St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[belorg]

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

I suggest you learn how to read.

 

[Eleve]

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Absolutely wrong? Not Catholic theology?

Prove it.

Source, chapter, verse, please.

From the 1st Vatican Council, De Fide: " All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. "

Its " substance " would include its " act of existence. " You and Linux said creatures shared in God’s existence. How do you square that with this Dogma? If the Church meant to exclude a being’s " act of existence, " don’t you think that would have been covered in the definition?

Again I repeat, you have either missread Thomas or he was simply wrong. He was not infallible, only the Church is infallible. Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Agreed. Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God cannot do the logically impossible. And asserting that he can do what is generally understood to be impossible just becuase he is God does not help the discussion or belorgs understanding. Out of nothing comes nothing, so why should anyone think that God can create without using materials or a part of himself?

You cannot prove it, it is a fact known with certainty from Divine Revelation only. Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Explain why?

Aquinas is talking about the logical order in which one speaks of God creating something from nothing. He is not talking about whehther it is logically possible for God to create something from nothing. He explains that nothing is not the material cuase of something. None of this is answering the question of how it is logically possible for God to create something where there was nothing without any materials. That has not been adressed, only avoided with straw-men as i said before.

I don’t see why you guys are finding this question hard to understand. It is very simple.

And why can’t you understand that it can’t be explained? Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So where did the universe come from if it wasn’t made out of God?

Out of nothing. Vatican 1, De Fide. " All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. "

It is strictly a matter of Faith. And by the way, if a substance did not contain its " act of existence, " don’t you think that would have been mentioned in the definition? So you do see that the Church does not teach that creatures share God’s existence ? Their " act of existence " is part and parcel of their substance which was created by God out of nothing.
And by the way, a substance’s essence is limits its act of existence. Linus

 

[Linux]

From the 1st Vatican Council, De Fide: " All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. "

Its " substance " would include its " act of existence. "

You are just playing a game of semantics. Dogma is not metaphysics. In the context of metaphysics, by substance, they could only be talking about what a thing is essentially; its nature. The distinction between esse and essence is not considered in the context of dogma. You are making a contextual fallacy.

You and Linux said creatures shared in God’s existence. How do you square that with this Dogma?

Easy. There is an absolute distinction between esse and essence in created things.

If the Church meant to exclude l a being’s " act of existence, " don’t you think that would have been covered in the definition?

No, because the context in which it is stated does not take into account metaphysical distinctions. There is no reason to mention such a distinction in a dogmatic theological statement. It is not metaphysics.

Again I repeat, you have either missread Thomas or he was simply wrong. He was not infallible, only the Church is infallible. Linus

Id rather be wrong with Thomas than believe blindly.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You are just playing a game of semantics. Dogma is not metaphysics. In the context of metaphysics, by substance, they could only be talking about what a thing is essentially; its nature. The distinction between esse and essence is not considered in the context of dogma. You are making a contextual fallacy.

Easy. There is an absolute distinction between esse and essence in created things.

No, because the context in which it is stated does not take into account metaphysical distinctions. There is no reason to mention such a distinction in a dogmatic theological statement. It is not metaphysics.

Id rather be wrong with Thomas than believe blindly.

You are wrong all the way through. Even Thomas accepted creation ex nihil out of Faith. Indeed, faithful and practicing Catholics must accept this Dogma in heart and mind. And indeed your attempt at a metaphysical explanation is nothing but an exalted form of Pantheism… Your big mistake is to think science and/or philosophy can explain everything. No one can explain the Mysteries of Faith.

Thomas would not agree with your solution.
Faith is not blind. It only appears so to the hardened of heart or the prejudiced. Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

You said it in your post #427. " 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- "

Don’t know any way to interpretate that statement except to conclude that you think creatures share part of God’s being. And that is Pantheism.

Have you head of Etienne Gilson? I think you would profit much by reading either Toward a Christian Philosophy or Being and Some Philosophers. He discusses the points you are raising. Too complicated to be explained here. But give them a try. You might be able to get them out of a good library. Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree with creatio ex nihilo as declared by Lateran IV, but I’m not sure people are really understanding what that means. It doesn’t mean that God creates the universe out of nothing as if “nothing” is some kind of preexisting substance. Nothing is the lack of any substance or being of any kind. So it would be more accurate to say that God ultimately caused material being to exist where none existed.

The preposition ex, “out of”, in the above definition does not, of course, imply that nihil, “nothing”, is to be conceived as the material out of which a thing is made — materia ex quâ — a misconception which has given rise to the puerile objection against the possibility of creation conveyed by the phrase, ex nihilo nihil fit — “nothing comes of nothing”. The ex means (a) the negation of prejacent material, out of which the product might otherwise be conceived to proceed, and (b) the order of succession, viz., existence after non-existence.

newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm

I think the above is a fairly good explanation.

Thank you but it is hopeless. Some people are just determined not to accept it - for reasons unknown. Linus

 

[Linux]

You are wrong all the way through. Even Thomas accepted creation ex nihil out of Faith. Indeed, faithful and practicing Catholics must accept this Dogma in heart and mind. And indeed your attempt at a metaphysical explanation is nothing but an exalted form of Pantheism… Your big mistake is to think science and/or philosophy can explain everything. No one can explain the Mysteries of Faith.

Thomas would not agree with your solution.
Faith is not blind. It only appears so to the hardened of heart or the prejudiced. Linus

In other-words you have no argument and instead you prefer to make assertions about how wrong my argument is in the hope that readers will blindly agree with you. Pantheism makes no distinction between esse and essence, thus we are not talking about pantheism. Philosophy isn’t for you Linus. I think you should be a commentator on dogma instead.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In other-words you have no argument and instead you prefer to make assertions about how wrong my argument is in the hope that readers will blindly agree with you. Pantheism makes no distinction between esse and essence, thus we are not talking about pantheism. Philosophy isn’t for you Linus. I think you should be a commentator on dogma instead.

There are more kinds of Pantheism than a dog has flees.

I have given you philosophical arguments, you haven’t accepted them. That’s fine, you don’t have to accept them. Gilson has some things to say on the subject. He says that many people cannot separate the idea of causality in the earthly universe between earthly beings and the creative causality of God who exists totally outside of and separate from the universe of space and time.

" The received expression, ’ nothingness ( nihil ) is the same as ’ non-being. ’ To be produced from nothingness, therefore, means to be produced completely, totally, integrally, starting from strictly nothing else than the creative efficacy of God " ( S.T. Part 1, q 45, a.1; S.C.G. ll, c 16 in Elements of Christian Philosophy, ch 7, pg 176)

So, since Existence is God’s very Being, it is absolutly other than the esse of created beings, it is not the esse of created beings. In other words the esse of created beings is an esse totally other than the Esse of God. It is an esse created as part and parcel of created substances. It is therefore created ex nihil along with substances.

" All causal relations known in sense experience presupposes the existence of a given matter to which a form is imparted by some efficient cause.This is so true that a creative act cannot even be imagined. If we attempt to represent it to our own minds , we inevitably begin by imagining nothingness itself as something ’ out of which ’ the created being is made. This is to say that we spontaneously tend to think of the act of creating as if it were one more case of ’ becoming. ’ ( ibid, pg 176 )

As I pointed out before neither the Church nor Thomas Aquinas thought the the creation of the universe in time ex nihil could be proven. Other philosophers have taken the opposite view. But so far their success has not been shinning. So when Thomas is speaking of creation, trying to explain its meaning, he is philosophizing about a fact he has accepted on faith as an element of Divine Revelation.
Linus

 

[Linux]

So, since Existence is God’s very Being, it is absolutely other than the esse of created beings
Linus

Existence is absolutely other than the essence of created things. It is the essence of created things that differentiates between God and creation. Esse has nothing to do with it. Esse is that which actualises potential essences, and thus esse has to exist absolutely as actually distinct before we can rationally speak of actualising potential. God is the esse of created things, but he is not the essence of created things, and therefore it is not pantheism. Nothing you say is going to change that fact.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Existence is absolutely other than the essence of created things. It is the essence of created things that differentiates between God and creation. Esse has nothing to do with it. Esse is that which actualises potential essences, and thus esse has to exist absolutely as actually distinct before we can rationally speak of actualising potential. God is the esse of created things, but he is not the essence of created things, and therefore it is not pantheism. Nothing you say is going to change that fact.

… and yet don’t forget the Trinity.
How would you define the Jesus’s human body, soul?
Is there a border between Human and Divine natures?
Can God have a border?

 

[Love4All]

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

Not “His” esse. God gives being (esse) to creatures who previously did not have it. He doesn’t give them “His” being, He gives them their own. You could say existence is the first Gift He bestows on any creature, without which the creature would not exist to receive more Gifts.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Existence is absolutely other than the essence of created things. It is the essence of created things that differentiates between God and creation. Esse has nothing to do with it. Esse is that which actualises potential essences, and thus esse has to exist absolutely as actually distinct before we can rationally speak of actualising potential. God is the esse of created things, but he is not the essence of created things, and therefore it is not pantheism. Nothing you say is going to change that fact.

You are absolutely hopeless. My advise is that you drop any pretentions at philosophizing. This is not an ad hominem, it is the nature of the case. Though you will put the worst light on it.

You said you read " Aquinas " by Edward Feser. You need to read him again. Then actually read the Summas, perhaps something will sink in. Linus

 

[Love4All]

… and yet don’t forget the Trinity.
How would you define the Jesus’s human body, soul?
Is there a border between Human and Divine natures?
Can God have a border?

Not “border.” Union, in the Person of Jesus. The hypostatic union is in the Person who is both Divine and human, the Word, who is the same Person as Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus’s human body and soul are entirely His human nature, not Divine. His humanity is Divine, but the nature of that humanity is human, just as the Nature of the Word is Divine. His nature as the Word is His Divine Nature. His nature as the Son of Man is His human nature. They are not mixed; they are distinct, but there is no “border,” there is only the hypostatic union. The same Person possesses both natures. So to define Jesus’s human body and soul we would define it as the human nature of the Person of the Word made Flesh.

 

[Love4All]

Love4All:

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.

What do you mean by saying that, “in mathematics, there are actual infinities?” Mathematics is abstract, and abstract is the opposite of actual. In mathematics, we actually deal with infinities, I’ll grant you that. But those infinities are as abstract as any of the values we assign to numbers. That is why, in mathematics, we can deal equally well with rational or irrational, positive or negative, real or imaginary. There is no real square root of negative one, but mathematically, i makes just as much sense as -1 or 1. That is because in mathematics, everything is abstract. So in mathematics, there are infinities, and, mathematics is useful in describing the world, even though in the world there are no actual infinities.

The proper question is, is mathematics useful in describing the world, and can its use be extended to the territory in which we now find ourselves? I submit that, certainly it can. I see no reason to assume that there is some limit to the use we can make of our power of abstraction that is manifest in mathematics. Can we usefully apply the theory of sets, and the generation of the natural numbers as sets from 0, to the possible worlds scenarios? Is it, in fact, legitimate to assign G = 1 and wG = 2? That is the question; that would be the basis of your objection.

And I think, as least insofar as my understanding goes, it is legitimate. It seems intuitively sound. If you maintain that it is not legitimate, then please, give a demonstration of why, if you would. Thanks!

And, by the way, the empty set, the null set, {} is precisely == 0. It is Nothing, by definition.

 

[Linux]

You are absolutely hopeless. My advise is that you drop any pretentions at philosophizing. This is not an ad hominem, it is the nature of the case. Though you will put the worst light on it.

You said you read " Aquinas " by Edward Feser. You need to read him again. Then actually read the Summas, perhaps something will sink in. Linus

Translation: Linusthe2nd cannot refute my argument with real philosophy, and so he is now telling me to read a book that he doesn’t understand himself; a book that even refutes his own position.

Passing the buck will not make your argument true or even probable.