St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[Linusthe2nd]

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?

This is way off the subject but I felt you needed a correct answer. Once we have died the time of choices is at an end. We have either chosen Heaven or Hell, irrevocably. God confirms our choice but he does not change our human nature, we will still be men and women, composits of body and soul and the attributes of the soul are intellect and free will.

If we have chosen Heaven our free will is bolstered by the Beatific Vision and no one who sees God " face to face " will change his mind or would be capable of doing so. Our wills will be permanently united to the will of God. Our wills will be permanently occupied in loving God and remember one of the acts of the will is love. Of course we will be able to exercise our free wills also in doing secondary things, like learning the secrets of the universe, learning what the greater Lights in heaven can teach us, perhaps choosing which planets to visit or which solar systems.

But the one essential choice will have been made and ratified by God. Once in heaven, we will be there eternally. That is why the race is worth while. And with God’s grace we can win the prize. There will be no sin or temptations in heaven.

We will be so dazzled by the Beatific Vision that our wills will be eternally choosing God by loving him. I think that is the best way to understand it, that love is an act of free will and for the first time we will have no hinderances to that love, and it will be impossible to do otherwise. I don’t know if the Church has spoken in these terms but I am sure that is what is meant by the whole question of eternal life in heaven.

Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

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.

No, Love4All, I claim that you don’t understand what you are saying here.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

God does remain the same!

“In Him we live, move and have our being…” Acts 17:28

Your error - as I have pointed out - is to put the Creator in the same category as His creatures because you are restricted to the concept of **physical **cause and effect in addition to being a relativist who rejects the immutability of realities like truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

Does the meaning of your statements change once you have made them and do they change you in any respect? If so how?

 

[belorg]

God does remain the same!

“In Him we live, move and have our being…” Acts 17:28

Quoting from an ancinet book filled with contradictions isn’t going to help your case, Tony.

Your error - as I have pointed out - is to put the Creator in the same category as His creatures because you are restricted to the concept of **physical **cause and effect in addition to being a relativist who rejects the immutability of realities like truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

I am not intersted in special pleading.

Does the meaning of your statements change once you have made them and do they change you in any respect? If so how?

My starements change me in some respect. How? Because making statements requires brain activity, which requires energy. If you cannot even understand this basic principle, I suggest you study this first.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God does remain the same!

“In Him we live, move and have our being…” Acts 17:28

Your error - as I have pointed out - is to put the Creator in the same category as His creatures because you are restricted to the concept of **physical **cause and effect in addition to being a relativist who rejects the immutability of realities like truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

Does the meaning of your statements change once you have made them and do they change you in any respect? If so how?

Don’t you realize you are being toyed with? This person is only here to " sharpen " the tools of his critique. He is not the least bit interested in finding God. So you are doing nothing but aiding and abetting. Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

Don’t you realize you are being toyed with? This person is only here to " sharpen " the tools of his critique. He is not the least bit interested in finding God. So you are doing nothing but aiding and abetting. Linus2nd

I am interested in finding the truth, Linus. If the truth happens to be God, then I will find God, but judging from the replies in this thread, that isn’t very likely.

 

[Love4All]

No, Love4All, I claim that you don’t understand what you are saying here.

Interesting. Since you understand my mind better than I do, would you please explain it to me? What am I saying here?

 

[Love4All]

This is way off the subject but I felt you needed a correct answer. Once we have died the time of choices is at an end. We have either chosen Heaven or Hell, irrevocably. God confirms our choice but he does not change our human nature, we will still be men and women, composits of body and soul and the attributes of the soul are intellect and free will.

If we have chosen Heaven our free will is bolstered by the Beatific Vision and no one who sees God " face to face " will change his mind or would be capable of doing so. Our wills will be permanently united to the will of God. Our wills will be permanently occupied in loving God and remember one of the acts of the will is love. Of course we will be able to exercise our free wills also in doing secondary things, like learning the secrets of the universe, learning what the greater Lights in heaven can teach us, perhaps choosing which planets to visit or which solar systems.

But the one essential choice will have been made and ratified by God. Once in heaven, we will be there eternally. That is why the race is worth while. And with God’s grace we can win the prize. There will be no sin or temptations in heaven.

We will be so dazzled by the Beatific Vision that our wills will be eternally choosing God by loving him. I think that is the best way to understand it, that love is an act of free will and for the first time we will have no hinderances to that love, and it will be impossible to do otherwise. I don’t know if the Church has spoken in these terms but I am sure that is what is meant by the whole question of eternal life in heaven.

Linus2nd

I agree that this is off topic but I don’t think our respective positions are far enough apart to merit a whole new thread. The distinction at this point appears to be semantic. You admit that we will not have what Plantinga calls “morally significant free will.” I, for my part, acknowledge that we will still have — in fact, in far greater measure than we do now! — what philosophers call “libertarian free will.”

Libertarian free will means simply the capacity to choose your own course of action without external hindrance. In heaven, they are completely free in that sense, whereas on earth our freedom is severely curtailed. Morally significant free will means the capacity of choosing between good and bad. In heaven, they are completely willed by God alone in that sense, whereas on earth, we are continually faced with grace and our own free will to accept it or reject it.

The reason I use the phrase “free will” to mean morally significant, rather than libertarian free will, is precisely that that is the kind of free will we have in this mortal life, and in heaven, we won’t. We will still have wills, and our wills will be completely free, but we will never choose anything bad, because our freedom will be entirely contained in the Absolute Sovereignty of Infinite Love.

 

[Love4All]

I am interested in finding the truth, Linus. If the truth happens to be God, then I will find God, but judging from the replies in this thread, that isn’t very likely.

Judging from your replies in this thread (and elsewhere, I would assume), Linus2nd has judged that your first sentence above is not the truth. Linusthe2nd appears to me to be very sharp, and I take his ideas quite seriously.

For me personally, there is nothing personal about any of this. In my perception of things, I am the only person I see here. The rest of you only manifest as words on my monitor screen, and I react to those words I see according to the meaning I perceive in them. So, my interest in continuing the conversation with you is restricted entirely to topic, and has no personal element. I have in the past made the observation about your words, that they are trolling words, and that the words express ideas that objectively appear less than true. But then some other words appeared on my screen with a different name, asserting that your words displayed many wonderful Christian virtues that mine did not. Now, those other words might have simply been out of left field, but nonetheless, seeing how many, many posters have been kicked off this forum for reasons it is taboo to discuss, I would rather err on the side of caution.

Erring — quite possibly severely erring! — on the side of caution brings me to this point, wherein I extend to you every possible benefit of every possible doubt. If you haven’t noticed, I have been quite generous with my time toward who I assume is the source of the words I see on my screen connected with your name. You, on the other hand, have been quite hand-waving and dismissive towards me.

Correct that imbalance, now.

Thanks in advance for your co-operation.

Now let’s get back to topic.

You who claim to be interested in truth have advanced at least two notions that are provably at variance with the truth.

1. God is the same thing as the world.
2. God expends energy and so changes Himself in the act of creating.

You do not appear even remotely interested in rectifying your thought, here. You seem, rather, bent on proving that Linus2nd was entirely accurate in his assessment of your motives.

In the interest of philosophy, you have two possible courses of action now available to you with regard to each of the above inaccuracies.

A. Prove me wrong by advancing actual philosophical support for it, or
B. Admit that I am right about your being inaccurate.

I am willing to believe whatever logic dictates. Unfortunately, your track record indicates that you do not share that willingness. And that is why we disagree.

There is, of course, a third option available to you.

C. Just continue doing what you’re doing, and thereby prove Linus2nd right.

An honest man, confronted with himself, finds the courage to change. A coward, blames the one who pointed out his flaw.

 

[inocente]

To allude to medieval philosophy as " nonsense " is an unwarranted assumption. Have you actually read any of it ? Linus2nd

Yes, I’ve read some, that’s how I know.

For instance, Thomas doesn’t grasp that concepts such as potentiality and actuality are artificial, resulting from a particular way in which humans may think, and don’t exist independently of those humans so are not much use in discussing God and the universe.

(Apologies for long delay in answering.)

 

[inocente]

Straw man. Genesis doesn’t say that God needs to rest, it doesn’t say why God decides to rest, it just says “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work”.
shoe;10554762:

But since “God is eternal” is one of His attributes, God can be neither confined nor held captive within the limits of time.

A red herring. Genesis doesn’t say God is captive, just “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work”.

God’s carrying out His will, using His own free-will choice, to work six days and rest one day would not have changed His nature. God’s free-will choices are always made in perfect harmony with each of His attributes, including his attribute of immutability. The fundamental nature of free will is to make use of that free will. If a person one day makes the free-will choice to have cake for dessert rather than to have his or her usual pie, that choice will not change or alter the inherent qualities of that person: that person will remain the same person before, during and after his choice to have cake. God created the universe out of love; and God’s creating the universe and then resting could neither subtract love from God’s nature nor add love to it. God’s nature, therefore, remains the same always.

More red herrings bro. God works then rests, He moves from creating to resting. If God never changes then both these states, creating and resting, must have coexisted for all eternity, but that would mean that the universe must likewise both exist and not exist for all eternity.

Which is inconsistent, but it’s fine to be inconsistent when thinking about God, it shows that we appreciate how much greater He is than us, whereas the neatly packaged God philosophers put in their back pocket is not necessarily the God of scripture.

(Apologies for long delay in answering.)

 

[inocente]

God is absolutely immutable. Ps. 101, 27 & following: " They ( the heavens ) whall perish but thou remainest and all of them shall grow old. And as a vestment thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed. But thou art always the selfsame. " And James 1,17, " with whom there is no change nor shadow of alteration. "

Cf. Ps 32, 11; Is 46, 10; Hebr. 6, 17; Mal 3, 6 indicates in the Divine Name of God the basis of the absolute immutability of God; " For I am the Lord, and I change not. "

Life and activity are associated with God’s immutability, Cf. Wisdom 7, 24, 27. St. Augustine says: " God knows to act in restfulness and to rest in activity.

Source. Fundamentas of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott

Linus2nd

Sure, but apparently the author of Genesis didn’t quite see God that way.

(Apologies for long delay in answering.)

 

[inocente]

A red herring. Genesis doesn’t say God is captive, just “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work”.

More red herrings bro. God works then rests, He moves from creating to resting. If God never changes then both these states, creating and resting, must have coexisted for all eternity, but that would mean that the universe must likewise both exist and not exist for all eternity.

Which is inconsistent, but it’s fine to be inconsistent when thinking about God, it shows that we appreciate how much greater He is than us, whereas the neatly packaged God philosophers put in their back pocket is not necessarily the God of scripture.

(Apologies for long delay in answering.)

 

[Love4All]

Yes, I’ve read some, that’s how I know.

For instance, Thomas doesn’t grasp that concepts such as potentiality and actuality are artificial, resulting from a particular way in which humans may think, and don’t exist independently of those humans so are not much use in discussing God and the universe.

(Apologies for long delay in answering.)

Are you saying there is no difference between a stone held suspended at a height of three feet, and a stone falling?

 

[Love4All]

A red herring. Genesis doesn’t say God is captive, just “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work”.

More red herrings bro. God works then rests, He moves from creating to resting. If God never changes then both these states, creating and resting, must have coexisted for all eternity, but that would mean that the universe must likewise both exist and not exist for all eternity.

Which is inconsistent, but it’s fine to be inconsistent when thinking about God, it shows that we appreciate how much greater He is than us, whereas the neatly packaged God philosophers put in their back pocket is not necessarily the God of scripture.

(Apologies for long delay in answering.)

My issue is not so much with your willingness to throw logic under the bus as it is with your willingness to assert that God’s Holy Scripture contradicts itself. My reasoning is that you are entrenched in your idea that logic is fairly worthless, but you seem to have some reverence for Scripture. (Unless I am WAY off in my understanding of the word, “Baptist.”)

Do Baptists hold that Scripture is allowed to contradict itself because logic is valueless? Or, is that your own personal opinion, not necessarily reflective of Baptist doctrine? Or, have I misunderstood something? Because, what you appear to be asserting is that the very same Bible says in one place, God moves, and in another, God does not move. (Change of any kind is motion.)

That appears to be an assertion on your part that Holy Scripture contradicts itself. Is that what you are actually asserting? Thanks in advance for your reply!

 

[belorg]

Interesting. Since you understand my mind better than I do, would you please explain it to me? What am I saying here?

You are saying here that ex nihilo nihil fit is not true.

 

[belorg]

Judging from your replies in this thread (and elsewhere, I would assume), Linus2nd has judged that your first sentence above is not the truth. Linusthe2nd appears to me to be very sharp, and I take his ideas quite seriously.

For me personally, there is nothing personal about any of this. In my perception of things, I am the only person I see here. The rest of you only manifest as words on my monitor screen, and I react to those words I see according to the meaning I perceive in them. So, my interest in continuing the conversation with you is restricted entirely to topic, and has no personal element. I have in the past made the observation about your words, that they are trolling words, and that the words express ideas that objectively appear less than true. But then some other words appeared on my screen with a different name, asserting that your words displayed many wonderful Christian virtues that mine did not. Now, those other words might have simply been out of left field, but nonetheless, seeing how many, many posters have been kicked off this forum for reasons it is taboo to discuss, I would rather err on the side of caution.

Erring — quite possibly severely erring! — on the side of caution brings me to this point, wherein I extend to you every possible benefit of every possible doubt. If you haven’t noticed, I have been quite generous with my time toward who I assume is the source of the words I see on my screen connected with your name. You, on the other hand, have been quite hand-waving and dismissive towards me.

Correct that imbalance, now.

Thanks in advance for your co-operation.

Now let’s get back to topic.

You who claim to be interested in truth have advanced at least two notions that are provably at variance with the truth.

1. God is the same thing as the world.
2. God expends energy and so changes Himself in the act of creating.

You do not appear even remotely interested in rectifying your thought, here. You seem, rather, bent on proving that Linus2nd was entirely accurate in his assessment of your motives.

In the interest of philosophy, you have two possible courses of action now available to you with regard to each of the above inaccuracies.

A. Prove me wrong by advancing actual philosophical support for it, or
B. Admit that I am right about your being inaccurate.

I am willing to believe whatever logic dictates. Unfortunately, your track record indicates that you do not share that willingness. And that is why we disagree.

There is, of course, a third option available to you.

C. Just continue doing what you’re doing, and thereby prove Linus2nd right.

An honest man, confronted with himself, finds the courage to change. A coward, blames the one who pointed out his flaw.

And a wise man realizes that his opponent has not reached the point yet at which he is capable of understanding an argument, but has the patience to wait until, maybe some day, a man /woman who calls him/herself Love4All is ready to discuss this. If/when this day comes, we may be able to discuss this further. For the time being, that it.

 

[Love4All]

You are saying here that ex nihilo nihil fit is not true.

That is news to me! How did I arrive at this rather bizarre conclusion?

I am very grateful, by the way, that I have you to interpret my mental data for me. Without you, I would have continued to think that I think that nothing can come from nothing. But now that I know that I was mistaken about what I thought I thought, I still do not understand how I arrived at the contrary of nothing can come from nothing. Apparently, I think (unbeknownst to myself) that something can indeed come from nothing. How did I arrive at my surprising conclusion?

 

[Love4All]

And a wise man realizes that his opponent has not reached the point yet at which he is capable of understanding an argument, but has the patience to wait until, maybe some day, a man /woman who calls him/herself Love4All is ready to discuss this. If/when this day comes, we may be able to discuss this further. For the time being, that it.

I have nothing to discuss with an enemy of truth. Goodbye, again.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes, I’ve read some, that’s how I know.

For instance, Thomas doesn’t grasp that concepts such as potentiality and actuality are artificial, resulting from a particular way in which humans may think, and don’t exist independently of those humans so are not much use in discussing God and the universe.

(Apologies for long delay in answering.)

If you know more than Thomas there isn’t much I can say. Linus2nd