St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[inocente]

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.

“Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion–several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven…The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.” - Mark Twain

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

You’ll need to prove that one.

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?

Let’s not play word games. The terms are technically defined in ye olde philosophy - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

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.

Try reading what I actually said, which wasn’t that the world is nonsensically static but that “Thomas, like most of us, thinks of the world as a set of objects which move around and have a beginning and an end.”

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?

No. Are there any absolute things?

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.

It’s never been demonstrated that the world has a beginning either, so can we finally agree that Thomas’ “proof” is no such thing?

*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. *

Then if the prime mover breaks the premise that “whatever is moved is moved by another”, and moves things when it can’t itself move, everything else can also break the premise.

The criticism, and it’s one of the standard criticisms, is that Thomas changes the rules for the prime mover and so the argument fails.

 

[rom422]

You’ll need to prove that one.

So, you want me to prove that St. Thomas’ Prime Mover is also the God described in Genesis? OK, in Genesis did you read anybody else moving God to create the world? If He was not being moved by another, then He is the Prime Mover Unmoved by any other, right? Gotcha!

Let’s not play word games. The terms are technically defined in ye olde philosophy - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

I am not playing word games. I am just asking a simple question to show that actuality is not just in the mind, but is something in the real world… But you are evading the question, and the readers of this thread know why.

Try reading what I actually said, which wasn’t that the world is nonsensically static but that “Thomas, like most of us, thinks of the world as a set of objects which move around and have a beginning and an end.”

Problem is, you didn’t merely say that. You followed your sentence with, “But that’s just how we think of the world, not how the world really is.” That means, you don’t agree with St. Thomas or the rest of us in the way we view the world. I think YOU better read what you wrote. Unfortunately, there is no way to edit that now. However, you can humbly take back your words, and the readers of this thread will understand.

No. Are there any absolute things?

Huh? You mean, nothing is absolute? And that’s the one thing you are absolutely sure of, right?

It’s never been demonstrated that the world has a beginning either, so can we finally agree that Thomas’ “proof” is no such thing?

St. Thomas never attempted to prove philosophically that the world had a beginning in time. For him, the beginning of the world in time was an article of faith. What St. Thomas proved was that the world depended on God; so the existence of the world proves the existence of God.

Then if the prime mover breaks the premise that “whatever is moved is moved by another”, and moves things when it can’t itself move, everything else can also break the premise.

The prime mover did not violate the principle “whatever is moved is moved by another.” The principle just didn’t apply to it because “whatever is moved” starts by being in potency, whereas the prime mover is always in act.

The criticism, and it’s one of the standard criticisms, is that Thomas changes the rules for the prime mover and so the argument fails.

You wished that St. Thomas changed the rules, but he did not. So, his argument stands strong.

 

[inocente]

So, you want me to prove that St. Thomas’ Prime Mover is also the God described in Genesis? OK, in Genesis did you read anybody else moving God to create the world? If He was not being moved by another, then He is the Prime Mover Unmoved by any other, right? Gotcha!

No deity of any religion was moved by another, so according to you Thomas proves the existence of every deity ever invented. It must be crowded out there.

I am not playing word games. I am just asking a simple question to show that actuality is not just in the mind, but is something in the real world… But you are evading the question, and the readers of this thread know why.

Either you don’t understand or you’re playing debating games.

Problem is, you didn’t merely say that. You followed your sentence with, “But that’s just how we think of the world, not how the world really is.” That means, you don’t agree with St. Thomas or the rest of us in the way we view the world. I think YOU better read what you wrote. Unfortunately, there is no way to edit that now. However, you can humbly take back your words, and the readers of this thread will understand.

Either you don’t understand or you’re playing debating games.

Huh? You mean, nothing is absolute? And that’s the one thing you are absolutely sure of, right?

Either you don’t understand or you’re playing debating games.

St. Thomas never attempted to prove philosophically that the world had a beginning in time. For him, the beginning of the world in time was an article of faith. What St. Thomas proved was that the world depended on God; so the existence of the world proves the existence of God.

Que? If the world is eternal, it always existed and no prime mover is needed.

The prime mover did not violate the principle “whatever is moved is moved by another.” The principle just didn’t apply to it because “whatever is moved” starts by being in potency, whereas the prime mover is always in act.

You explaining how the prime mover violates the premise doesn’t get over the fact that the prime mover violates the premise.

You wished that St. Thomas changed the rules, but he did not. So, his argument stands strong.

Just asserting your opinion isn’t a logical argument.

We seemed to have stopped making progress. Nice talking to you, see you around.

 

[Linux]

It’s never been demonstrated that the world has a beginning either, so can we finally agree that Thomas’ “proof” is no such thing?

It was never an argument for a temporal beginning in the first place.

Then if the prime mover breaks the premise that “whatever is moved is moved by another”, and moves things when it can’t itself move, everything else can also break the premise.

The criticism, and it’s one of the standard criticisms, is that Thomas changes the rules for the prime mover and so the argument fails.

The argument that what ever is moved is moved by another is not the same as saying that what ever is moved is moved by that which is moving.

The argument reduces to “change is the actualisation of potency or potential”, there fore whatever is the cause of motion itself that cause is not moving, since if it was, it to would require an explanation for its movement since potency by itself is not movement, it is nothing at all. Thus the idea of an unmoved mover follows logically and necessarily, since there cannot be motion without that which actualises potency.

 

[rom422]

We seemed to have stopped making progress. Nice talking to you, see you around.

Adios, amigo!

 

[rom422]

The argument that what ever is moved is moved by another is not the same as saying that what ever is moved is moved by that which is moving.

The argument reduces to “change is the actualisation of potency or potential”, there fore whatever is the cause of motion itself that cause is not moving, since if it was, it to would require an explanation for its movement since potency by itself is not movement, it is nothing at all. Thus the idea of an unmoved mover follows logically and necessarily, since there cannot be motion without that which actualises potency.

In this thread I noticed that many of those who are objecting to St. Thomas’ motion argument had a difficulty thinking of a Prime Mover who moves the world but who Himself remains unmoved. They think that by causing another thing to move, then the Prime Mover also had to change from “not causing” to “causing.”

And it is difficult to explain the matter to them because you can’t find an example in the physical world to illustrate this fact. For God is the only unmoved mover. I can’t find an example of a any other mover that is not moved while it itself moves another.

Yet, the principle is clear. Motion occurs when something in potency is reduced to act by something already actual. So, it is not necessary that the mover itself be moved. All that is needed is for the mover to be “in act.” Often, I use the example of a hot body that turns cold water into hot. The hot body (the mover) changes the cold water into hot just because it itself is hot, and not because it itself is moving from “not heating” to “heating.” But then someone can object, “But the hot body can only turn the cold water into hot by giving off heat. So, when it turns the cold water into hot, then the hot body is being moved from being ‘hot’ to ‘less hot.’ So it is not an unmoved mover.” To this my response is, “Not if it is an infinitely hot body.” If my hot body, like God, has infinite actuality, then it does not need to change in giving off heat. Reason: Infinite heat - heat loss = Infinite heat. I know, even this example is not perfect, and it is not possible to find any example in the world of a thing that has pure actuality or infinite actuality, But that’s what it is.

 

[inocente]

It was never an argument for a temporal beginning in the first place.

*“The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.” *

The argument is that motion involves acquiring a new characteristic, e.g. for wood to start burning it must be capable of burning but not yet alight. Whether you call it temporal or sequential or whatever, this involves a change and a beginning, in this case the wood catching alight.

But no reason is given why, in general, there can’t be eternal characteristics which don’t need to be actualized, in which case the universe has always existed, it just “is”, and no unmoved mover is needed, which is simpler.

This is a standard criticism of the motion argument, not something I invented on the spur of the moment.

(And btw the big bang theory can’t determine whether the universe preexisted. Although many think it “proves” creation, it doesn’t either).

 

[Love4All]

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.

You are assuming they are all in good faith. I do not share that assumption.

There are competing schools simply because there’s no way of knowing,

I submit that the problem is more, “you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.” You can demonstrate the veracity of a position, but you cannot make anyone accept it.

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.

The implication is that Saint Thomas knew God a lot more deeply than you do. I concur.

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

Not what I am suggesting.

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

But they did not write the Scriptures with their free will.

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?

There is philosophy in the Bible.

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.

And yet, it has One Author.

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.”.

There is quite a bit more known to the Church than you accept.

 

[Love4All]

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

Your Bible is incomplete, having been severely edited by Martin Luther, on his own authority, independently of the Holy Spirit. Your adherence to your truncated collection of books and your rejection of the books the Church has approved is your allegiance to Luther rather than Christ.

 

[Linux]

But no reason is given why, in general, there can’t be eternal characteristics which don’t need to be actualized,

Because there evidently is not when speaking of physical reality. Anything that changes, even when speaking of a persistent essence, involves a continuous actualisation of potential states.

in which case the universe has always existed, it just “is”, and no unmoved mover is needed, which is simpler…This is a standard criticism of the motion argument, not something I invented on the spur of the moment. .

But the universe evidently is not “just is”. The universe is the sum total of all the potential that has been actualised up until this point.

 

[inocente]

You are assuming they are all in good faith. I do not share that assumption.

I guess that dismissing those you don’t like by saying they’re not in good faith might be comforting, but isn’t exactly admissible as a rational argument.

I submit that the problem is more, “you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.” You can demonstrate the veracity of a position, but you cannot make anyone accept it.

Dismissing opponents by saying they’re too stupid to understand might also be comforting, but isn’t a rational argument.

The implication is that Saint Thomas knew God a lot more deeply than you do. I concur.

Argument from authority fallacy.

But they did not write the Scriptures with their free will.

Please explain how and why you think the Spirit subverted the writers’ free will.

There is philosophy in the Bible.

There’s a philosophical angle to everything, but if you’ve found any formal or Thomistic-style arguments then please give chapter and verse, that would be very interested.

And yet, it has One Author.

A statement of belief, but again not a rational argument.

Not mistakes or different truths, but “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face.”.
Love4All;10622948:

There is quite a bit more known to the Church than you accept.

I’ve met several lay posters on CAF who reckon they have authority to speak for the Church but of course they don’t, even if they agreed with each other, which they don’t.

 

[inocente]

Your Bible is incomplete, having been severely edited by Martin Luther, on his own authority, independently of the Holy Spirit. Your adherence to your truncated collection of books and your rejection of the books the Church has approved is your allegiance to Luther rather than Christ.

Another argument from authority fallacy - are you trying for the Guinness Book of Records or something?

I was hoping you’d explain the relevance of your quote.

 

[inocente]

Because there evidently is not when speaking of physical reality. Anything that changes, even when speaking of a persistent essence, involves a continuous actualisation of potential states.

But the criticism is by the same argument evidently the prime mover can’t be part of that reality.

But the universe evidently is not “just is”. The universe is the sum total of all the potential that has been actualised up until this point.

Evidently from a naïve perspective at a human scale, but for instance in relativity there is no privileged point at which all things are actualized and in quantum physics everything is made of elementary particles which wouldn’t even exist unless in perpetual motion.

The criticism is essentially that the notion of potentiality/actuality may be just a human artifact that doesn’t describe the objective world, and so the argument is making unjustified metaphysical assumptions.

 

[tonyrey]

Open your eyes, Tony, and you will also get that insight.
You need to justify your claim that you have privileged insight.

No response!

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.

No response!

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?

No response!

                                                                                                   2. You have not explained how **you**

have changed.

I have, actually.
You** still **have not explained how you have changed!

No response!

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.

No response!
[/QUOTE]

 

[Love4All]

No response!

No response!
No response!
No response!
No response!

belorg has left the building.

 

[Love4All]

I guess that dismissing those you don’t like by saying they’re not in good faith might be comforting, but isn’t exactly admissible as a rational argument.

I am having trouble connecting your criticism to any argument I’ve advanced.

Dismissing opponents by saying they’re too stupid to understand might also be comforting, but isn’t a rational argument.

Again, I am experiencing some difficulty in locating my advancement of this as an argument.

Argument from authority fallacy.

Not trying to be redundant, but you are providing little more than opportunities for me to object that I have not advanced any such argument.

My comment in this case was directed at why Linus gave up arguing with you. Linus is no doubt more wise than me. But Saint Thomas did not argue from authority, including his own.

Please explain how and why you think the Spirit subverted the writers’ free will.

Subverted? No. That sounds more like the atheistic objection to miracles, that God cannot “violate” the laws of physics.

A miracle is a suspension of the ordinary course of things. God writing His Holy Scripture through the human authors is a miracle, though not obviously like the changing of water to wine. It is, however, an example of the same principle at work. God suspends, rather than subverts, the free will of the human being through whom He is writing His Holy Scripture, just as He suspends the free will of the Pope though whom He pronounces Catholic Dogma, just as He suspends the ordinary laws of physics to change water to wine.

There’s a philosophical angle to everything, but if you’ve found any formal or Thomistic-style arguments then please give chapter and verse, that would be very interested.

I did, but you displayed your preference for personal judgment over God’s authority with regard to Holy Scripture.

Try Romans 1:19-20, in which Saint Paul explicitly refers to the Scripture you reject.

A statement of belief, but again not a rational argument.
inocente;10628399:

According to you, God despises philosophy and allows His very Word to self-contradict. So I don’t see how you are seriously pretending to want a rational argument. Is that not the whole point of this interchange? That you reject Saint Thomas because He presented rational arguments proving God?

I’ve met several lay posters on CAF who reckon they have authority to speak for the Church but of course they don’t, even if they agreed with each other, which they don’t.

There either is or is not, properly, a “Church.” The Church is that body entrusted by God with the fullness of the truth, to teach it to all nations. If there is such a body, then it has the authority from God to teach the truth. In such a case, your personal opinion is of little worth. Your duty toward God would be not so much to form your own opinion as to conform it to the Church.

 

[Love4All]

Another argument from authority fallacy - are you trying for the Guinness Book of Records or something?

I was hoping you’d explain the relevance of your quote.

My citation from Scripture was in response to your difficulty locating in Scripture the basis of the Cosmological Argument. Saint Paul also alludes to it in Romans, as I also pointed out.

 

[tonyrey]

belorg has left the building.

He has discovered he underestimated the cogency of Christianity!

 

[Ismael]

My citation from Scripture was in response to your difficulty locating in Scripture the basis of the Cosmological Argument. Saint Paul also alludes to it in Romans, as I also pointed out.

Basis for the cosmological argument in the Bible? I think it’s asking the wrong question.

The Bible does not set itself as a Natural Theology (where the Cosmological Argument belongs) manual.

Moreover theology and study of the bible deals with REVEALED Theology, not Natural Theology.

Natural theology is “deducing supernatural truths from nature and reasoning” and does NOT (at least not necessarely) have any connection to ANY particular revelation.

Hence I do not think there is any reference to the cosmological argument in sacred scriptures, not in the Bable, at least.

 

[Ismael]

I do not belive that creation starts from absolute nothingness either, but unfortunately, Catholic doctrine does believe that,as is shown in Linus’ post.

Nope.

Catholics do as a matter of fact NOT believe creation starts from nothing or comes from nothing. That what Krauss believes, I suppose.

Nihilo ex Nihilo fit

We believe creation comes from God, rather. It’s substantially different.