St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[inocente]

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

If you’re trying to turn the philosophical concepts of potentiality and actuality into the classical physics concepts of kinetic energy and potential energy, don’t. A lot of people like to toy with this mystic notion but the logical consequences are a god made of physical energy, and a universe that is part of god. It doesn’t work, the concepts are different.

 

[inocente]

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!

I’m not asserting that logic is valueless, but rather that the views of philosophers are often valueless, for two reasons: (a) different schools of philosophy contradict each other, with no way of knowing which if any is correct, and (b) the Christian God is in Christ, not in philosophical theories.

There is no Baptist doctrine, save that Christ is Lord of all.

The bible contains lots of books written by very different authors over a lengthy period of time, during which the understanding of God developed. See, for instance “In the Beginning…” by Joseph Ratzinger. (Scholars say there’s also evidence that many OT books were repeatedly edited in OT times, sometimes for political reasons).

So while the bible is conveniently packaged into one volume, it isn’t one book, and we cannot expect it to have the literal consistency of, say, a science textbook.

 

[inocente]

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

Ask yourself why the bible doesn’t contain Thomistic style arguments. Was that an omission, a mistake, were the bible writers not bright enough? No, it’s because that kind of argument doesn’t last. These days we all know more than Thomas. Teenagers know far more about many subjects than Thomas. The world moved on.

 

[tonyrey]

*God does remain the same!

It makes the point you overlook when you put the Creator in the same category as creatures - implying you have privileged insight into the ultimate nature of reality…

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.

In other words you’re not interested in the truth!

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.

1. You have not explained how the meaning of your statements has changed.
2. You have not explained how you have changed.
3. You have not explained how the brain is aware of itself, controls itself and knows what it is doing!

 

[belorg]

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?

Well, if you don’t even understand your own arguments, why do you think you can argue against mine?

 

[belorg]

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

How many times have we said goodye already?

 

[belorg]

It makes the point you overlook when you put the Creator in the same category as creatures - implying you have privileged insight into the ultimate nature of reality…

Open your eyes, Tony, and you will also get that insight.

 In other words you're not interested in the truth!

The truth isn’t established by special pleading.

1. You have not explained how the meaning of your statements has changed.

You didn’t ask me to explain that, and it is irrelevant anyway.

1. You have not explained how you have changed.

I have, actually.

1. You have not explained how the brain is aware of itself, controls itself and knows what it is doing!

That is also irrelevant in this thread.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Ask yourself why the bible doesn’t contain Thomistic style arguments. Was that an omission, a mistake, were the bible writers not bright enough? No, it’s because that kind of argument doesn’t last. These days we all know more than Thomas. Teenagers know far more about many subjects than Thomas. The world moved on.

I don’t think I have ever seen such arrogance, even in non-believers. If that is what you wish to believe more power to you. Linus2nd

 

[yppop]

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

Of course ex nihilo nihil fit is not true. You should know that Belorg

Yppop

 

[rom422]

Ask yourself why the bible doesn’t contain Thomistic style arguments. Was that an omission, a mistake, were the bible writers not bright enough? No, it’s because that kind of argument doesn’t last. These days we all know more than Thomas. Teenagers know far more about many subjects than Thomas. The world moved on.

Do you think you know more than St. Thomas? I’m sure you don’t. Because St. Thomas knows how to stay on topic, while you are here making irrelevant comments in a thread that is supposed to discuss St. Thomas’ motion argument. Why don’t you start your own thread where you can be more relevant?

 

[inocente]

I don’t think I have ever seen such arrogance, even in non-believers. If that is what you wish to believe more power to you. Linus2nd

Why are you getting emotional?

It’s not arrogant but plain fact that the average modern teenager is taught about the elements, calculus, bacteria and a thousand other things unknown in Thomas’ lifetime.

And as for “non-believers”, I’d have thought we can all agree that Thomas’ work is not part of revelation, it’s philosophy and as such deserves no special pleading or idolatry.

 

[inocente]

Do you think you know more than St. Thomas? I’m sure you don’t. Because St. Thomas knows how to stay on topic, while you are here making irrelevant comments in a thread that is supposed to discuss St. Thomas’ motion argument. Why don’t you start your own thread where you can be more relevant?

We all know a lot more than Thomas simply because a lot has been learned since his times, and the fact remains that the prime mover is not the God described in Genesis.

But that aside, it also remains that potentiality and actuality do not exist in the real world. Thomas, like most of us, thinks of the world as a set of objects which move around and have a beginning and an end. But that’s just how we think of the world, not how the world really is.

We now know that all things are co-dependent. Thomas was unaware of the structure of atoms, that atoms can only exist in motion (zero-point energy), and unaware of relativity, where there is no absolute frame of reference. So a simpler argument from modern physics is that nothing is independent of anything else, including motion. No prime mover is needed and perhaps the universe has always existed in some form. (And the prime mover was always dodgy given that it alone somehow manages to avoid the premise of “whatever is moved is moved by another”, and somehow manages to move things when it can’t itself move.

 

[tonyrey]

It makes the point you overlook when you put the Creator in the same category as creatures - implying you have privileged insight into the ultimate nature of reality…

You need to justify your claim that you have privileged insight.

In other words you’re not interested in the truth!

The truth isn’t established by special pleading.

You need to justify your claim that it is special pleading.

1. You have not explained how the meaning

of your statements has changed.
You didn’t ask me to explain that, and it is irrelevant anyway.

How can it be irrelevant when you claim to believe everything is mutable?

1. You have not explained how you

have changed.
I have, actually.

You still have not explained how you have changed.

1. You have not explained how the brain is aware of itself, controls itself and knows what it is doing!

That is also irrelevant in this thread.

It is highly relevant because you equate yourself with your brain.

 

[Love4All]

I’m not asserting that logic is valueless, but rather that the views of philosophers are often valueless, for two reasons: (a) different schools of philosophy contradict each other, with no way of knowing which if any is correct, and (b) the Christian God is in Christ, not in philosophical theories.

“a) different schools of philosophy contradict each other, with no way of knowing which if any is correct” — are you of the mistaken impression that philosophy in any way appeals to authority? Argument by appeal to authority is fallacious in philosophy. We determine which of the varying contradicting schools of thought is correct by using the tools of philosophy to examine the varying assertions.

There is no Baptist doctrine, save that Christ is Lord of all.

The bible contains lots of books written by very different authors over a lengthy period of time, during which the understanding of God developed.

But it is impossible that God should contradict Himself in His Word. You seem to be asserting, rather, that the Holy Spirit is fallible, or that the Holy Spirit is impotent to protect His Word against the failure of the human authors. If Genesis can contain a mistake, then so can Revelation. The entirety of God’s Word stands or falls together, otherwise it is not God’s Word, but a mere human invention capable of tinkering and improvement by human effort. Holy Scripture is not a work of philosophy, but of revelation.

See, for instance “In the Beginning…” by Joseph Ratzinger. (Scholars say there’s also evidence that many OT books were repeatedly edited in OT times, sometimes for political reasons).

So while the bible is conveniently packaged into one volume, it isn’t one book, and we cannot expect it to have the literal consistency of, say, a science textbook.

If we are Christians, we can expect it to have the doctrinal consistency of God’s Word. If it is God’s Word, it is impossible that Genesis contains a different truth than the rest of Scripture.

 

[Love4All]

Ask yourself why the bible doesn’t contain Thomistic style arguments. Was that an omission, a mistake, were the bible writers not bright enough? No, it’s because that kind of argument doesn’t last. These days we all know more than Thomas. Teenagers know far more about many subjects than Thomas. The world moved on.

On the contrary, the Bible contains this:

Wisdom 13
1
For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan;
2
But either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods.
3
Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods, let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these; for the original source of beauty fashioned them.
4
Or if they were struck by their might and energy, let them from these things realize how much more powerful is he who made them.
5
For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen.
6
But yet, for these the blame is less; For they indeed have gone astray perhaps, though they seek God and wish to find him.
7
For they search busily among his works, but are distracted by what they see, because the things seen are fair.
8
But again, not even these are pardonable.
9
For if they so far succeeded in knowledge that they could speculate about the world, how did they not more quickly find its LORD?

 

[Love4All]

Well, if you don’t even understand your own arguments, why do you think you can argue against mine?

The premise is yours. You are the one who asserted that I do not understand my own arguments, and you understand them better than me. I am giving you the opportunity to demonstrate that position. What’s the matter, got nothin’??

 

[Love4All]

How many times have we said goodye already?

Why are you still here?

 

[rom422]

We all know a lot more than Thomas simply because a lot has been learned since his times,

We know more science and technology, but I am not sure that we know more philosophy and theology than St. Thomas. I am aware that there was more knowledge accumulated through the centuries, but unlike progress in science and technology, progress in philosophy and theology does not happen through an expansion of knowledge, but through a deepening insight. I’m afraid that’s where we are lacking.

and the fact remains that the prime mover is not the God described in Genesis.

Yes the Prime Mover is also the God described in Genesis, but you missed it.

But that aside, it also remains that potentiality and actuality do not exist in the real world.

Answer me this: don’t you think that you are actually a human being in this world? If you say yes, then you are accepting your actuality as a human being in the real world. If you say no, then what are you actually?

Thomas, like most of us, thinks of the world as a set of objects which move around and have a beginning and an end. But that’s just how we think of the world, not how the world really is.

So, how do you think the world really is, static and eternal? Science says that the world is not static but moving; and the Bible says that the world is not eternal but had a beginning and will also have an end. Therefore, if you think that the world is static and eternal, then your concept of the world is not only unscientific, but also unbiblical. But, of course, that is just how you think of the world, not how the world really is.

We now know that all things are co-dependent. Thomas was unaware of the structure of atoms, that atoms can only exist in motion (zero-point energy), and unaware of relativity, where there is no absolute frame of reference.

St. Thomas does not know Einstein’s mathematical theory of relativity, but that does not mean that he does not know that some things can be relative to another. What he does not accept is the idea that everything is relative, and that nothing is absolute. Don’t you agree with St. Thomas on that?

So a simpler argument from modern physics is that nothing is independent of anything else, including motion. No prime mover is needed and perhaps the universe has always existed in some form.

Perhaps. But the “perhaps” can best be answered by “Perhaps not!” Over the years the eternity of the world has been assumed, hypothesized and postulated, but never demonstrated.

(And the prime mover was always dodgy given that it alone somehow manages to avoid the premise of “whatever is moved is moved by another”, and somehow manages to move things when it can’t itself move.

That’s because the Prime Mover does not need to move to be a mover. All it needs is to be in “act.” For a mover moves, not because it iself is moved, but because it is “in act,” and therefore it can communicate the act to something in potency toward the same act.

 

[inocente]

“a) different schools of philosophy contradict each other, with no way of knowing which if any is correct” — are you of the mistaken impression that philosophy in any way appeals to authority? Argument by appeal to authority is fallacious in philosophy. We determine which of the varying contradicting schools of thought is correct by using the tools of philosophy to examine the varying assertions.

If we could determine which is correct then philosophers could also have determined which is correct and there wouldn’t be different schools of philosophy in the first place.

There are competing schools simply because there’s no way of knowing, and the only thing people can do is resort to hopeful appeals to authority, such as “If you know more than Thomas there isn’t much I can say” from post #914.

But it is impossible that God should contradict Himself in His Word. You seem to be asserting, rather, that the Holy Spirit is fallible, or that the Holy Spirit is impotent to protect His Word against the failure of the human authors. If Genesis can contain a mistake, then so can Revelation. The entirety of God’s Word stands or falls together, otherwise it is not God’s Word, but a mere human invention capable of tinkering and improvement by human effort.

You appear to be suggesting that God dictated the bible verbatim, with the writers turned into robots by the Spirit overruling their free will.

The writers of scripture were human, with human frailties and free will.

Holy Scripture is not a work of philosophy, but of revelation.

Which is what I’ve been saying. But hang on, if you believe the bible is literally the word of God, and that God saw fit not to put any philosophy about Himself into the bible, doesn’t that tell you that God dismisses philosophy about Himself?

If we are Christians, we can expect it to have the doctrinal consistency of God’s Word.

I’ve heard some fundamentalists say that, but they also tend to believe the bible was written in English . The bible is a collection of books written over a long period of time, it isn’t one work.

If it is God’s Word, it is impossible that Genesis contains a different truth than the rest of Scripture.

Sounds literalistic.

Not mistakes or different truths, but “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face.”.

 

[inocente]

Ask yourself why the bible doesn’t contain Thomistic style arguments. Was that an omission, a mistake, were the bible writers not bright enough? No, it’s because that kind of argument doesn’t last. These days we all know more than Thomas. Teenagers know far more about many subjects than Thomas. The world moved on.
Love4All;10599789:

On the contrary, the Bible contains this:

Wisdom 13

You’d have to explain why you think that’s relevant (the book isn’t in my bible and I’ve never read it).