St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[belorg]

And to someone like me, who has read your whole argument, actually expressed it formally, and shown how it fails, you will dismiss me with,

1. You don’t understand my argument, and
2. I’m not willing to explain it to you.

You sure are insulated against anything except your own ideas! Keeps you safe, I guess.

No, I dismissed you with

You don’t understand my argument,despite me explaining it to you in several ways

 

[Love4All]

No, I dismissed you with

You don’t understand my argument,despite me explaining it to you in several ways

Except, you didn’t. I refuted every presentation of your argument. We are done here, belorg. Take a poll to determine whether any “others” judge your argument to be sound, or rather soundly defeated. The results, I am very confident, will surprise you.

 

[yppop]

No, I dismissed you with

You don’t understand my argument,despite me explaining it to you in several ways

Belorg
As an independent and objective observer, I read this whole debate and conclude that Love4 understood your argument better than you did. At least he made your argument, as simplistic as it is, more understandable than you had before he destroyed it.

Once again.
amor vincit omnia’
Yppop

 

[belorg]

Belorg
As an independent and objective observer, I read this whole debate and conclude that Love4 understood your argument better than you did. At least he made your argument, as simplistic as it is, more understandable than you had before he destroyed it.

Once again.
amor vincit omnia’
Yppop

You are not an independent and objective observer, but I am not going to start this discussion all over again.

 

[belorg]

Except, you didn’t. I refuted every presentation of your argument. We are done here, belorg. Take a poll to determine whether any “others” judge your argument to be sound, or rather soundly defeated. The results, I am very confident, will surprise you.

The truth is not determined by poll results, Love4All, especially not on a forum where the vast majority of participants is biased.

 

[yppop]

You are not an independent and objective observer, but I am not going to start this discussion all over again.

Good! So I won’t get a reply to this? I suspect that you are a compulsive-obbsessive that needs to get in the last word. Reply and you would confirm my suspicions and I won’t bother to reply. It is my Christian duty to attend to the “needs” of others.
Yppop

 

[Love4All]

The truth is not determined by poll results, Love4All, especially not on a forum where the vast majority of participants is biased.

Your negative assessment of your opponents here, contradicts your positive assessment of them, below. It seems, reality has disappointed you.

I’m sure the readers are smart enough to decide whether my victory is earned or not.

So it seems, all the (nonexistent) readers who agree you have a “victory,” are “smart,” while all the actual respondents to your “points” are “stupid.”

It must be lonely at the top!

To be fair, you didn’t actually come right out and call anyone stupid, you just implied that, since no one here agrees with you, no one here is “smart.” Very “clever” of you.

wG and G are the same because I started from Catholic doctrine that says that God is the creator of everything, visible and invisible. Maybe you do not agree with that doctrine, of course, but then this discussion is not meant for you.

So, so far we’ve got,

1. God is the Creator of everything.
2. Therefore wG and G are the same.

And your argument proceeds from there.

1. G cannot change.
2. wG and G are the same. (2)
3. Therefore wG cannot change.
4. Therefore God cannot create.

Or alternatively,

3a. wG changes when Creation occurs.
4a. wG and G are the same. (2)
5a. Therefore G changes when wG changes.
6a. Therefore God cannot be immutable.

1. Catholic Doctrine states that God is immutable, and God is the Creator.
2. But either 6 or 6a.
3. Thus God cannot be both Creator and immutable.
4. Therefore Catholic Doctrine is wrong.

To reiterate: 2 does not follow from 1. Since your whole argument relies on 2, 2 needs support. Above, you implied that 2 follows from 1, but that is based on an incorrect view of possible worlds. What is your view of possible worlds, that would allow you to make such a gross error? Let’s find out. Here is your best explanation from the thread:

Of course possible worlds are a useful fiction. So God and the world have the same properties, because the world is just God. It is just a linguistic device.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

So, what my argument attempts to show is that we can imagine a situtaion in which there is nothing but God, and this can be described as wG,

So far, so good. So far, your use of possible worlds is valid.

which is, indeed just another way of saying G, that is the whole situation we have can also be descibed as God, because every property of wG is a property of God.

No. Sorry. Wrong. This is pantheism. The world is not the same as God.

wG = a situation in which there is nothing but God.

(From "we can imagine a situation (sc) in which there is nothing but God, and this can be described as wG, ")

G = God.

(by definition.)

You can’t get from there to wG = G. wG plainly has properties that G lacks. Specifically, we can imagine wG, and wG is a situation we have imagined. God is not a situation we have imagined. So wG has the following properties, different from God:

p1. wG is a situation.
p2. wG is imaginary.

What is wG exactly? wG is a situation we have imagined. What is the situation? “There is nothing but God.”

IF wG = G, THEN,

God is “there is nothing but God.”

Now, I freely admit that if God is “there is nothing but God,” then we do not exist. Really, we exist, so really, God cannot be “there is nothing but God,” nor can wG = G. Your existence proves that wG cannot = G.

If a premise leads to an absurdity, we discard the premise as unsound. wG = G leads to the absurdity that we do not exist. Therefore, we must discard it as unsound.

So, there is nothing about the situation that can change.

Assuming wG = G, which we have just proved is unsound.

And no you say: but there is no X such that X changed, because X came from absolutely nothing, and nothing cannot be desribed as X. But if that is true, it is not true that ex nihilo nihil fit. You have X popping into existence here.
Moreover, if you object: but X is caused by God. This requires some sort of creative force that is applied by God, and since there is clearly a world in which God applies this force and also one in which He doesn’t, we still see a change. Not in a temporal sense, but in an ontological sense. Now, according to Thomism, that is impossible.

Now, suppose we do treat a possible world as a real, independent thing (which I don’t), then it is true that it’s impossible to introduce a world with just God, but that means that Catholic doctrine which says that God created evrything, both visible and invisible is also false.

Now, as for calling you an idiot, I never used that word and remember: you were the one who started calling my claims ridiculous.

Your claims are ridiculous. Your claim of victory is hollow.

wG is an imaginary situation. God is not imaginary, and God is not a situation. Therefore wG has two properties, being imaginary and being a situation, that God does not have.

If we consider set theory, it is manifest that {G} =/= G.
If we consider possible worlds, it is manifest that wG =/= G.
If we consider Catholic Doctrine, it is manifest that pantheism is not true.
If we consider your imagination, it is manifest that you can imagine wG but you cannot imagine God.

Can you think of anything at all we might consider that would make you come out right? I’m running out of new angles to view this from.

Please do not now insult your own intelligence publicly by asserting I have not understood your argument.

 

[Love4All]

You are not an independent and objective observer, but I am not going to start this discussion all over again.

“No True Scotsman” fallacy.

 

[belorg]

Your negative assessment of your opponents here, contradicts your positive assessment of them, below. It seems, reality has disappointed you.

So it seems, all the (nonexistent) readers who agree you have a “victory,” are “smart,” while all the actual respondents to your “points” are “stupid.”

It must be lonely at the top!

To be fair, you didn’t actually come right out and call anyone stupid, you just implied that, since no one here agrees with you, no one here is “smart.” Very “clever” of you.

So, so far we’ve got,

1. God is the Creator of everything.
2. Therefore wG and G are the same.

And your argument proceeds from there.

1. G cannot change.
2. wG and G are the same. (2)
3. Therefore wG cannot change.
4. Therefore God cannot create.

Or alternatively,

3a. wG changes when Creation occurs.
4a. wG and G are the same. (2)
5a. Therefore G changes when wG changes.
6a. Therefore God cannot be immutable.

1. Catholic Doctrine states that God is immutable, and God is the Creator.
2. But either 6 or 6a.
3. Thus God cannot be both Creator and immutable.
4. Therefore Catholic Doctrine is wrong.

To reiterate: 2 does not follow from 1. Since your whole argument relies on 2, 2 needs support. Above, you implied that 2 follows from 1, but that is based on an incorrect view of possible worlds. What is your view of possible worlds, that would allow you to make such a gross error? Let’s find out. Here is your best explanation from the thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

So far, so good. So far, your use of possible worlds is valid.

No. Sorry. Wrong. This is pantheism. The world is not the same as God.

wG = a situation in which there is nothing but God.

(From "we can imagine a situation (sc) in which there is nothing but God, and this can be described as wG, ")

G = God.

(by definition.)

You can’t get from there to wG = G. wG plainly has properties that G lacks. Specifically, we can imagine wG, and wG is a situation we have imagined. God is not a situation we have imagined. So wG has the following properties, different from God:

p1. wG is a situation.
p2. wG is imaginary.

What is wG exactly? wG is a situation we have imagined. What is the situation? “There is nothing but God.”

IF wG = G, THEN,

God is “there is nothing but God.”

Now, I freely admit that if God is “there is nothing but God,” then we do not exist. Really, we exist, so really, God cannot be “there is nothing but God,” nor can wG = G. Your existence proves that wG cannot = G.

If a premise leads to an absurdity, we discard the premise as unsound. wG = G leads to the absurdity that we do not exist. Therefore, we must discard it as unsound.

Assuming wG = G, which we have just proved is unsound.

Your claims are ridiculous. Your claim of victory is hollow.

wG is an imaginary situation. God is not imaginary, and God is not a situation. Therefore wG has two properties, being imaginary and being a situation, that God does not have.

If we consider set theory, it is manifest that {G} =/= G.
If we consider possible worlds, it is manifest that wG =/= G.
If we consider Catholic Doctrine, it is manifest that pantheism is not true.
If we consider your imagination, it is manifest that you can imagine wG but you cannot imagine God.

Can you think of anything at all we might consider that would make you come out right? I’m running out of new angles to view this from.

Please do not now insult your own intelligence publicly by asserting I have not understood your argument.

As a wise man once told me: I suspect that you are a compulsive-obsessive that needs to get in the last word. Reply and you would confirm my suspicions and I won’t bother to reply. And I am saying the same thing to you.

 

[Love4All]

As a wise man once told me: I suspect that you are a compulsive-obsessive that needs to get in the last word. Reply and you would confirm my suspicions and I won’t bother to reply. And I am saying the same thing to you.

I am not obsessed with you, belorg. I honor the truth, and the final analysis is that you do not.

So to sum up,

1. belorg’s argument hinges on wG = G.
2. wG = G is unsupported.

For the record, that’s where it stands. Since you do not honor the truth, think whatever you like.

 

[tonyrey]

For example, you deny that God can create without mutating. Even we can do that…

•                  **belorg

---

No, my argument is not based on that assumption at all, and it isn’t even true that we can do that…

I’m still trying to work out precisely **how **we mutate when we create something. No doubt it is an insoluble mystery - but then there is no reason to believe it is true…

 

[belorg]

I’m still trying to work out precisely **how **we mutate when we create something. No doubt it is an insoluble mystery - but then there is no reason to believe it is true…

In fcat, that is not an insoluble mystery, it’s even quite easy.
If you or I create something, we use our minds, hands, whatever and we apply energy that is generated in our body. So, energy from our body is mutated into the kinetic energy we need to do something. Hence we mutate even if we do a modest things like molding clay or something.
So, no mystery at all…

 

[tonyrey]

In fcat, that is not an insoluble mystery, it’s even quite easy.
If you or I create something, we use our minds, hands, whatever and we apply energy that is generated in our body. So, energy from our body is mutated into the kinetic energy we need to do something. Hence we mutate even if we do a modest things like molding clay or something.
So, no mystery at all…

There is a difference between a change in our body and a change in our identity. For legal, medical and all other purposes we remain the same persons.

 

[belorg]

There is a difference between a change in our body and a change in our identity. For legal, medical and all other purposes we remain the same persons.

And that’s the most common misunderstanding of Thomism. thomism holds that God is completely immutable and that means that there cannot be even a minute change in God. So, it is not just a matter of remaining the same person, it’s a matter of remaining completely the same.

 

[antunesaa]

I suspect that you are a compulsive-obsessive that needs to get in the last word. Reply and you would confirm my suspicions and I won’t bother to reply.

That was a coup bas!!!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In Heaven, no one has free will.

This would be wrong. In Heaven our intellect and will are perfectly conformed to the Will of God, we eternally choose God and His Will. This an eternal choice; therefore, we have free will in Heaven. Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

That was a coup bas!!!

In order for his ‘coup bas’ to succeed, you should not give me the opportunity to have the last word without replying to yppop. So, thank you for messing up with yppop’s little scheme.

 

[yppop]

In order for his ‘coup bas’ to succeed, you should not give me the opportunity to have the last word without replying to yppop. So, thank you for messing up with yppop’s little scheme.

No, No, No Belog, this doesn’t count. My little scheme is addressed directly to you, so using a third party to address me is no different than addressing me directly. You still think you got the last word in, so in your own mind you are admitting to being a last-word compulsive-obsessive; the immutable champion of the sixth grade school yard.

By the way, how do you “mess up with a scheme”?

As always,
your friendly doppelganger
Yppop

 

[Love4All]

This would be wrong. In Heaven our intellect and will are perfectly conformed to the Will of God, we eternally choose God and His Will. This an eternal choice; therefore, we have free will in Heaven. Linus2nd

Moral dilemma after moral dilemma, or, just one agonizing moral choice stretched out over all eternity?

Or, rather, could it not be the case that free will is for choosing, and once the choice is made with finality, there is no reason to enter choosing any more?

Can anyone in heaven, in fact, deviate even one iota from God’s immutable will? Can they sin, who are in heaven, or are they forever beyond all possibility of ever falling into sin again?

I submit that, if the former, then eternal salvation is not nearly so secure as the Church paints it. But if the latter, then where is the free will?

 

[Love4All]

In fcat, that is not an insoluble mystery, it’s even quite easy.
If you or I create something, we use our minds, hands, whatever and we apply energy that is generated in our body. So, energy from our body is mutated into the kinetic energy we need to do something. Hence we mutate even if we do a modest things like molding clay or something.
So, no mystery at all…

This is true, and, it shows you how it is possible that it is not true for God. God does not mold energetically with His hands, He creates from nothing with His Will. No motion, no change, required.

But my prediction is that you will still claim not to understand this, or worse, you will claim, contradictorily, that you do understand it but somehow still fail to agree.