem you are having is an incorrect reading of Thomas and perhaps an over eager willingness to agree with some of your scientific comrads. Linus

Why don’t you prove that its an incorrect interpretation instead of assertions.

 

[Linux]

Well Al, you and Linux are absolutely wrong. All you have to do is call your local Bishop and ask him. It is simple logic that for Him who is Pure Existence to share part of his esse with creatures is Pantheism.

Nobody said that God shares parts. God shares his esse with creatures; .

Of course I don’t have precise sources at my finger tips and indeed there may not be a precise source since I can’t remember the issue being raised.

Such sources don’t exist because its not pantheism.

Your denial is a product of your own misunderstanding. But pantheism has been raised and dealt with and you haven’t proven that we are pantheists.

But I will try when I get time. I’m certain of one thing however. If you were to make a big issue of this point and a school grew up making the same claim that at some point corrections would be coming from authoritative sources.

In your erroneous opinion.

 

[Eleve]

If, after so many pages of discussion, you still ask this question, I have nothing more to say to you.
I am a very patient man, but my patinece is not infinite.

Yes, well, if you’d ever like to support one of your random assertions, I’ll be here.

 

[Linux]

You are contrdidting yourself. God is His Own Existence for His Essence is His Exestence, as Thomas says. If He gives or shares part of His Own Existence with creatures, He would be giving part of Hiw Own Being to creatures. That is Pantheism.

Linus

That’s wrong. Again nobody has said that Creatures are made out of parts of God; thats a continuous strawman you keep making… Pantheism is the belief that both essences and esse is God. Its wrong precisely because it makes no distinction between the esse which is God and the potential essences which become actual by being conjoined with esse.