St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[belorg]

Since you plainly do not agree with that doctrine, then by your own rule, this discussion is not for you.

Of course i don’t agree with Catholic doctrine, but I am assuming for the sake of the argument that it is correct.

 

[belorg]

You’re right, it is a matter of semantics. Belorg is trolling us.

“The world” is all that is. Thus, when God alone existed, He existed alone in the world. That is the world belorg talks about as possible — it was actual, before Creation, and then God created.

But you have a lot of fun feeding the troll. I’m done.

Yes, you don’t have anything to refute my argument, so just start calling me a troll.

 

[Love4All]

Of course i don’t agree with Catholic doctrine, but I am assuming for the sake of the argument that it is correct.

That is a bold-faced lie. You are rather assuming that wG = G is correct, and you proceed from there.

 

[Love4All]

Yes, you don’t have anything to refute my argument, so just start calling me a troll.

IF you truly, as you protest, accepted Catholic Doctrine as true for the sake of this argument, THEN you would reject pantheism as the Catholic Church rejects pantheism. SINCE wG = G is pantheism, and since you use that as your initial premise, CONSEQUENTLY, you lie when you claim to accept Catholic Doctrine for the sake of argument.

ERGO, you are a troll. Peace.

 

[belorg]

IF you truly, as you protest, accepted Catholic Doctrine as true for the sake of this argument, THEN you would reject pantheism as the Catholic Church rejects pantheism. SINCE wG = G is pantheism, and since you use that as your initial premise, CONSEQUENTLY, you lie when you claim to accept Catholic Doctrine for the sake of argument.

ERGO, you are a troll. Peace.

I accept for the sake of the argument the Catholic doctrine that says that God is the creator of everything, visible and invisible, from this I use a reductio and derive logically that there is something wrong with this, provided God is Pure Act.

 

[belorg]

That is a bold-faced lie. You are rather assuming that wG = G is correct, and you proceed from there.

Are you sure your religion isn’t “hate” instead of “love”?
My definition of love does not entail insulting people.

 

[belorg]

ANALYSIS OF BELORG’S SECOND ARGUMENT

First of all, G does not “become” G + U. To phrase the argument this way is already to beg the question that God can become. The proper way to state the argument is this:

Let G be an immutable God.
Let U be the universe.
So in the beginning we have G; later we have G+ U.
That’s a change, isn’t it?
But G cannot change, so we cannot have G + U.

Very nice argument, Belorg.

Unfortunately, the last line is wrong. We can still have G + U even if G cannot change, because U can change. In fact, that is exactly what happened. U changed from being-in-potency to being-in-act, from being a possible universe to being an actually existing universe. How? Because the creator God was always a being-in-act, and that is all that is required to cause a potential Universe to be an actual Universe.

If you had read this thread from the beginning, you would have known why this is wrong. But I am too tired to start all over again.

 

[Love4All]

I accept for the sake of the argument the Catholic doctrine that says that God is the creator of everything, visible and invisible, from this I use a reductio and derive logically that there is something wrong with this, provided God is Pure Act.

No, that is not what you did. You decided God cannot create without mutating. From there you derive that God cannot be Pure Act. You exalt your own personal opinion above God’s self-revelation.

 

[belorg]

No, that is not what you did. You decided God cannot create without mutating. From there you derive that God cannot be Pure Act. You exalt your own personal opinion above God’s self-revelation.

I do not know why I was thinking that I could discuss this with someone as closed-minded as you.

 

[Love4All]

I do not know why I was thinking that I could discuss this with someone as closed-minded as you.

Sum up your argument that God cannot create without mutating, since that is the unsupported premise.

 

[belorg]

Sum up your argument that God cannot create without mutating, since that is the unsupported premise.

Read with an open mind and you will find it. Remain closed-minded and you won’t ever find anything. It’s your choice.

 

[Love4All]

Read with an open mind and you will find it. Remain closed-minded and you won’t ever find anything. It’s your choice.

1. Read with an open mind and you will find it.
2. Remain closed minded and you won’t ever find anything.
3. It’s your choice.

How are you getting, “God cannot create without mutating” from that?

Or have you lost track of what an argument is?

 

[belorg]

1. Read with an open mind and you will find it.
2. Remain closed minded and you won’t ever find anything.
3. It’s your choice.

How are you getting, “God cannot create without mutating” from that?

Or have you lost track of what an argument is?

I get “God cannot create without mutating” from the argument you would find if you had an open mind, but that you won’t find because because you are too closed-minded.

 

[rom422]

MY TAKE ON CREATION

If you had read this thread from the beginning, you would have known why this is wrong. But I am too tired to start all over again.

I did read this long thread from the beginning, and I see nothing wrong with my statements. However, I do not blame you if you do not want to repeat yourself. I can still continue to expose your errors from other posts that you have made in this thread. For now, though, let me just clarify a few things regarding creation.

CREATIO EX NIHILO

Creation is the production of the entire being of a thing without the need of any pre-existing material cause. When you make a box out of a few pieces of wood, then you are the *efficient cause *of the box, and the wood is the contributing material cause. Now, this is *making *something, but not out of nothing; so, it is not creation. Creation in this example would mean producing the entire box without the need of pre-existing materials (such as the wood, the nails, etc.). In a sense, then, it is an act of producing something *out of *nothing (ex nihilo), because there was no pre-existing material used to produce it.

Therefore, creation is production without a material cause. It does not mean production without an efficient cause. And when we say that a creature comes “from” God, what we mean is that it comes from God as its efficient cause, not from God as its material cause. Unlike a box that is made from a piece of wood (the material cause), a creature is not made out of any pre-existing substance, including God’s substance! A creature is not made out of the substance of the Creator. U and G are distinct substances. Therefore, while creation is always a creation ex nihilo, it is never a creation ex Deo. The true concept of creation does not lead to pantheism. And because a creature does not come out of God’s substance, therefore one cannot correctly say that God intrinsically changes when a creature is created. God remains immutable.

Actually, creation involves two more causes. There is the final cause, which is God’s purpose in creating the creature. Then there is the formal cause, which constitutes the “form” or essence of the creature. Unlike the final cause which is extrinsic to the creature, the essence is intrinsic to the creature, and is created when the creature is created. God knows the essences of things, so they exist eternally in God’s mind as “exemplars” of things to be created. Without actual existence, however, the essences of things are merely possible beings (potential beings ) that exist in God’s power to create. Before creatures are created the essences of things are related to existence as potency to act.

EX NIHILO NIHIL FIT

This dictum is translated into English as “Nothing comes from nothing.” And it is true. Because being never comes from non-being.

In fact, creation is not the coming into being of something from non-being. Rather, it is the coming into actual existence of something that was originally a possible being. A possible creature is not the same as the hypothetical white rabbit in a state of absolute nothingness. Without an efficient cause and without a material cause, the white rabbit is not a possible being. If it is not existing, then it is doomed to stay in that state of absolute nothingness. A creature before creation, on the other hand, is not in a state of absolute nothingness. It is a possible being because there is a God who can create it. If you take God out of the picture, then of course the creature would not come to be. In this kind of absolute nothingness no beings would be possible. This is what we mean when we say that nothing comes from nothing. The white rabbit cannot become, because by hypothesis it is in a state of absolute nothingness and is not a possible being. But a creature (before creation) can become, because an Omnipotent God is posited, which serves as the ground and source of its being.

Again, creation is the production of a thing in the absence of a material cause. It does not mean the production of something from absolute nothingness. Creation does not imply that something just comes out of nothing, without explanation and without cause. Creation implies the existence of a Creator, an Efficient Cause of being. Because, in a scenario where there is absolutely nothing there would be no possible being. But once we posit the existence of a Divine Being, then creatures (before creation) are possible beings. By God’s will and act of creation, these possible beings become actual beings.

Therefore, creation is not a movement from “nothingness” to “somethingness.” It is rather a movement from possible being to actual being, from being-in-potency to being-in-act. In this movement it is the creature that changes, not God, the Creator. It is not necessary for God to mutate in the act of creation, because God is a creator insofar as He is in act, and not because He is mutating. In the same manner, a white ball moves a second ball because it is in act during contact, and not because it moved. The white ball does not need to be stationary first, and then move, before it can make a second ball move.

 

[tonyrey]

MY TAKE ON CREATION

I did read this long thread from the beginning, and I see nothing wrong with my statements. However, I do not blame you if you do not want to repeat yourself. I can still continue to expose your errors from other posts that you have made in this thread. For now, though, let me just clarify a few things regarding creation.

CREATIO EX NIHILO

Creation is the production of the entire being of a thing without the need of any pre-existing material cause. When you make a box out of a few pieces of wood, then you are the *efficient cause *of the box, and the wood is the contributing material cause. Now, this is *making *something, but not out of nothing; so, it is not creation. Creation in this example would mean producing the entire box without the need of pre-existing materials (such as the wood, the nails, etc.). In a sense, then, it is an act of producing something *out of *nothing (ex nihilo), because there was no pre-existing material used to produce it.

Therefore, creation is production without a material cause. It does not mean production without an efficient cause. And when we say that a creature comes “from” God, what we mean is that it comes from God as its efficient cause, not from God as its material cause. Unlike a box that is made from a piece of wood (the material cause), a creature is not made out of any pre-existing substance, including God’s substance! A creature is not made out of the substance of the Creator. U and G are distinct substances. Therefore, while creation is always a creation ex nihilo, it is never a creation ex Deo. The true concept of creation does not lead to pantheism. And because a creature does not come out of God’s substance, therefore one cannot correctly say that God intrinsically changes when a creature is created. God remains immutable.

Actually, creation involves two more causes. There is the final cause, which is God’s purpose in creating the creature. Then there is the formal cause, which constitutes the “form” or essence of the creature. Unlike the final cause which is extrinsic to the creature, the essence is intrinsic to the creature, and is created when the creature is created. God knows the essences of things, so they exist eternally in God’s mind as “exemplars” of things to be created. Without actual existence, however, the essences of things are merely possible beings (potential beings ) that exist in God’s power to create. Before creatures are created the essences of things are related to existence as potency to act.

EX NIHILO NIHIL FIT

This dictum is translated into English as “Nothing comes from nothing.” And it is true. Because being never comes from non-being.

In fact, creation is not the coming into being of something from non-being. Rather, it is the coming into actual existence of something that was originally a possible being. A possible creature is not the same as the hypothetical white rabbit in a state of absolute nothingness. Without an efficient cause and without a material cause, the white rabbit is not a possible being. If it is not existing, then it is doomed to stay in that state of absolute nothingness. A creature before creation, on the other hand, is not in a state of absolute nothingness. It is a possible being because there is a God who can create it. If you take God out of the picture, then of course the creature would not come to be. In this kind of absolute nothingness no beings would be possible. This is what we mean when we say that nothing comes from nothing. The white rabbit cannot become, because by hypothesis it is in a state of absolute nothingness and is not a possible being. But a creature (before creation) can become, because an Omnipotent God is posited, which serves as the ground and source of its being.

Again, creation is the production of a thing in the absence of a material cause. It does not mean the production of something from absolute nothingness. Creation does not imply that something just comes out of nothing, without explanation and without cause. Creation implies the existence of a Creator, an Efficient Cause of being. Because, in a scenario where there is absolutely nothing there would be no possible being. But once we posit the existence of a Divine Being, then creatures (before creation) are possible beings. By God’s will and act of creation, these possible beings become actual beings.

Therefore, creation is not a movement from “nothingness” to “somethingness.” It is rather a movement from possible being to actual being, from being-in-potency to being-in-act. In this movement it is the creature that changes, not God, the Creator. It is not necessary for God to mutate in the act of creation, because God is a creator insofar as He is in act, and not because He is mutating. In the same manner, a white ball moves a second ball because it is in act during contact, and not because it moved. The white ball does not need to be stationary first, and then move, before it can make a second ball move.

An excellent analysis! To assert that the Creator is in the same category as everything else implies privileged insight into divine reality…

 

[Love4All]

I get “God cannot create without mutating” from the argument you would find if you had an open mind, but that you won’t find because because you are too closed-minded.

I don’t see any argument in the above at all, despite the openness of my mind. I must be blind, or stupid, or both.

Pretend I am not blind, only stupid, and reiterate your argument here for me. That will help. I can’t find it on my own.

My suspicion is that (1) you are not sincere, and (2) the argument to which you have been referring me doesn’t exist.

I have asked you now, twice, to give this argument. Twice now, you have obfuscated. You are putting more effort into continuing your obfuscation than it would have required for you to simply reiterate your argument, ASSUMING THAT IT EXISTS.

I think it is obvious by now that it doesn’t. Goodbye, troll.

 

[Love4All]

Summary of belorg’s entire thesis:

1. God cannot create without mutating.
2. Because I, belorg, said so.
3. If you disagree, it is because you are not reading with an open mind.
4. I’ve already presented my argument, it is your fault that you missed it.
5. I’m right, you’re wrong.
6. Because I said so, why is your mind so closed?
7. I’m too tired to continue this.

 

[Love4All]

Are you sure your religion isn’t “hate” instead of “love”?
My definition of love does not entail insulting people.

It is not an insult to call you a spade if you are a spade, or a liar if you are a liar. And if you say you are beginning from Catholic Doctrine and deriving that God cannot create, then you are a liar. If you wish to clear your name of that charge, then clearly present the logic that goes from Catholic Doctrine to “God cannot create.”

Obviously, that is impossible, so obviously, you were lying. Love tells the truth, and that is what I have done.

 

[belorg]

MY TAKE ON CREATION

Creation is the production of the entire being of a thing without the need of any pre-existing material cause. When you make a box out of a few pieces of wood, then you are the *efficient cause *of the box, and the wood is the contributing material cause. Now, this is *making *something, but not out of nothing; so, it is not creation. Creation in this example would mean producing the entire box without the need of pre-existing materials (such as the wood, the nails, etc.). In a sense, then, it is an act of producing something *out of *nothing (ex nihilo), because there was no pre-existing material used to produce it.

Therefore, creation is production without a material cause. It does not mean production without an efficient cause. And when we say that a creature comes “from” God, what we mean is that it comes from God as its efficient cause, not from God as its material cause. Unlike a box that is made from a piece of wood (the material cause), a creature is not made out of any pre-existing substance, including God’s substance! A creature is not made out of the substance of the Creator. U and G are distinct substances. Therefore, while creation is always a creation ex nihilo, it is never a creation ex Deo. The true concept of creation does not lead to pantheism. And because a creature does not come out of God’s substance, therefore one cannot correctly say that God intrinsically changes when a creature is created. God remains immutable.

Actually, creation involves two more causes. There is the final cause, which is God’s purpose in creating the creature. Then there is the formal cause, which constitutes the “form” or essence of the creature. Unlike the final cause which is extrinsic to the creature, the essence is intrinsic to the creature, and is created when the creature is created. God knows the essences of things, so they exist eternally in God’s mind as “exemplars” of things to be created. Without actual existence, however, the essences of things are merely possible beings (potential beings ) that exist in God’s power to create. Before creatures are created the essences of things are related to existence as potency to act.

EX NIHILO NIHIL FIT

This dictum is translated into English as “Nothing comes from nothing.” And it is true. Because being never comes from non-being.

In fact, creation is not the coming into being of something from non-being. Rather, it is the coming into actual existence of something that was originally a possible being. A possible creature is not the same as the hypothetical white rabbit in a state of absolute nothingness. Without an efficient cause and without a material cause, the white rabbit is not a possible being. If it is not existing, then it is doomed to stay in that state of absolute nothingness. A creature before creation, on the other hand, is not in a state of absolute nothingness. It is a possible being because there is a God who can create it. If you take God out of the picture, then of course the creature would not come to be. In this kind of absolute nothingness no beings would be possible. This is what we mean when we say that nothing comes from nothing. The white rabbit cannot become, because by hypothesis it is in a state of absolute nothingness and is not a possible being. But a creature (before creation) can become, because an Omnipotent God is posited, which serves as the ground and source of its being.

Again, creation is the production of a thing in the absence of a material cause. It does not mean the production of something from absolute nothingness. Creation does not imply that something just comes out of nothing, without explanation and without cause. Creation implies the existence of a Creator, an Efficient Cause of being. Because, in a scenario where there is absolutely nothing there would be no possible being. But once we posit the existence of a Divine Being, then creatures (before creation) are possible beings. By God’s will and act of creation, these possible beings become actual beings.

Therefore, creation is not a movement from “nothingness” to “somethingness.” It is rather a movement from possible being to actual being, from being-in-potency to being-in-act. In this movement it is the creature that changes, not God, the Creator. It is not necessary for God to mutate in the act of creation, because God is a creator insofar as He is in act, and not because He is mutating. In the same manner, a white ball moves a second ball because it is in act during contact, and not because it moved. The white ball does not need to be stationary first, and then move, before it can make a second ball move.

Since you have creatures in potency, this is not creatio ,ex nihilo. This is a violation of Catholic doctrine.
Now, I know you are going to try to get around this by saying that the ‘everything’ in Catholic doctrine actually means everything that actually exists, and does not include that things that only exist in potency, but fact is that you cannot account for the potency of these beings, so you have to admit that your brand of theism cannot answer the question why there is something rather than nothing.

There is also the fact that there are various natruralistic hypotheses that describe how things can come into existence from a state of potency. Once you admit, as you do, that potency is necessary, you have already lost the debate.

As for your last analogy: a ball can only move another ball if the first ball trensfers its kinetic energy to the second one. That means the first one must be moving or it cannot move the second one.

 

[belorg]

An excellent analysis! To assert that the Creator is in the same category as everything else implies privileged insight into divine reality…

Nobody is saying that the Creator must be in the same category aseverything else.