St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[Eleve]

What I am not willing to grant is that God, whose essence is his existence and who is ultimately simple and uncomposed, can in one world be applying a force (which , under Thomism is just God Himself, not a part of God) and in the other world do absolutely nothing with that same force. that is, now matter how you look at it, an essential diffrence between the God in w1 and the God in w2.

Well, I’m afraid I don’t know enough about divine simplicity to know what a theist would say about this. But then I don’t see what the creation and mutability have to do with whether God could be different in a different possible world.

Well, I really don’t understand why you keep replying to something you do not understand.

In hopes that maybe you’ll actually explain yourself. I don’t want to just say “Oh, of course, you win; how could we ever have doubted your (incomprehensible!) pearls of wisdom?”

Besides, I do understand what I have responded to. What I don’t understand is how the dozens of different claims I’ve addressed here are supposed to fit together into a single argument. Which, again, I ask you to explain.

 

[belorg]

Well, I’m afraid I don’t know enough about divine simplicity to know what a theist would say about this. But then I don’t see what the creation and mutability have to do with whether God could be different in a different possible world.

So, you should ask yourself if you know enough about these issues to be able to discuss this.

In hopes that maybe you’ll actually explain yourself. I don’t want to just say “Oh, of course, you win; how could we ever have doubted your (incomprehensible!) pearls of wisdom?”

Besides, I do understand what I have responded to. What I don’t understand is how the dozens of different claims I’ve addressed here are supposed to fit together into a single argument. Which, again, I ask you to explain.

I did not make dozens of different claims. I have, however, tried to explain what I meant in different ways, because of the ‘dozens’ of attempts to refute my position,
My position was attacked by Love4All, using set theory as well as threatening me with eternal damnation, and quetion-begging. By Linus, using Catholic dogma and asseryions that he cannot back up. By you, dragging in temporal notions that have nothing to do with the issue, etc.
But nobody has actually tried to refute my central argument.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Whatever else Genesis says or implies, it is fairly clear that God is not in a constant frenzy of creating. Why else would Genesis say He rested? Is there some metaphorical meaning of “rest” that you guys are privy to that I am not?

I think you misinterpreted what I said. Of course the creation of the universe was a one time event. But god continues to act and operate in his creation. S.T. Part 1, Q 104, Art. 1 ad 4 explains God’s preservation of creation as “…a continuation of the creative activity of God…” And there are a number of sources from Scripture as well. My favorite is Jn 5, 17, “…My Father worketh until now; and I work…”

So it is clear that God continues to work in his creartion. And it is a Defined teaching of the Church that God keeps all created things in existence. The Church also teaches that God upholds and sustains and guides his creation ( CCC 300 - 302 ). As St. Paus says in Acts 17:28, " …in Him we live and move and have our being…"

So there was an initial creation and it was that from which God rested. But He continues to work in His creation and most intimately.

But this puts no blot on His Immutability, His Essence is not changed. He is Unchanging and Unchangeable. But he is vibrantly creative and active in His interior life and in the overflow of His love into creation, governance and providence.

Now when allagory is mentioned in relation to the Creation story in Scriptures that does not mean the facts have changed, it means that Moses was speaking in the only way the Hebrews could understand or even he could understand. And of course this was the Inspired word or message of God to him. This was the way God wanted these events to be related.

Does that make sense? Linus2nd

 

[Eleve]

So, you should ask yourself if you know enough about these issues to be able to discuss this.

In this thread we are discussing whether God’s immutability is at odds with God’s creating the universe. I do not know enough about divine simplicity in order to discuss divine simplicity. But this isn’t a thread about divine simplicity, so I see no problem.

I did not make dozens of different claims.

For example, you recently started claiming that God cannot have different properties in different possible worlds. You certainly haven’t brought this up before the last couple of pages. So why are you bringing it up? Well, one might suppose that it’s because it bears some relevance to the argument that you were making before. But you have yet to even tell us what that argument is.

But nobody has actually tried to refute my central argument.

Because your central argument is unstated and inscrutable.

Once again: Write down your argument in a paragraph. Then we will know what it is and we will be able to talk about it without having to spend hours and hours discussing irrelevancies.

 

[Linux]

I think you misinterpreted what I said. Of course the creation of the universe was a one time event.

I disagree with this claim. Gods sustaining act or preservation is an act of creation. No potentiality becomes actual without Gods creative act despite the endurance of particular essences. Essences do not sustain their own existence. It is God who sustains their actuality.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, I’m afraid I don’t know enough about divine simplicity to know what a theist would say about this. But then I don’t see what the creation and mutability have to do with whether God could be different in a different possible world.

Well, you allowed him to back you into a corner. This is what happens when you take a snake oil salesman seriously. All this stuff about possible worlds and bubble worlds and contracting and expanding worlds etc is nothing but science fiction. There isn’t one spec of truth in it. But with the duplicity of the media and the intellectual bankruptcy of our intstitutions of higher learning they have been able to parlay this nonesence into a movement. Satan never devised a more clever bit of Sophism.

Can’t you see " B " has defined the terms to suite himself. God’s Simplicity, His Essence is not changed by His act of creation or by His continued activity in His creation.

My post 699: " … the creation of the universe was a one time event. But god continues to act and operate in his creation. S.T. Part 1, Q 104, Art. 1 ad 4 explains God’s preservation of creation as “…a continuation of the creative activity of God…” And there are a number of sources from Scripture as well. My favorite is Jn 5, 17, “…My Father worketh until now; and I work…”

So it is clear that God continues to work in his creartion. And it is a Defined teaching of the Church that God keeps all created things in existence. The Church also teaches that God upholds and sustains and guides his creation ( CCC 300 - 302 ). As St. Paus says in Acts 17:28, " …in Him we live and move and have our being…"

So there was an initial creation and it was that from which God rested. But He continues to work in His creation and most intimately.

But this puts no blot on His Immutability ( Nor His Simplicity), His Essence is not changed. He is Unchanging and Unchangeable. But he is vibrantly creative and active in His interior life and in the overflow of His love into creation, governance and providence… "

One of our own has blown holes through all this pseudo science here :
home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I disagree with this claim. Gods sustaining act or preservation is an act of creation. No potentiality becomes actual without Gods creative act despite the endurance of particular essences. Essences do not sustain their own existence. It is God who sustains their actuality.

Well have it whatever way you want. I think you have a severe problem understanding what you are reading. I don’t know how you could have gotten any of that from anything I have said. Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Well have it whatever way you want. I think you have a severe problem understanding what you are reading. I don’t know how you could have gotten any of that from anything I have said. Linus2nd

You say that the creation of the universe is a one time event.

I am saying that creation is happening every-time a potentiality is actualised.

 

[belorg]

Well, you allowed him to back you into a corner.

Judging by the fact that you have to reside to personal attacks and that you have been repeating the same mantra here over and over again without one shred of support, I think you are actually in the same cornert as Eleve is.

 

[belorg]

In this thread we are discussing whether God’s immutability is at odds with God’s creating the universe. I do not know enough about divine simplicity in order to discuss divine simplicity. But this isn’t a thread about divine simplicity, so I see no problem.

In this thread we are discussing Thomistic concepts. the whole idea of immutability is closely cannot be seen separately from divine simplicity.
So, no offense, but you simply do not know enough baout these issues to have a proper discussion.

For example, you recently started claiming that God cannot have different properties in different possible worlds. You certainly haven’t brought this up before the last couple of pages. So why are you bringing it up? Well, one might suppose that it’s because it bears some relevance to the argument that you were making before. But you have yet to even tell us what that argument is.

I 'started claiming ’ this because you brought in the concept of God’s a-temporality as an attempt to refute what I said.

Because your central argument is unstated and inscrutable.

My central argument has been stated clearly. I have posited a possible world with only an immutable being, and asked several times to account for ppssible change in that world.
So far, nobody has even come close to doing that.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If there are two sort of logic, there is no way to discuss this. Because, who knows, that beyond the strictures of materialism or naturalism, things may just pop into existendce completely uncaused?

Like the universe for example. Yeh, that is real logic O.K… Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You say that the creation of the universe is a one time event.

I am saying that creation is happening every-time a potentiality is actualised.

If you read a couple of posts back I addressed that with one of the other folks. The creation of the universe was a one time event. All the basic forms, matter, substances were created in one event. I am talking about the basic structure of the physical universe and the things in it. I do not mean to imply that creation has not continued in some manner since then. Certainly God continues to create individual souls. But other than that the question is at least doubtful. Although Thomas describes God’s government and providence as a continuation of God’s creative act.

But to say that the actualization of every potentiality is the result of God’s creative act would be a stretch. After all, that would seem to leave no place fore the efficient activity of God’s creatures, as Thomas points out. I will admit Thomas is very obscure on this point.
I think we may be safe in saying that God is at least creating the act of to be of each new actuality. But I wouldn’t stake my life on it. I would certainly be open to correction. But I wouldn’t want to hash it out here. I will leave that question to folks much better than myself. Then I will listen and think about it and wait for the Church to say something - if it ever does. Linus2nd

 

[robbodb]

In this thread we are discussing whether God’s immutability is at odds with God’s creating the universe. I do not know enough about divine simplicity in order to discuss divine simplicity. But this isn’t a thread about divine simplicity, so I see no problem.

For example, you recently started claiming that God cannot have different properties in different possible worlds. You certainly haven’t brought this up before the last couple of pages. So why are you bringing it up? Well, one might suppose that it’s because it bears some relevance to the argument that you were making before. But you have yet to even tell us what that argument is.

Because your central argument is unstated and inscrutable.

Once again: Write down your argument in a paragraph. Then we will know what it is and we will be able to talk about it without having to spend hours and hours discussing irrelevancies./QUOTE

Eleve, you have asked Belorg a number of times to set out his detailed position.

You have not received the response you have requested.

Perhaps it may be of benefit to take a big picture view of the style of Belorg’s posts and the type of comments therein. Is there a common thread(s)?

Belorg has also chosen not to respond either in whole or in part to posts of others including myself.

It may be useful to categorise the Belorg posts where he has decided to respond to requests for information and/or his reasoning.

It is a common strategy in negotiations that saying as little as possible (especially when one’s position is not all that strong ) is preferred over talking a lot.

Sometimes being vague or ambiguous helps in a debate especially if the other party is unlikely to challenge the vagueness or ambiguity.

Sometimes silence speaks much louder than words.

You may wish to ask Belorg whether it is logical for him not to respond to reasonable requests?

Truth,Love and Peace,

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Judging by the fact that you have to reside to personal attacks and that you have been repeating the same mantra here over and over again without one shred of support, I think you are actually in the same cornert as Eleve is.

Oh, you mean " corner? " Definitely, I am in Eleve’s corner. Eleve is at least honest and straight forward and is making a valient effort to think straight and doesn’t resort to evasions. Do I agree with Eleve all the time? No. But I do know Eleve is honest. And I have the highest respect for honesty. Linus2nd

 

[Love4All]

I have been doing that for several pages . But regardless whether there are good arguments or not, your reply is question-begging.

I’ll show you by using an aanlogy

Say X is a blue entity that cannot change colour.

Then your argument comes down to

1 X’s colour can’t change
2. When X becomes mad, he turns red.
3 Turning red cannot be a chnage in colour because X can’t change colour.

So, it’s not enough to assert that a diffrence between two possible states cannot be a chnage because God cannot chnagen because the last part is what needs to argued for.
So, it is question-begging.

Now, do you have a real reply to my arguments?

First of all, thank you for finally exposing your mind via analogy. It is said truly, that the physician cannot heal that of which he remains ignorant. This why we communicate, to expose our minds to one another, and why we debate on forums is to expose our reasoning to the scrutiny of others who can examine it more objectively than ourselves.

That said, I have a twofold response to your explanation. First, you expose a more basic flaw in your thinking, but it is not where you went with your argument. Before I address the substance of your argument, then, I have the desire to help you to see this flaw. You begin your analogy with, “Say X is a blue entity that cannot change colour.” No doubt your intention is to make some analogy to God, but immediately a flaw in your entire mind set comes to light. An inability to change color in a being we would naturally surmise ought to be able to change color, is a flaw. God has no flaw. So to predicate inability of God is to posit something akin to a square circle. God cannot have an inability to do any particular thing.

Lack of change in God is not a flaw but a perfection. Therefore we must treat it, if we mean to gain real understanding, as a perfection, not a flaw. But I recognize that this is not the point of your analogy, so now I will address your actual point.

You caricatured in straw, my argument, as follows,

1 X’s colour can’t change
2. When X becomes mad, he turns red.
3 Turning red cannot be a chnage in colour because X can’t change colour.

Now in order to hold up as an argument, your analogy will of course have to match up with my thesis point by point. Let’s see how you do.

1. X’s colour can’t change — has to be an analogy to “God is immutable.”
2. When X becomes mad, he turns red. — must be an analogy to, “when God creates, He mutates.”
3. Turning red cannot be a chnage in colour because X can’t change colour — by analogy this would read, “Mutating can’t be mutating because God can’t mutate.”

I see your logic. I agree that IF we accept your premises as given, your conclusion follows. That would indeed be a specious argument on my part.

But, there is the small problem of what your #2 represents. The statement, “when God creates, He mutates,” appears to be an unsupported assumption. One might even be tempted to say it is your conclusion dressed up to look like a premise. Almost as if you were committing the fallacy of begging the question. But, you wouldn’t be doing that, would you? Because, people rarely get caught accusing others of what they themselves do?

The Catholic Doctrine is that the Creator is immutable.

Your assertion is that in order to create, the Creator must mutate.

It is up to you to support that with some cogent argument. You can’t just assume it, and it seems plain by all that we have seen above that that is what you have been doing. So, there you go — there is your burden of proof, there is your task. Demonstrate that in order to create, the Creator must mutate.

To help you focus on your task, I offer the following consideration: God is Pure Act.

The only possible mutation that can occur in a being who is Pure Act would be to somehow become less than Pure Act. So what you must demonstrate is how it is that a being who is Pure Act, and can create, loses His Pure Actuality in the act of creating.

 

[Love4All]

I disagree with this claim. Gods sustaining act or preservation is an act of creation. No potentiality becomes actual without Gods creative act despite the endurance of particular essences. Essences do not sustain their own existence. It is God who sustains their actuality.

The array of Creation is described in Genesis. God ceased from creating new and different kinds of things.

 

[Love4All]

I think you misinterpreted what I said. Of course the creation of the universe was a one time event. But god continues to act and operate in his creation. S.T. Part 1, Q 104, Art. 1 ad 4 explains God’s preservation of creation as “…a continuation of the creative activity of God…” And there are a number of sources from Scripture as well. My favorite is Jn 5, 17, “…My Father worketh until now; and I work…”

So it is clear that God continues to work in his creartion. And it is a Defined teaching of the Church that God keeps all created things in existence. The Church also teaches that God upholds and sustains and guides his creation ( CCC 300 - 302 ). As St. Paus says in Acts 17:28, " …in Him we live and move and have our being…"

So there was an initial creation and it was that from which God rested. But He continues to work in His creation and most intimately.

But this puts no blot on His Immutability, His Essence is not changed. He is Unchanging and Unchangeable. But he is vibrantly creative and active in His interior life and in the overflow of His love into creation, governance and providence.

Now when allagory is mentioned in relation to the Creation story in Scriptures that does not mean the facts have changed, it means that Moses was speaking in the only way the Hebrews could understand or even he could understand. And of course this was the Inspired word or message of God to him. This was the way God wanted these events to be related.

Does that make sense? Linus2nd

After the “six days,” Genesis says, the heavens and the earth and all their furnishings, were done. God no longer created new kinds of things, even though He sustains what He did create and brings new beings into existence of the same kinds He created in the six days.

I think.

 

[Love4All]

My central argument has been stated clearly.

I agree, by the way. This is exactly what I thought your central argument was. What confuses me is your continuing to cling to it after it has clearly been refuted. But perhaps it is my fault. Perhaps my refutation was not clear enough. I relied — silly me — on the precision of mathematics, and thought that would be sufficient. I can see now that mathematics is not your strong suit, so I will attempt, yet again, to explain to you how your argument fails, but using words instead of numbers.

I have posited a possible world with only an immutable being, and asked several times to account for ppssible change in that world.
So far, nobody has even come close to doing that.

OK, now, first of all, you have to admit, you are being very slippery in your definition of a “world.” But, I am going to treat that as irrelevant and address your scenario directly, without bothering to pin you down to a more precise definition of a world. My prediction, Alas! is that you will object that I am not using it correctly. To at least attempt to stave off that eventuality, I am going to treat it in several possible ways and demonstrate that they all come out to the same thing in the end, and not what you wanted.

A possible world with only an immutable being. How can this world possibly change?

The straightforward answer: the immutable being could create something.

But, you object, that would be a change in the . . .?

What is your objection?

A. “. . .that would be a change in the immutable being!”

No. It would only be a change in the world in which the immutable being is.

B. “. . .that would be a change in the immutable world!”

Yes, but not in the immutable being. The world with the being in it is not the same as the being that is in the world.

After this, of course, you move the goalposts. It is no longer a possible world with only an immutable being, it is a possible world that IS an immutable being.

I pointed out that that is pantheism. I don’t think you answered that. But clearly, equating the world with God is pantheism. I asserted, further, that it remains pantheism whether or not there is anything else besides God in this world. I don’t think you answered that. But it remains that, in order to assert that

God cannot change → the world cannot change,

you need to assign

God = the world.

I don’t think there is another way to make it come out like that, and if that is indeed how you are doing it, then whatever you are addressing has nothing whatsoever to do with Saint Thomas Aquinas. In order to refute Saint Thomas, you’ll first have to begin to address him. So we can’t waste our time refuting pantheistic deities, and consequently,

God = the world

has got to go.

It then raises the question, without

God = the world,

how are you getting

God cannot change → the world cannot change?

It is worth asking, what is a world? You say, “a possible state of affairs.” You say there is a possible state of affairs wherein God alone exists. I agree, this is a possible state of affairs. You say, in this possible state of affairs, God cannot create. I say, “why?” and you say, because in order to create, He would have to change the state of affairs from Himself alone existing, to a world with a Creation. I say, yes, just so, so what? And you say,

1. God is immutable
2. God alone exists in this world
3. Therefore the world as a whole is immutable
4. In order to create, God has to change the world
5. But that contradicts 3, therefore,
6. God cannot create.

The problem is your confusion by which you move from 2 to 3. God alone in a world does not mean that the world as a whole is immutable. God is not the same as the world. Even if God is alone in the world, He is still not the same as the world.

But! — you object — there is nothing in this world at all except for God! Therefore every property God has, the world as a whole has. God is the whole world!

Wrong. “God is the whole world” is pantheism, and Saint Thomas is not a pantheist.

But! — you object — you are magically creating a fictitious entity, “the world,” when the world I am talking about is merely a possible state of affairs wherein God alone exists!

No. Wrong. I am acknowledging your “possible state of affairs,” in not only one but in two possible and different ways, and it comes out the same either way.

Suppose, first of all, that God alone exists. Then, God creates. He is no longer alone. We have not invoked any “worlds” at all.

Suppose, instead, that there is some world that is empty apart from God. God and nothing else. Then, God creates. Then, there are other things in the world with God. The world has changed. God hasn’t changed, but the world has changed. How is this possible, given that the world is defined as containing God alone? Simple. The world contains God and all that is not God, even when that is nothing at all. After God creates, then it is something, but the same still applies.

Your fallacy seems to hinge on pantheism. But of course, if you fail to make God and the world identical, then you lose the idea that the world cannot change if God can’t change, and you are left nearly ready to admit that maybe God can create after all.

 

[tonyrey]

I agree, by the way. This is exactly what I thought your central argument was. What confuses me is your continuing to cling to it after it has clearly been refuted. But perhaps it is my fault. Perhaps my refutation was not clear enough. I relied — silly me — on the precision of mathematics, and thought that would be sufficient. I can see now that mathematics is not your strong suit, so I will attempt, yet again, to explain to you how your argument fails, but using words instead of numbers.

OK, now, first of all, you have to admit, you are being very slippery in your definition of a “world.” But, I am going to treat that as irrelevant and address your scenario directly, without bothering to pin you down to a more precise definition of a world. My prediction, Alas! is that you will object that I am not using it correctly. To at least attempt to stave off that eventuality, I am going to treat it in several possible ways and demonstrate that they all come out to the same thing in the end, and not what you wanted.

A possible world with only an immutable being. How can this world possibly change?

The straightforward answer: the immutable being could create something.

But, you object, that would be a change in the . . .?

What is your objection?

A. “. . .that would be a change in the immutable being!”

No. It would only be a change in the world in which the immutable being is.

B. “. . .that would be a change in the immutable world!”

Yes, but not in the immutable being. The world with the being in it is not the same as the being that is in the world.

After this, of course, you move the goalposts. It is no longer a possible world with only an immutable being, it is a possible world that IS an immutable being.

I pointed out that that is pantheism. I don’t think you answered that. But clearly, equating the world with God is pantheism. I asserted, further, that it remains pantheism whether or not there is anything else besides God in this world. I don’t think you answered that. But it remains that, in order to assert that

God cannot change → the world cannot change,

you need to assign

God = the world.

I don’t think there is another way to make it come out like that, and if that is indeed how you are doing it, then whatever you are addressing has nothing whatsoever to do with Saint Thomas Aquinas. In order to refute Saint Thomas, you’ll first have to begin to address him. So we can’t waste our time refuting pantheistic deities, and consequently,

God = the world

has got to go.

It then raises the question, without

God = the world,

how are you getting

God cannot change → the world cannot change?

It is worth asking, what is a world? You say, “a possible state of affairs.” You say there is a possible state of affairs wherein God alone exists. I agree, this is a possible state of affairs. You say, in this possible state of affairs, God cannot create. I say, “why?” and you say, because in order to create, He would have to change the state of affairs from Himself alone existing, to a world with a Creation. I say, yes, just so, so what? And you say,

1. God is immutable
2. God alone exists in this world
3. Therefore the world as a whole is immutable
4. In order to create, God has to change the world
5. But that contradicts 3, therefore,
6. God cannot create.

The problem is your confusion by which you move from 2 to 3. God alone in a world does not mean that the world as a whole is immutable. God is not the same as the world. Even if God is alone in the world, He is still not the same as the world.

But! — you object — there is nothing in this world at all except for God! Therefore every property God has, the world as a whole has. God is the whole world!

Wrong. “God is the whole world” is pantheism, and Saint Thomas is not a pantheist.

But! — you object — you are magically creating a fictitious entity, “the world,” when the world I am talking about is merely a possible state of affairs wherein God alone exists!

No. Wrong. I am acknowledging your “possible state of affairs,” in not only one but in two possible and different ways, and it comes out the same either way.

Suppose, first of all, that God alone exists. Then, God creates. He is no longer alone. We have not invoked any “worlds” at all.

Suppose, instead, that there is some world that is empty apart from God. God and nothing else. Then, God creates. Then, there are other things in the world with God. The world has changed. God hasn’t changed, but the world has changed. How is this possible, given that the world is defined as containing God alone? Simple. The world contains God and all that is not God, even when that is nothing at all. After God creates, then it is something, but the same still applies.

Your fallacy seems to hinge on pantheism. But of course, if you fail to make God and the world identical, then you lose the idea that the world cannot change if God can’t change, and you are left nearly ready to admit that maybe God can create after all.

An excellent analysis. I have just pointed out on another thread that relativism (absolute mutability!) is self-destructive. The notion of “relative relativism” is absurd…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

After the “six days,” Genesis says, the heavens and the earth and all their furnishings, were done. God no longer created new kinds of things, even though He sustains what He did create and brings new beings into existence of the same kinds He created in the six days.

I think.

I think too. I guess my post # 708 summerizes my thoughts on this. Thomas is hard to understand on this and the Church has gone no further as far as I know. I suppose if it became a huge issue the Church might have something to say but I don’t see any signs of that. Linus2