St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[belorg]

He has discovered he underestimated the cogency of Christianity!

No, he has discovered that the Christians he has been talking to in this thread simply do not know what they are talking about, so the reason they find Christianity ‘cogent’ is probabaly because they do not understand the implications of what they happen to believe, as is painfully obvious upon reading the posts by Tonyrey and Love4All.
BTXW, belorg will come back to the building once someone makes a comment that is a little bit relevant.

 

[belorg]

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.

Well, if you believe that creation comes from God, you are not a Thomist, and my objections are not against your brand of belief.

 

[Love4All]

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.

On the contrary, there are at least these two:

[Wisdom 13]
{13:1} But all men are vain, who are not under the knowledge of God, and who, from these good things that are seen, were not able to understand he who is, nor, by paying attention to the works, did they acknowledge he who was the artisan.
{13:2} Instead, they had considered either the fire, or the air, or the atmosphere, or the circle of stars, or the great sea, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world.
{13:3} If they, being delighted by such sights, supposed them to be gods, let them know how great the Lord of them is in splendor. For he who created all things is the author of beauty.
{13:4} Or, if they wondered at their power and their effects, let them understand by these things, that he who created them is mightier than they are.
{13:5} For, by the greatness of the creation and its beauty, the creator of these will be able to be seen discernibly.
{13:6} Yet, up to this point, the complaint about this is lesser. For perhaps they made a mistake in this, while desiring and seeking to find God.
{13:7} And, indeed, having some familiarity with him through his works, they search, and they are persuaded, because the things that they are seeing are good.
{13:8} But, then again, neither can their debt be ignored.
{13:9} For, if they were able to know enough so that they could value the universe, how is it they did not easily discover the Lord of it?

[Romans 1]
{1:19} For what is known about God is manifest in them. For God has manifested it to them.
{1:20} For unseen things about him have been made conspicuous, since the creation of the world, being understood by the things that were made; likewise his everlasting virtue and divinity, so much so that they have no excuse.

 

[Love4All]

No, he has discovered that the Christians he has been talking to in this thread simply do not know what they are talking about, so the reason they find Christianity ‘cogent’ is probabaly because they do not understand the implications of what they happen to believe, as is painfully obvious upon reading the posts by Tonyrey and Love4All.
BTXW, belorg will come back to the building once someone makes a comment that is a little bit relevant.

Go away, belorg, and do not come back until you can offer cogent support for at least one of the following:

1. God cannot create without mutating.
2. A change in the universe is a change in God.
3. If there is nothing apart from God, and God creates, then He necessarily changes Himself in the process.

We already know you can’t, so goodbye!

 

[Love4All]

Well, if you believe that creation comes from God, you are not a Thomist, and my objections are not against your brand of belief.

Saint Thomas firmly believed and taught the Catholic Doctrine that Creation comes from God. What are you smoking? Will you share?

 

[belorg]

Saint Thomas firmly believed and taught the Catholic Doctrine that Creation comes from God. What are you smoking? Will you share?

I’ll follow your advice and go away, at least until you actually understand your own belief.

 

[yppop]

I’ll follow your advice and go away, at least until you actually understand your own belief.

Come on belorg, you shouldn’t make promises you can’t keep. As the ultimate compulsive-obsessive, you must know that you must have the last word.

By the way, in the few posts that we exchanged there is a terrific irony that should amuse you if you could discover it.

Yppop

 

[ivebeenshown]

Well, if you believe that creation comes from God, you are not a Thomist, and my objections are not against your brand of belief.

Aquinas:

…] we must consider not only the emanation of a particular being from a particular agent, but also the emanation of all being from the universal cause, which is God; and this emanation we designate by the name of creation.

 

[Ismael]

Well, if you believe that creation comes from God, you are not a Thomist, and my objections are not against your brand of belief.

If you mean ‘creation is a part of God’ like in a sort of monism NO.

But in Thomism creation “comes from God” in the sense God is the cause of creation, not ‘nothing’.

Hence you are just obviously misinformed.

If these staw man is what you think Thomism is, no wonder you keep tripping over your own feet.

---

my objections are not against your brand of belief

Indeed.
Your objections are not against Thomism but ‘Thomism distorted to suit atheist objections’.

Keep preaching to the choir!

 

[belorg]

If you mean ‘creation is a part of God’ like in a sort of monism NO.

But in Thomism creation “comes from God” in the sense God is the cause of creation, not ‘nothing’.

Hence you are just obviously misinformed.

If these staw man is what you think Thomism is, no wonder you keep tripping over your own feet.

---

Indeed.
Your objections are not against Thomism but ‘Thomism distorted to suit atheist objections’.

Keep preaching to the choir!

I have answered all of this in this thread.

 

[belorg]

Aquinas: we must consider not only the emanation of a particular being from a particular agent, but also the emanation of all being from the universal cause, which is God; and this emanation we designate by the name of creation

I have never claimed Aquinas realized the contradictions in his thinking. He obvioulsy didn’t. That does not mean he is right, though.

 

[inocente]

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.
Love4All;10622948:

You are assuming they are all in good faith. I do not share that assumption.
inocente;10628399:

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.
Love4All;10634699:

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

Clear?

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

If you follow the posts back, you implied that only a stubborn horse would refuse to admit the wisdom of your position.

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.

You said that “Saint Thomas knew God a lot more deeply than you do. I concur”. The fallacy is that Thomas’ argument must therefore be correct.

*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.*

These are assertions from faith. In any event Almighty God is ultimately beyond description and so authors can only reflect Him imperfectly.

*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.*

Those verses argue against you.

No Thomistic-style argument is necessary because since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

No Thomistic-style argument is necessary for since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen.

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.

This is a statement of belief, not a rational argument.

 

[Ismael]

I have answered all of this in this thread.

Yes but you can explain a wrong position as much as you want, it still does not make it any more true.

Seems to me that you just CLAIM Aquinas said some things while he did not and no seriosu Thomist would agree with such position either.

If you say Thomas or Thomists assert that “things come from nothing” then you are grossly misunderstanding Aquinas thought.

Seems to me you so not realize what ‘pure actuality’ entails in your claims in this thread.

True other people here have said whoppers and the whole discussion was mostly just sophistry.

Also you seem to contraddict yourself.

First you say:

that something cannot come from nothing (the absence of reality) is the underlying bases of Aquinas’ arguments.

and then

Well, if you believe that creation comes from God, you are not a Thomist,

I think that is rather unlikely that Thomis was to change its position on this during the time this thread was open.

Moreover you claim:

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

Some people might believe that or misunderstand what the teaches are, but this does not mean it is what the Church teaches.

This shows poor logic: you base yourself on what one person said without going ad fontes.

Moreover I think you try to prove some kind of superiority by “debunking” straw men some people present here because they do not understand Thomism either (nor thay are required to, by the way).

It’s a bit like creationsts debating athesists whith poor understanding of the theory of evolution.

 

[Ismael]

PS:

If we all want to understand properly Thomism, the best thing to do is to actually real the work of good, if not great, Thomists (and Aquinas himself of course):

Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (one of the Thomists of the last century):
ewtn.com/library/theology/reality.htm

Closer to home and time we have Ed Feser:
edwardfeser.blogspot.it/2009/10/thomistic-tradition-part-i.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.it/2009/10/thomistic-tradition-part-ii.html

Of course it also helps knowing what the “24 Thomistic Theses”, written by some of the best Thomists during early XX century:
catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/philosophy/thomast.htm

 

[belorg]

Yes but you can explain a wrong position as much as you want, it still does not make it any more true.

Seems to me that you just CLAIM Aquinas said some things while he did not and no seriosu Thomist would agree with such position either.

If you say Thomas or Thomists assert that “things come from nothing” then you are grossly misunderstanding Aquinas thought.

I have made it clear right from the beginning that I was alking about Catholic doctrine as well as Thomism. Thomas may not claim that things come from nothing, but his position logically entails it, as I have explained.

Seems to me you so not realize what ‘pure actuality’ entails in your claims in this thread.

If you think I do not understand it, please explain it.

True other people here have said whoppers and the whole discussion was mostly just sophistry.

Those other people that have said “whoppers” are Catholics like you and claim to understand Thomism.

Also you seem to contraddict yourself.

First you say:
that something cannot come from nothing (the absence of reality) is the underlying bases of Aquinas’ arguments.

Are you sure that I said that?

and then
Well, if you believe that creation comes from God, you are not a Thomist,

And I have good reasons to say this.

I think that is rather unlikely that Thomis was to change its position on this during the time this thread was open.

Care to elaborate, beacsue I do not understand this, I am afraid.

Moreover you claim:

Some people might believe that or misunderstand what the teaches are, but this does not mean it is what the Church teaches.

That God created everything out of nothing is Catholic Doctrine.

This shows poor logic: you base yourself on what one person said without going ad fontes.

No, I base myself on what Catholic Doctrine says.

 

[Ismael]

I have made it clear right from the beginning that I was alking about Catholic doctrine as well as Thomism. Thomas may not claim that things come from nothing, but his position logically entails it, as I have explained.

Sounds to me:

“Thomas never claimed it but I think it did so it’s so”
That’s kind of a stretch!

Nor his position entails it… The contrary, rather, is true, if you properly understand his philosophy regarding Actuality and Potentiality he derived from Aristotle.

If you think I do not understand it, please explain it.

And I have good reasons to say this.

The position of Thomas, the Thomists and the Church is ‘God is the first cause as unmoved mover’. That’s a whole different world than “something comes out of nothing” or “something was made out of nothing” as if nothing was something.

As I said: the Thomist argument is not that ‘something comes from nothing’ or that
“Creation out of nothing” means that what God created was true “creation”, not a ‘remodelling’ of some previously existing substance or entity.

Nothing itself has no properties and nothing can come from it.

Note: To avoid confusion, what I am not saying is that we are ‘part of God’ or ‘split off from God’ as ‘coming from God’ might be misunderstood, but I did not mean it that way…

Read also what says Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (who I think knew a thing of two about Thomas!):

St. Thomas sees the necessity of a more objective division, based on the proper object of theology, namely, God Himself. Hence his division of theology:

1. God, the source of all creatures.
2. God, the goal of all creatures.
3. God, the Savior, who, as man, is man’s road to God.

(Reality: A Synthesis Of Thomistic Thought, chapter 2)

When we claim “God made the world out of nothing” misunderstanding the ‘out of’ part… which can be interpreted in many ways in English.

In the context of Thomas philosophy it is clear that God is the source of being, not ‘nothing’ which is the opposite of being, nor we can say that there was “something called nothing” out of which God made the world.

If I say for example ‘The idea came out of my head’, I do not mean literally that something came out the ear hole and out of my head…

Those other people that have said “whoppers” are Catholics like you and claim to understand Thomism.

So what? I base my self on what Thomas said and what serious Thomists said, not “some guy in a forum”

Care to elaborate, because I do not understand this, I am afraid.

I said: “I think that is rather unlikely that Thomis[ts] was to change its position on this during the time this thread was open.”

I was implying that your claim is held by no Thomists and unless the whole community of Thomism suddenly changed their mind since this thread started I am sure they still hold it.

Are you sure that I said that?

I quoted

That God created everything out of nothing is Catholic Doctrine.

Yes, but as I said you are misunderstanding the ‘out of’ part… which can be interpreted in many ways in English.

As you see in my quotation of Garrigou-Lagrange above, Thomas and Thomists do NOT interpret this has “God took ‘nothing’ and made something out of it” or “Something came from nothing” or similar moieties.

First, that would make no sense at all. Second Catholic Doctrine, Thomism and Aquinas never claimed that in the first place.

No, I base myself on what Catholic Doctrine says.

No you base upon a single phrase without understanding it in the context where it was written.

As the Cathechism CC explains:

296We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance.(1) God creates freely “out of nothing”: (2)

If God had drawn the world from pre-existent matter, what would be so extraordinary in that? A human artisan makes from a given material whatever he wants, while God shows his power by starting from nothing to make all he wants.(3)

1 - Cf. Dei Filius, can. 2-4: DS 3022-3024.
2 - Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 800; cf. DS 3025.
3 - St. Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum II, 4: PG 6,1052.

Hence ‘out of nothing’ entails that creations did not need anything but God himself, as nothing is… nothing, non-existence. In the context is is clear that " nothing" does not entail some sort of object or entity or primal matter… otherwise God would be like “an artisan” that moulds something.

Hence it is very different than saying “out of a car/hat/drawer…”.

I think you are considering ‘nothing’ as something or thinking we think that… but that’s not so.

Maybe “nothing” is difficult to understand, in that case:
edwardfeser.blogspot.it/2011/11/what-part-of-nothing-dont-you.html

If you fail to understand this, this discussion means nothing and your understanding of Thomas and Catholic doctrine is, indeed, nothing.

 

[Ismael]

To my fellow Catholics and everyone else interested:

If you wish to understand Aquinas thought, which is not trivial nor very easy to understand for the ‘modern mindset’ (he just thought in different ways then us regarding most things) I suggest:

Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O. P.: Reality - Synthesis Of Thomistic Thought (can be found online)
Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O. P.: The Trinity and God the Creator (can be found online)
Peter Kreeft: The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas (book with audio set
Edward Feser: Aquinas (concise, clear and interesting)
Brian Davies: The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (a great book, might be a bit tough at times and is a bit expensive… but worth it!)

Familiarizing with Aristotle might be a good idea as well. Thomas Aquinas is mostly influenced by him (but not excluseively). Especially this might help understainding Thomas terminology. For example his use of ‘substance’ is different than out common meaning of the word.

Works of Thomas Aquinas (most of them) in English:
dhspriory.org/thomas/

Be careful though, as I said, about terminology Some Thomists say “you ought to read Thomas in original Latin only” Although I think that is going too far for the common man

Regarding “NOTHING”:
An article in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy by P. L. Heath: nothing.com/Heath.html

 

[Love4All]

I’ll follow your advice and go away, at least until you actually understand your own belief.

If arrogance were truth, you’d be a Catholic!

 

[ivebeenshown]

I have never claimed Aquinas realized the contradictions in his thinking. He obvioulsy didn’t. That does not mean he is right, though.

Perhaps you misunderstand us.

Creation comes from God in the sense that he is the cause of it. Creation does not come from God in the sense that creation is an any way derived from God’s own substance.

 

[Love4All]

Clear?

Originally Posted by inocente:
“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.”

Originally Posted by Love4All:
“You are assuming they are all in good faith. I do not share that assumption.”

Originally Posted by inocente:
“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.”

NOTE: This is a straw man, I never advanced any such argument.

Originally Posted by Love4All:
“I am having trouble connecting your criticism to any argument I’ve advanced.”

You apparently missed the tongue-in-cheek nature of my objection. I did not really mean that I had misplaced my argument, I meant that I never advanced any such thing. My statement, above, that you are falsely calling an argument, is this:

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

Kindly note that no conclusion can possibly be drawn from this. It is not a syllogism. It lacks a middle term.

Your original statement, rather than the arguments of philosophers, is what I was addressing.

“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.”

This carries certain untenable assumptions. It is in fact a fallacy of argument from authority. You are essentially saying that, if we wish to determine which philosophies are correct, all our efforts will be futile, because the authorities have already examined them and been unable to make the determination. Your argument to this effect takes the following form:

1. We can determine which philosophies are correct.
2. If we can determine it, then philosophers can determine it.
3. But philosophers have been unable to determine it.
4. Therefore, we cannot determine it — 1 is incorrect.

Speaking only for myself, my astuteness in philosophy does not depend either on the astuteness nor on the honesty of anyone else. Your mileage may vary, I guess.

If you follow the posts back, you implied that only a stubborn horse would refuse to admit the wisdom of your position.

My philosophy is nowhere near as egocentric as your words imply.

You said that “Saint Thomas knew God a lot more deeply than you do. I concur”. The fallacy is that Thomas’ argument must therefore be correct.

More straw. I never asserted this, nor argued for it.

I will state unequivocally that you ought to be less dismissive and more respectful of Saint Thomas, because he is Saint Thomas. The Church does not arbitrarily assign the title, “Saint.”

If you have a cogent argument to advance against something he wrote, you should advance a cogent argument. For example, for this thread, if you have some way of showing that modern physics removes the force of the First Way, go for it. That’s the point of this thread. If your only beef is that we should not argue for the existence of God, and philosophy is useless, then I submit, once again, that Saint Thomas’s work is far from valueless, it is in fact of very great value. It is work that will survive the fire to come, and not be burned up, because it is built on the foundation of Christ, with precious stones. Yes, Saint Thomas himself called it all “straw,” but that was by way of hyperbolic comparison with the reality of God.

These are assertions from faith. In any event Almighty God is ultimately beyond description and so authors can only reflect Him imperfectly.

None of which means Scripture can err. Almighty God, if He is Almighty, certainly can protect His Word against error, and did so, according to the Christian Faith, not only Catholic, and you do claim you are a Christian.