St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[belorg]

Sure, but the standard theist picture is not that God starts out not creating the world and then later creates the world. Rather, God at all times wills that the world be created and at all times causes the world to be created. And the same can go for Schmod, really; if we suppose that Schmod has all the power of God, then presumably he has the power to make things happen in the future.

*Actually, the Thomist idea would probably be that God is timeless, so rather than willing these things at all times, he just wills them outside of time.

That is not relevant. I specifically use possible world semantics to avoid temporal connotations.

So do you always assume that people who disagree with you are arguing in bad faith?

Actually, lots of people who disagree with me do so in good faith. But that is not the question. the question is : does it make any sense?

 

[Linux]

So do you always assume that people who disagree with you are arguing in bad faith?

I see only two ways you can answer him.

1. There is no possible world with only God in it, because its not in the nature of love to be without an object toward which love is given. This is to say that it is in Gods nature to share his existence.
2. A Possible world, is not necessarily an actual world.

Of course if there where an actual world with only God in it, there could be no creation.

 

[belorg]

I see only two ways you can answer him.

1. There is no possible world with only God in it, because its not in the nature of love to be without an object toward which love is given. This is to say that it is in Gods nature to share his existence.

That is not Catholic doctrine.

1. A Possible world, is not necessarily an actual world.

Of course if there where an actual world with only God in it, there could be no creation.

This distinction does not work.

 

[Love4All]

Love4All,

Great post!

I can’t wait to read which of Belorg’s strategies he pulls out of his bag of obfuscations. Will he equivocate? Will he be evasive? Or will he pull out the nonsensical?

He is a master of all.

Yppop
.

Thanks, Yppop!

 

[robbodb]

This post is mainly directed to Belorg and Linux.

It seems that it is important for you to believe that pre-existing materials or a pre-existing unstable condition was in place before the origin of the universe (motion).

You have often referred to such pre-existing materials,conditions and the like in your posts.

Now you know as a fact that the universe was very small at its beginning. NASA states the universe at the instant of creation was a point with zero volume and unimaginable density and energy (heat or temperature).The universe expanded after the instant of its creation to be the universe we observe today.

We know that we will very likely never be able to observe the evolution of the universe earlier than about 300,000 years( that is the case currently) after its beginning because the cosmic microwave background radiation blocks our view. Such background radiation is currently impenetrable. We will almost certainly never be able to observe what happened within the first seconds of the instant of creation and most likely for a much longer period.

We know as a fact that we will never be able replicate the instant of creation. Particle physicists seek only to discover the evolution of the universe during the early phase especially within the first few seconds/minutes. In any event a particle accelerator or collider needs several billion particles to be ‘shot’ into it in the hope of a collision of one or more particles which can then be photographed and studied. Such particles are not pre-existing materials or a pre-existing condition.

In summary physical science acknowledges the fact that it does not know how the point (the universe at the instant of its creation) with zero volume and unimaginable density and energy came to be.It is also true to say that physical science will never be able to define the truth on how the universe was created because its beginning cannot be observed and any theory can never be tested or falsified.One can say whatever they like and make all kinds so assumptions safe in the knowledge that whatever they say cannot be observed nor falsified.You no doubt are aware that science posits that for any theory to be credible it must be falsifiable.

So my first question to Belorg and Linux is:

why are you asking and/or positing how the the universe was created from pre-existing materials or an unstable re-existing condition and making claims of the existence of pre-existing materials or pre-existing unstable conditions when such question cannot be answered and such claims cannot be validated/confirmed?

The issue of how motion originated can only be determined by physical science.It is not the job of philosophy or theology to determine how motion or the universe came to be.Science has said we don’t know “how” and we are not pursuing the finding of “how”. What we (science) are pursuing is knowledge of how the universe evolved after the instant of its creation.As you know the Catholic Church declares it does not know (and no one else knows either) how the universe was created or motion began.

Final question:
Should we not drop talking about “how” motion or the universe originated because we are discussing an issue which is pure speculation and has no scientific merit whatsoever?

I look forward to your responses to my questions.

Truth,Love and Peace.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Since Catholics seem to have been frozen out of this conversation for a
few days, it is time to give the Catholic
view on certain things.

We will answer among these things the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linux
I see only two ways you can answer him.

1. There is no possible world with only God in it, because its not in the nature of love to be without an object toward which love is given. This is to say that it is in Gods nature to share his existence. ( End of quote by Linux]

( Belorg’s response to Linux)That is not Catholic doctrine.

I answer. God created the universe and all that is in it out of an abundance of love and this is in accord with Catholic teaching and doctrine.( CCC, paras 293 - 295) and it was also the teaching of Thomas Aquinas.

The first clause in the first sentence is meaningless. God would not have created empty space and time with only himself in it. This would assume that God acts to no purpose and this would certainly be opposed by Catholic teaching and the teaching of Thomas.

The first clause seems to imply that God must exist " in a place. " God does not exist in a place, the eternity of God is wherever He is. He does not need the universe as " a place to be in." He certainly works in the universe he created but He is not " part of it. "

Quote: by Linux
2. A Possible world, is not necessarily an actual world.

Of course if there where an actual world with only God in it, there could be no creation. ( End quote by Linux

Both statements are meaningless. There is no sense in comparing a " possible " world to an " acutal " world. Either there is an actual world or there is none. Although the Ideas of all possible worlds do exist, as ideas, in the Intellect of God, which is a teaching of St. Thomas.

And again, God does not exist in the world of space and time, so it is pointless to speculate about whether this would entail the conclusion that if there were and God were in it there would be no creation. The fact is God did create the world and He is not part of it, although He works in it to accomplish His Will.

( response by Belorg) This distinction does not work.( End quote by Belorg)

No " distinction " is implied or made by Linux’s statement. Belorg’s statement is meaningless.

                                         Conclusion

Catholic teaching is that God exists eternally but not " in a place. " He created the universe of limited, contingent creatures, along with space and time, out of nothing. He did so out of an abundance of love and to manifest His glory and to share that glory with the creatures He created. He did so using the Ideas of possible worlds He posses in His Intellect, using these Ideas as exemplaries for His creation.

In so doing, His creation resembles His own Nature in an distant but real way. For this reason His creation is said to " partake " or " share " in the Divine Nature. But such resemblence or partaking in no way implies a " mixing " of " sharing " of natures. It simply means that creatures are modeled after the Divine Ideas but in such a way that they are entirely other than and different than the Divine Nature. Their existence is real because they have been given their own limited existence along with their substances at the moment of creation.

The last seven or eight pages of this discussion has been consumed by an esoteric argument based on set theory ( according to the participants) under the assumption that this can cast a light on the teaching of Thomas Aquinas’ Metaphysics of Causality and Creation. At the very best this is mixing apples and oranges. Set theory is not metaphysics, at least as historically understood, beginning with Aristotle. There may be a small audience interested in set theory, possibly found in some remote corner of some university which is all agush over it. But it is not something most people would be interested in, it would be a huge trun off in most audiences.

Nor is anything to be gained in projecting " possible " worlds onto a metaphysical discussion of the metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas. " Possible " does not conclude to reality or truth of any sort. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks, Yppop!

All three. Linus2nd

 

[Love4All]

As long as you don’t confuse sets with reality, that’s OK with me.

Confuse? No. Represent reality with sets? Yes, that is rather the point. For all your pretense to agreement, it is apparent that after all, you don’t agree.

(to my suggestion that wG = {G}.)

No. Not if {G} is different from God.

If you think there is something (that sets a set apart from its elements), you will have to show what it is.

Gladly.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-theoretic_definition_of_natural_numbers

The contemporary standard

In standard, Zermelo–Fraenkel (ZF) set theory the natural numbers are defined recursively by 0 = {} (the empty set) and n + 1 = n ∪ {n}. Then n = {0, 1, …, n − 1} for each natural number n. The first few numbers defined this way are 0 = {}, 1 = {0} = {{}}, 2 = {0,1} = {{},{{}}}, 3 = {0,1,2} = {{},{{}},{{},{{}}}}.

(end wiki quote)

Consider the empty set, {} = 0. Consider the set, {{}} = 1. Clearly, 0 =/=1, so clearly, {} =/= {{}}. So clearly, the sole element of a singleton set is not the same as the set itself. Therefore, {G} =/= G, and, I would assert, although you unsupportably object, since G =/= {G}, consequently, wG =/= G.

Nonsense; Catholic doctrine has it that God is the creator of everything. If He does not create, there is only G and if {G} is different from G, then there is no {G}. Because you cannot account for the difference. G describeS the whole of reality.

G is God, and {G} is the world with God alone in it. I’m happy to see you’ve accepted set notation, if you are not yet prepared to accept set theory per se. I can at least treat wG as = {G} and wait for you to object.

Now, if you want to say that the world with God alone in it IS God, that’s Pantheism straight up. Making the world equal to God is Pantheism, whether or not there is anything else in the world. The Pantheos creates by transforming itself, by becoming the world. But that is not how God creates. God creates from nothing — ex nihilo. Not from Himself, but from nothing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_regularity

Axiom of regularity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In mathematics, the axiom of regularity (also known as the axiom of foundation) is one of the axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory and was introduced by von Neumann (1925); it was adopted in a formulation closer to the one found in contemporary textbooks by Zermelo (1930). In first-order logic the axiom reads:

\forall A (\exists B (B \in A) \Rightarrow \exists B (B \in A \land \lnot \exist C (C \in A \land C \in B))).

Or in prose:

Every non-empty set A contains an element B which is disjoint from A.

[One of the] results which follow from the axiom [is] that “no set is an element of itself.”

(end wiki quote)

But if G = {G}, then {G} is an element of itself.

The specific reason is that to exist and to not exist are contrary. So to ‘call’ something into existence is like shouting in a void.

Ah! I see your confusion on this point! You seem to think that, rather than create from nothing with His will, God commands nonexistent entities to come forth into existence. I can see how you think this absurd!

It is absurd, but not what I said. Perhaps I confused you by using the phrase, “called into existence from nothing by God.” No doubt, I was using as common metaphor. I should not suppose you are familiar with every metaphor. “Called into existence,” would be a metaphorical way of saying “created.” God created everything that is, from nothing. You say He can’t, but so far all you’ve got to back that up is a gross misunderstanding of set theory, and an imaginary world where God somehow painted Himself into a corner.

 

[Eleve]

That is not relevant. I specifically use possible world semantics to avoid temporal connotations.

You don’t think that whether God is timeless

is relevant to whether creation would entail a change in God?

???

Could you please, please just spell out your argument in a little more detail? A full paragraph perhaps?

 

[Love4All]

Nonsense; Catholic doctrine has it that God is the creator of everything. If He does not create, there is only G and if {G} is different from G, then there is no {G}. Because you cannot account for the difference. G describeS the whole of reality.

I had wanted to give this special treatment. It will be useful here to invoke a distinction between interior and exterior. We experience this as sentient beings, and if we are talking about a personal God, then we cannot but understand Him as also experiencing the distinction between interior and exterior.

Now when we talk about God or G, we are talking about a Being. When we include everything that is that Being, we perforce include all those things that that Being experiences as interior, and none of those things that that Being experiences as exterior. That is how we define a being in fact. You are not your clothes, nor your house, nor your car, nor your job, nor your friends. You are none of these things; these things are exterior to you. Your interior self is what we mean when we talk about you. It is the same with God.

What, then, is the qualifying difference between G and {G}? It is quite simply this: that G includes only that which is interior to God, whereas {G} includes both interior and exterior. “But,” you object, “there is nothing at all exterior to God!” Precisely. {G} includes the empty set. { {}, G } includes the world outside of God. And it is precisely in this empty world outside of God, that God created, ex nihilo, without Himself changing at all. The world changes. The world outside of God becomes populated when God creates. God does not change. But to say that the world, to wit, {G} does not change on the account that God does not change, is to forget the principal thing we know about God, namely that He is the Creator. Existing by Himself, He can create, and evidently did.

It is patently absurd to say that since God cannot change, consequently a world with God alone in it cannot change. Worlds are not the same as their inhabitants, any more than sets are the same as their elements. Mathematics and logic do work. It is tragic when the truth they reveal does not match one’s emotional attachments to what he wishes were true, but, that is just tough. Reality is what it is. Suck it up.

 

[Love4All]

I see only two ways you can answer him.

1. There is no possible world with only God in it, because its not in the nature of love to be without an object toward which love is given. This is to say that it is in Gods nature to share his existence.
2. A Possible world, is not necessarily an actual world.

Of course if there where an actual world with only God in it, there could be no creation.

Answer to 1: God alone is the Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Perfect Communion of Love. God had no need to create at all. Love is shared eternally, perpetually, perfectly, all in God alone.

Answer to 2: Prior to Creation, the exact condition of the world was “an actual world with only God in it.” So reality contradicts and trumps your incredulity.

 

[belorg]

**

No " distinction " is implied or made by Linux’s statement. Belorg’s statement is meaningless.

**

I’m not going to reply to the rest of your post, since it is a repetition of various assertion you have already stated. But here you go competely astray.
Linux clearly distinguishes between an actual wold and a possible world and that counts as a distinction…

 

[belorg]

Confuse? No. Represent reality with sets? Yes, that is rather the point. For all your pretense to agreement, it is apparent that after all, you don’t agree.

I agree that it may be possible to represent reality with sets, but your use of sets does not represent the reality of wG, so there is obviously something wrong with this representation.

 

[belorg]

I had wanted to give this special treatment. It will be useful here to invoke a distinction between interior and exterior. We experience this as sentient beings, and if we are talking about a personal God, then we cannot but understand Him as also experiencing the distinction between interior and exterior.

Now when we talk about God or G, we are talking about a Being. When we include everything that is that Being, we perforce include all those things that that Being experiences as interior, and none of those things that that Being experiences as exterior. That is how we define a being in fact. You are not your clothes, nor your house, nor your car, nor your job, nor your friends. You are none of these things; these things are exterior to you. Your interior self is what we mean when we talk about you. It is the same with God.

What, then, is the qualifying difference between G and {G}? It is quite simply this: that G includes only that which is interior to God, whereas {G} includes both interior and exterior. “But,” you object, “there is nothing at all exterior to God!” Precisely. {G} includes the empty set. { {}, G } includes the world outside of God. And it is precisely in this empty world outside of God, that God created, ex nihilo, without Himself changing at all. The world changes. The world outside of God becomes populated when God creates. God does not change. But to say that the world, to wit, {G} does not change on the account that God does not change, is to forget the principal thing we know about God, namely that He is the Creator. Existing by Himself, He can create, and evidently did.

It is patently absurd to say that since God cannot change, consequently a world with God alone in it cannot change. Worlds are not the same as their inhabitants, any more than sets are the same as their elements. Mathematics and logic do work. It is tragic when the truth they reveal does not match one’s emotional attachments to what he wishes were true, but, that is just tough. Reality is what it is. Suck it up.

You are, once again, just begging the question.

 

[belorg]

You don’t think that whether God is timeless

is relevant to whether creation would entail a change in God?

???

Could you please, please just spell out your argument in a little more detail? A full paragraph perhaps?

Just one sentence will suffice. An immutable being can only have one possible state.

 

[Eleve]

And why is that a problem? I did not claim that God can have more than one state. Did I implicitly assume so? If so, then explain how.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m not going to reply to the rest of your post, since it is a repetition of various assertion you have already stated. But here you go competely astray.
Linux clearly distinguishes between an actual wold and a possible world and that counts as a distinction…

Your typical evasion tactic. You need to reread my post. Your concluding remarks are clearly off the mark. The reason there is no distinction is because the statement is meaningless. There is no actual world with only God in it, indeed that is a metaphysical impossibility, therefore there can be no " distinction. " Therefore to suggest that there is no creation in such a world is meaningless. Therefore your conclusion is wrong since it is based entirely on false premices. LInus2nd

 

[yppop]

Belorg,

Originally Posted by Love4All

I had wanted to give this special treatment. It will be useful here to invoke a distinction between interior and exterior. We experience this as sentient beings, and if we are talking about a personal God, then we cannot but understand Him as also experiencing the distinction between interior and exterior.

Now when we talk about God or G, we are talking about a Being. When we include everything that is that Being, we perforce include all those things that that Being experiences as interior, and none of those things that that Being experiences as exterior. That is how we define a being in fact. You are not your clothes, nor your house, nor your car, nor your job, nor your friends. You are none of these things; these things are exterior to you. Your interior self is what we mean when we talk about you. It is the same with God.

What, then, is the qualifying difference between G and {G}? It is quite simply this: that G includes only that which is interior to God, whereas {G} includes both interior and exterior. “But,” you object, “there is nothing at all exterior to God!” Precisely. {G} includes the empty set. { {}, G } includes the world outside of God. And it is precisely in this empty world outside of God, that God created, ex nihilo, without Himself changing at all. The world changes. The world outside of God becomes populated when God creates. God does not change. But to say that the world, to wit, {G} does not change on the account that God does not change, is to forget the principal thing we know about God, namely that He is the Creator. Existing by Himself, He can create, and evidently did.

It is patently absurd to say that since God cannot change, consequently a world with God alone in it cannot change. Worlds are not the same as their inhabitants, any more than sets are the same as their elements. Mathematics and logic do work. It is tragic when the truth they reveal does not match one’s emotional attachments to what he wishes were true, but, that is just tough. Reality is what it is. Suck it up.

To which you answered:

You are, once again, just begging the question.

You are truly amazing! Evasion!, equivocation!, nonsensical! and now you add speciousness!
What else is in your bag of obfuscations?

Watch out Belorg, Amor vincit omnia
Yppop

 

[Love4All]

You are, once again, just begging the question.

Argumentum ad manu maeandro

 

[Love4All]

I agree that it may be possible to represent reality with sets, but your use of sets does not represent the reality of wG, so there is obviously something wrong with this representation.

The simplest way to represent world A containing b, c, and d, is as follows:

A = {b, c, d}.

If you disagree, then find a better way, and express it here. Your obfuscations are really wearing thin.

I think a more accurate representation of the reality of your thought about all of this is, my use of sets leads logically to a conclusion at variance with your agenda, therefore you do not like it, but can’t quite express a cogent objection to it, so instead you seek to dismiss it with no supporting argument for your dismissal.

The purpose of philosophy is to find out what we really think, logically, so as to examine our thought and determine whether in fact it is logical. It has become apparent by now, that that is not YOUR interest in philosophy. You have a different agenda. You seem not to love the truth so much as the sound of your own voice.