St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[Love4All]

There is no actual world with only God in it, indeed that is a metaphysical impossibility,

That doesn’t seem right at all. What about before Creation?

 

[belorg]

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

A = {b, c, d}.

And if there is nothing else in this world besides b,c and d, then writing this as a set allow to perform calculations, but does not change a reality containing b,c and d into a rality containing some magical entity. You keep confusing a mathematical construction with reality.

And I am not going to waste anymore time on this.

 

[belorg]

Belorg,

Originally Posted by Love4All

To which you answered:

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

Maybe you should refrain from replying until you actually know what you are talking about.
And judging by your insults and personal attacks I very much doubt that Amor vincit omnia. I hope that will be true, but Amor has a long way to go before it can win against your arrogance.

 

[belorg]

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.

Yes, you did, by agreeing that God can either apply his creative force or not. No matter how you try to twist this, those are two possible states.

 

[Eleve]

No, I did not say that.

I specifically said that “God at all times wills that the world be created and at all times causes the world to be created.” God does not change from applying his creative force to not applying it, or vice versa. He applies it at all times.

 

[Linux]

That doesn’t seem right at all. What about before Creation?

There is no before creation. No act of God is arbitrary. His will is a perfect expression of his perfect nature giving that Gods will is identical with his being. God does all that which is perfect and creation is one expression of that perfection. God would be imperfect if he changes his will from not creating to another state of creating. Thus what he has done is what he would have always done. God has always created the universe timelessly simply because that is what God, as eternal love, does. There is no state where there is only God. God is simple. He does not change his mind or make mistakes. He simply does what his nature is.

 

[Linux]

Yes, you did, by agreeing that God can either apply his creative force or not. No matter how you try to twist this, those are two possible states.

But even if that were the case, I fail to see why two possible states necessarily equate to two actual states. There is no possible world where God is not creating.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That doesn’t seem right at all. What about before Creation?

Remember, I am not arguing from the position taken by Belorg in " set theory, " You can’t put God or metaphysics in a " box. " Before God created the world He eternally existed. Where did He exist? Certainly not in " this " world. And in no other created world because there was none - except perhaps in the over active minds of " set " theorists. Thomas Aquinas says that God exists in no place. This follows from his Infinitude, nothing can contain the actually infinite, rather it contains all others but not so as to be a part of them.

Before creation " all others " existed only as Ideas in the Divine Intellect. In S.T., Part 1, Q 7, A 1, answer to objection 3, Thomas touches on this:

Reply to Objection 3. The fact that the being of God is self-subsisting, not received in any other, and is thus called infinite, shows Him to be distinguished from all other beings, and all others to be apart from Him. Even so, were there such a thing as a self-subsisting whiteness, the very fact that it did not exist in anything else, would make it distinct from every other whiteness existing in a subject.

Consequently, we cannot say God exists in any " place, " Nor can we speak of God as being in any " world " except by the grossest analogy. And really even that analogy would be way off the mark. We should rather say that we can speak of the " where " of God’s existence only by the grossest metaphor.

From metaphysics we know positively only that God exists. From that point we proceed by a process of logic and comparison to the things of this world to form notions of " what " God is. But these notions are true only by remote analogy.

From there we learn that God is, and what He is through Divine Revelation. But even there we do not learn " where " God was before the world was created.

But since the creation, we know through metaphysics and through Revelation that God works in the world but not so as to be an actual part of the world.

So before creation where is the Is that is God? Not in any world that is for sure. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There is no before creation. No act of God is arbitrary. His will is a perfect expression of his perfect nature giving that Gods will is identical with his being. God does all that which is perfect and creation is one expression of that perfection. God would be imperfect if he changes his will from not creating to another state of creating. Thus what he has done is what he would have always done. God has always created the universe timelessly simply because that is what God, as eternal love, does. There is no state where there is only God. God is simple. He does not change his mind or make mistakes. He simply does what his nature is.

Somtimes I am quite edified by your posts. I would make one small correction. When the universe did not exist, God did exist. So in that sense there was a " before " when the universe had not been created. God exists eternally, with or without the existence of the universe. It is necessary to make this clear so people won’t jump to the wrong conclusion, that before the universe existed, God did not exist.

And of course we know that the universe had a beginning in space and time, that God created it. The universe has not existed eternally. We know this through Divine Revelation. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And if there is nothing else in this world besides b,c and d, then writing this as a set allow to perform calculations, but does not change a reality containing b,c and d into a rality containing some magical entity. You keep confusing a mathematical construction with reality.

And I am not going to waste anymore time on this.

:extrahappy::extrahappy::extrahappy::clapping::clapping:

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

On the contrary. S.T., Part 1, Q 9, A 1, The Immutability of God

Article 1. Whether God is altogether immutable?
Objection 1. It seems that God is not altogether immutable. For whatever moves itself is in some way mutable. But, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit viii, 20), “The Creator Spirit moves Himself neither by time, nor by place.” Therefore God is in some way mutable.

Objection 2. Further, it is said of Wisdom, that “it is more mobile than all things active [Vulgate ‘mobilior’]” (Wisdom 7:24). But God is wisdom itself; therefore God is movable.

Objection 3. Further, to approach and to recede signify movement. But these are said of God in Scripture, “Draw nigh to God and He will draw nigh to you” (James 4:8). Therefore God is mutable.

On the contrary, It is written, “I am the Lord, and I change not” (Malachi 3:6).

I answer that, From what precedes, it is shown that God is altogether immutable.

First, because it was shown above that there is some first being, whom we call God; and that this first being must be pure act, without the admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that, absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act. Now everything which is in any way changed, is in some way in potentiality. Hence it is evident that it is impossible for God to be in any way changeable.

Secondly, because everything which is moved, remains as it was in part, and passes away in part; as what is moved from whiteness to blackness, remains the same as to substance; thus in everything which is moved, there is some kind of composition to be found. But it has been shown above (Question 3, Article 7) that in God there is no composition, for He is altogether simple. Hence it is manifest that God cannot be moved.

Thirdly, because everything which is moved acquires something by its movement, and attains to what it had not attained previously. But since God is infinite, comprehending in Himself all the plenitude of perfection of all being, He cannot acquire anything new, nor extend Himself to anything whereto He was not extended previously. Hence movement in no way belongs to Him. So, some of the ancients, constrained, as it were, by the truth, decided that the first principle was immovable.

Reply to Objection 1. Augustine there speaks in a similar way to Plato, who said that the first mover moves Himself; calling every operation a movement, even as the acts of understanding, and willing, and loving, are called movements. Therefore because God understands and loves Himself, in that respect they said that God moves Himself, not, however, as movement and change belong to a thing existing in potentiality, as we now speak of change and movement.

Reply to Objection 2. Wisdom is called mobile by way of similitude, according as it diffuses its likeness even to the outermost of things; for nothing can exist which does not proceed from the divine wisdom by way of some kind of imitation, as from the first effective and formal principle; as also works of art proceed from the wisdom of the artist. And so in the same way, inasmuch as the similitude of the divine wisdom proceeds in degrees from the highest things, which participate more fully of its likeness, to the lowest things which participate of it in a lesser degree, there is said to be a kind of procession and movement of the divine wisdom to things; as when we say that the sun proceeds to the earth, inasmuch as the ray of light touches the earth. In this way Dionysius (Coel. Hier. i) expounds the matter, that every procession of the divine manifestation comes to us from the movement of the Father of light.

Reply to Objection 3. These things are said of God in Scripture metaphorically. For as the sun is said to enter a house, or to go out, according as its rays reach the house, so God is said to approach to us, or to recede from us, when we receive the influx of His goodness, or decline from Him. ( End QUOTE)

                               Comment

Your error is that you have interpreted " immutability " incorrectly. God is Immutable in regard to His Essence or Nature, His very Being. But His Essence is the most active essence in existence, in fact it is an infinite Processional active communion between the Three Persons of His Essence and the infinite activity of His Love and Knowing and Willing.

He creates by an Act of Will. This does not mean that His Essence has changed, His Essence has not changed. His Will is an act of course, so is the Love He has for the creation that flows from His Will.

So God creates the universe, causes its activity, sustains it in existence, and guides it to its proper end without Himself being changed in His Essence. Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

When the universe did not exist, God did exist.

Its meaningless to speak of a before “creation” in relation or relative to a timeless being.

And of course we know that the universe had a beginning in space and time, that God created it. The universe has not existed eternally. We know this through Divine Revelation. Linus2nd

The universe certainly had a beginning. However it is a mistake to think of creation as a temporal event. From Gods perspective (Gods eye-view), his creation has always existed with him in its entirety and that must be true given that God is timeless; despite the universe or multiverse having a beginning or changing in and of itself. You are certainly correct to say that there is no infinite regression of efficient causes.

 

[belorg]

No, I did not say that.

I specifically said that “God at all times wills that the world be created and at all times causes the world to be created.” God does not change from applying his creative force to not applying it, or vice versa. He applies it at all times.

And I said this is irrelevant and explained why. I am not and have never in this thread spoken about temporal priority.

 

[Eleve]

Then how, precisely, are you arguing that creation is contrary to immutability? Seems to me the only way to do that is to argue that creation entails that God be in one way at one time and in another way at another time, which is impossible to do without speaking of a temporal ordering.

Again, if you would care to spell out your argument yourself, in a paragraph or so, instead of by one-line responses to other attempts to tease it out, it would be very helpful.

 

[yppop]

Maybe you should refrain from replying until you actually know what you are talking about…

Let’s add “ad hominem” to your bag of obfuscations.

And judging by your insults and personal attacks I very much doubt that Amor vincit omnia. I hope that will be true, but Amor has a long way to go before it can win against your arrogance

What insults? What personal attack? I was merely logically interpreting your responses. Need any examples? Equivocation, evasion and nonsensical all are directed at responses not your person. When you used the phrase" your arrogance" in regards to me, that is personal.

Uh, belorg, you missed the "amor vincit omnia’ intent completely and I’m afraid I wasted some wit on you. “Love conquers all” was in regard to Love4All’s responses when compared to yours.

Sorry you didn’t get it!!

Yppop

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
When the universe did not exist, God did exist.

( Linux’s response) Its meaningless to speak of a before “creation” in relation or relative to a timeless being.

My response to the above.

That does not seem to be related to my comment. However, Thomas Aquinas does say that the creature ( created beings) are related to their cause ( God ) as effect to cause. So it is perfectly correct according to Thomas and the Catholic Church and all Christian religions ( as far as I know ) to speak of creation as a relationship of effect to the causality of the infinite and timeless God.

( My comment)Quote:
And of course we know that the universe had a beginning in space and time, that God created it. The universe has not existed eternally. We know this through Divine Revelation. Linus2nd ( End of my comment )

( Linux’s response)The universe certainly had a beginning. However it is a mistake to think of creation as a temporal event. From Gods perspective (Gods eye-view), his creation has always existed with him in its entirety and that must be true given that God is timeless; despite the universe or multiverse having a beginning or changing in and of itself. You are certainly correct to say that there is no infinite regression of efficient causes. ( End of Linux’s comment)

My response.

Thomas Aquinas speaks of God’s creation as creation in time, so does the Catholic Church and all Christian religions ( S.T. Part 1, Q 46 ). You are correct that God’s creation eternally existed as data of His Divine Ideas. God holds all possible modes of existence as Ideas in His Divine Intellect. But as far as creation is concerned He has only made one universe. We know nothing about other possible universes that may have existed or could exist some day. Of course the mere existence of something in the Divine Ideas does not mean it must or will acutally come to be. There is no necessity in God’s creation or in any of His possible acts.

As part of the data of God’s Ideas, creation is only an idea, not a fact in reality outside of God’s Intellect. But in the act of creation these Ideas become concrete facts of reality.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Neither Thomas nor Christianity can say how God creates the universe from His eternal mode of existence while the object of His creation is limited being, in space and time. But we do know from Revelation that God does not create or has not created " at all times." Creation, per se, was a one time event. That is why is absolutely pointless to speak of " Schmod " and " possible " worlds.

*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.

He wills them outside of Himself, into space and time which are co-created with the limited beings of the universe. But to give the correct Christian understanding you would have to say that though God eternally willed the creation of this universe, he did in fact create it in space and time in an absolute beginning. In other words the universe is not itself eternal, even though God’s Idea of it was eternal. There was not an actual eternal creation going on. Now that would have been the case if the universe was itself eternal in fact. But since we know from Revelation that it was not eternal, we know that God was not actually creating eternally. Linus2nd

 

[Love4All]

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

God is Pure Act. His state of actuality never changes, no matter what He does.

He is dynamic, not static. You are confusing immutable with static. God is not static, nor dead.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God is Pure Act. His state of actuality never changes, no matter what He does.

He is dynamic, not static. You are confusing immutable with static. God is not static, nor dead.

Yes, I tried to explain that to him but I think he just brushed it off. We just have to keep in mind that God’s creative act and His activity in His creation neither subtracts from nor adds to His Essenc or Nature ( I.E. His Existence ). Linus2nd

 

[Love4All]

And if there is nothing else in this world besides b,c and d, then writing this as a set allow to perform calculations, but does not change a reality containing b,c and d into a rality containing some magical entity. You keep confusing a mathematical construction with reality.

You keep renaming representation as confusion. They are not the same thing. In order to discuss anything at all, since words are after all merely representations of concepts and concepts representations of reality, we employ representation. Not confusion. We represent reality with mathematical constructions, not confuse reality with mathematical constructions.

But the beauty of mathematical constructions is, mathematics is an exact science. Mathematics is perfectly and unforgivingly logical. Thus, when we represent something mathematically, and then carry out mathematical operations on our representation, we are actually investigating the thing represented. I can see why this is “confusing” to you. You have erroneous thoughts about God, and mathematical representation allows you to correct those errors, and you would prefer to leave your errors uncorrected. It is confusing to attempt to maintain a false belief in the face of contradicting evidence.

An example of your confusion, above, is your invocation of “magic.” You call the empty set, “magic,” because you don’t like the inconvenient mathematical fact that it is included in every set.

The set, A = {b, c, d} is NOT the set, A(m) = {b, c, d, MAGIC}.

The assertion that I claimed it is, is just your latest straw man, which you have to construct because you are finding logic both inescapable and inconvenient.

And I am not going to waste anymore time on this.

Translation: I am defeated, but refuse to admit defeat. So I’m pretending to take a high road out of here.