St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[robbodb]

Yes, I do. Nothing in your quote above in any sort of way threatens my position.I do not believe that something can come from nothing and that’s why I do not believe that any entity can create something from nothing.

Belorg, i do not intend to threaten your position. What i think you need to do is to explain how something can come from nothing in a logical, rational way backed up with evidence WITHOUT any need to deny to existence of God.

If you believe what you say then please back it up without any reference to God.

We catholics cant explain HOW God created everything, only that he did as evidenced using the science of theology. We Catholics have proved the existence of our eternal God and we KNOW from what he has revealed to us that he created everything including but not limited to motion. Myself and others have provided material of such proofs but a lot more is available. This thread does not cover the subject of proving the existence of God so you should not refer to it.

Truth,Love and Peace

 

[belorg]

belorg.

Belorg, IMO you are flip flopping all over the place.

So, you cannot refute my argument and you decided to throw in some ad hominen? I am not really impressed.

In so many of your posts you say you know that something such as a an unstable pre -existing condition must have created the universe or initiated motion and now you seem to be changing your tune when you state " The point is that while it is true that modern physics cannot explain why anything at all exists." If not can you please clarify? it is important to be consistent in this debate and if one is to change their position they should say so and why don’t you think?

I am not changing my tune. It’s just that I am intellectually honest enough not to express certainty about something I cannot prove. that’s why i am not a theist.

Most,if not all of the theists who posted to this thread repeatedly stated that St. Thomas
concept of motion was only one of 5 ways he argued for the Existence of God.(and not for the origin of motion.) St. Thomas’s Summa does attempt to explain ( rather well IMO) WHY God created and especially mankind.

Why God created does not answer the question why there is something rather than nothing. it does not explain why there is a God.

The reason WHY there is an unmoved mover ( God) is explained very thoroughly and in an easy to read fashion in many documents published by the Catholic Church such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2nd edition and the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which are available free of charge on the internet.

I am not interested in dogma and assertions. If you have a point, please make it. If you don’t, please stop wasting my time.

Question: Please provide such interpretations as stated “he answer is that at least on some interpretations of physics, things do move without being caused to do so” . Do such interpretations conflict with the vast majority of physicists who argue a different position posited by you? Please refer to my earlier post of today which argues the case against particles popping from nothing.Do you agree with your "some other interpretations’?. Whether “yes” or “no” what is the basis of your response?

I am not a physicist, so I cannot answer this question. I don’t think you are a physicist either, though.

Question:"and as we learn from the Logical porblem of Evil, where the little doubt that e.g; Plantinga was able to produce lead to a widespread “Hallelujah, the Problem of Evil has been refuted”, the little doubt expressed by one interpretation of physics could lead us atheist to shout “Hallelujah, Aquinas’ Motion Argument has been refuted”.

Are saying there is very little doubt that such interpretation is true ? I take it you are expressing some cynicism here.Am i correct?

No, I am saying here that there is at least a little doubt that the notion ‘nothing can move itself’ is true. And that’s exactly the same Plantinga argued. He cooked up a far-fetched scenario in which God could be compatible with evil, and that is widely accepted as a defeater for the Logical problem of Evil. All I am asking you and other teists is to no apply double standards.

 

[belorg]

Belorg, i do not intend to threaten your position. What i think you need to do is to explain how something can come from nothing in a logical, rational way backed up with evidence WITHOUT any need to deny to existence of God.

If you believe what you say then please back it up without any reference to God.

We catholics cant explain HOW God created everything, only that he did as evidenced in theology. We Catholics have proved the existence of our eternal God and we KNOW from what he has revealed to us that he created everything including but not limited to motion. Myself and others have provided material of such proofs but a lot more is available. This thread does not cover the subject of the existence of God.

Truth,Love and Peace

Why must I explain HOW something can come from nothing?Especiaaly when I specifically stated that **I do not believe that something can come from nothing **.
So, an atheist has to explain how, but a thiest can just assert things?

 

[robbodb]

So, you cannot refute my argument and you decided to throw in some ad hominen? I am not really impressed.

Answer. You have no argument and you certainly have not backed up anything you have stated in rational manner.

I am not changing my tune. It’s just that I am intellectually honest enough not to express certainty about something I cannot prove. that’s why i am not a theist.

if you wanted to you can find the truth But you wont find it in physical science as i and others including may physicists, cosmologists and scientists have posited. i have posted
particularly on this matter attaching the arguments from a cosmologist.

Why God created does not answer the question why there is something rather than nothing. it does not explain why there is a God. Please provide evidence that something comes from no thing, not anything.

Answer. Yes it does. Why anything? God’s action in creating is for his purpose.

I am not interested in dogma and assertions. If you have a point, please make it. If you don’t, please stop wasting my time.

I am not a physicist, so I cannot answer this question. I don’t think you are a physicist either, though.

No, I am saying here that there is at least a little doubt that the notion ‘nothing can move itself’ is true. And that’s exactly the same Plantinga argued. He cooked up a far-fetched scenario in which God could be compatible with evil, and that is widely accepted as a defeater for the Logical problem of Evil. All I am asking you and other teists is to no apply double standards.

 

[Eleve]

No, God is the only reality that exists. wG is a logical analysis of this reality.

Oh, so now they don’t have the same properties?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The point is that while it is true that modern physics cannot explain why anything at all exists, it is also true that Aquinas did not explain this, at least not in his motion argument… Even if it were true that the exsitence of moving entities requires an unmoved mover, it does not explain why there is an unmoved mover instead of nothing at all.
So, if we confine ourselves to the question whether modern physics has refuted Aquinas motion argument, the answer is that at least on some interpretations of physics, things do move without being caused to do so. So, while I agree that it has not been proven that this interpretation is correct, it has most certainly cats some doubt upon the notion that ‘nothing can move itself’ and as we learn from the Logical porblem of Evil, where the little doubt that e.g; Plantinga was able to produce lead to a widespread “Hallelujah, the Problem of Evil has been refuted”, the little doubt expressed by one interpretation of physics could lead us atheist to shout “Hallelujah, Aquinas’ Motion Argument has been refuted”.
But, atheists are generally more modest.

BTW, I do not think Linux is an atheist.

Thomas has answered all these questions: See either Summa online. Look in creation and governance sections.

Science has not effected Thomas’ arguments in any way. Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Thomas has answered all these questions: See either Summa online. Look in creation and governance sections.

Science has not effected Thomas’ arguments in any way. Linus2nd

I think you would do better to explain why you think Thomas’ arguments are not affected by science.

 

[belorg]

Oh, so now they don’t have the same properties?

Are you interested in a genuine discussion or do you want to continue playing a semantic game, Eleve?
Talking about God and talking about wG is excatly the same, now if you want to say that talking about something has different properties then the thing we are talking about, then if it pleases you, I can say that you are right.
Does this have any significance for reality? None whatsoever. Reality is God and nothing more.

 

[belorg]

I think you would do better to explain why you think Thomas’ arguments are not affected by science.

Or at least provide a link to the relevant section in the ST.

 

[Eleve]

Are you interested in a genuine discussion or do you want to continue playing a semantic game, Eleve?

What I want is for you to make you your mind about what wG is. It seems that you want it to have all the same properties as God so that you can say that it’s immutable - but you want it to have different properties from God so that you can say that it’s “a way of describing things.”

Look. Suppose instead of an immutable God there’s a mutable, powerful creator-being - call him “Schmod” - alone in his own world, wS. If Schmod creates a futon, wS has undergone intrinsic change, right? But Schmod has not. Right?

 

[Linux]

What I want is for you to make you your mind about what wG is. It seems that you want it to have all the same properties as God so that you can say that it’s immutable - but you want it to have different properties from God so that you can say that it’s “a way of describing things.”

Look. Suppose instead of an immutable God there’s a mutable, powerful creator-being - call him “Schmod” - alone in his own world, wS. If Schmod creates a futon, wS has undergone intrinsic change, right? But Schmod has not. Right?

A world where only God exists, cannot to be a world where it is said that God is “in it”, as if to say that the world in this case is distinct from God. God is the world.

 

[belorg]

What I want is for you to make you your mind about what wG is. It seems that you want it to have all the same properties as God so that you can say that it’s immutable - but you want it to have different properties from God so that you can say that it’s “a way of describing things.”

I do not ‘want’ anything. All I am doing is applying logic.

Look. Suppose instead of an immutable God there’s a mutable, powerful creator-being - call him “Schmod” - alone in his own world, wS. If Schmod creates a futon, wS has undergone intrinsic change, right? But Schmod has not. Right?

No, if Schmod is able to create a futon, he can only do so by ondergoing intrinsic change because there is nothing extrinsic to him that can change.

 

[Eleve]

So what intrinsic property of Schmod has changed?

 

[belorg]

So what intrinsic property of Schmod has changed?

The property that became the futon.

 

[Eleve]

???

Which property, exactly?

And how can a property become an object?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think you would do better to explain why you think Thomas’ arguments are not affected by science.

The poster made two unsupported assertions, he should first defend them. Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

The poster made two unsupported assertions, he should first defend them. Linus2nd

What assertions did he make?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What assertions did he make?

Well, just look for it. You responded, what were you responding to if you didn’t know what the poster had written? If you aren’t interested, why should anyone else be. The point is that unsubstantiated assertions are a habit in certain quarters. Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Well, just look for it. You responded, what were you responding to if you didn’t know what the poster had written. If you aren’t interested, why should anyone else be. The point is that unsubstantiated assertions are a habit in certain quarters. Linus2nd

But you do the same thing. For example you assert that God can create esse in the absence of esse (from nothing). When pushed to demonstrate how that is logically possible you asset that it is either not possible to know or you make an argument from authority followed by an arrogant demand that people should accept this to be possible regardless of there being no rational basis for that acceptance.

I saw no assertions but rather I saw concerns, and you assert that Aquinas has the answer.

 

[robbodb]

I think you would do better to explain why you think Thomas’ arguments are not affected by science.

Because science does not posit truth on the issue of the beginning of motion. There are theories on HOW the universe developed after the instant of creation but there is no scientific truth defining HOW the universe came to be.In the scientific community theories are generally accepted as theory if the said theory can be falsified. Big Bang Theory and the Standard Model does not define or attempt to define how the universe came to be.The Bouncing Universe or Big Crunch theory, multi universe theory and brane or string theory of everything cannot be falsified because they cannot be observed or tested. One can say whatever they like and make all kinds of assumptions safe in the knowledge that they cannot be proved to be untrue in the physical sense. There is nothing in science that threatens St.Thomas’s first of 5 ways that prove (theologically) the existence of God.

Can you evidence otherwise?

Now that you have received a response Linux and Belorg you are invited to respond in a rational way with supporting evidence as to you seeming to suggest science does effect St. Thomas’s statement on motion.

If you are not so suggesting ,well and good. If you are so suggesting we trust we will be given reasoned analysis. Rather than the one liners we are used to receiving which nearly always attempts to turn the issue back to the poster and avoiding the issue or question put to you may we have some proper rationale and back up evidence?