St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[Love4All]

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 are no atheists then! Good to know. We should take down the Philosophy section of this forum, because, plainly, philosophy is unnecessary, the whole world is already Catholic.

You are Catholic, right? Because, the truth is so obvious that it needs no argumentation.

Or could it rather not be, that human perversity is so strong that many allow themselves to be deceived, and cannot come to proper knowledge of truth, because their own perversity blinds them?

It is obvious to me that if God is God, then the Catholic Faith is the truth. Why isn’t it obvious to you? After all, “what may be known about God is plain to [you], because God has made it plain to [you.]” So what gives?

There is a fact of human nature, that some things that seem obvious can be denied for the sake of an agenda. That fact cannot be denied.

Consider the expression, 0.99999. . ., the nines going on to infinity. It is fact that this expression is = 1. Some deny it, because they do not understand it. It is in fact obvious, yet some still deny it. Some insist that it is ever-so-slightly less than 1. But it isn’t, it is equal to 1. This can be shown in several different ways. Usually, once a person is shown, they accept it. But it is an example of something that is obvious and yet denied. And this, without even having an agenda. It is hard to imagine anyone having a vested interest in 0.99999. . . < 1, so it seems it is not from an agenda, but only from the inability to grasp the obvious without help.

Saint Thomas wanted to help. He has, in fact, helped many, over centuries, and to this day. If everything that can be known about God is obvious to you, then you are in fact a Roman Catholic. But we see that you are not, so it is apparent that not everything that can be known about God is obvious to you, and you need some help in grasping some of it. There is no shame in needing help. But there ought to be shame in dismissing someone like Saint Thomas, who is trying to help others, and you, if you will receive it.

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

My original statement: ‘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.’

To formalize my argument:

1. God is omnipotent.
2. Therefore, God has the ability to establish a Church to teach the fullness of Truth.
3. God is Love.
4. Therefore, God has the desire to establish a Church to teach the fullness of Truth.
5. God came among us as a man.
6. Therefore, God had the opportunity, in history, to establish a Church to teach the fullness of Truth.
7. That which God could do, and desired to do, and had the opportunity to do, God did.
8. Therefore, God established a Church to teach the fullness of Truth.

 

[Love4All]

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

Since I do, already, understand my own belief, despite belorg’s unspeakably arrogant jab, he actually did keep his promise. The wording of his promise did not present any requirement on him to leave even for an instant.

This thread should have a sign like that next to the bridge in “The Billy Goats Gruff.”

 

[Apologist78]

One way St. Thomas proved the existence of God is through the argument of motion, as follows:

Now, I understand that St. Thomas’ concept of “motion” is different from how this term is used in modern physics, although something tells me hey are related. My question is: how does St. Thomas concept of “motion” fit in the modern physical framework of motion?

I think it is necessary to clarify what motion, potentiality, and actuality means within St. Thomas’ framework independent from how they used in modern physics. How are they different, and how are they related? Is St Thomas’ concept of motion also applicable to modern physics?

The answer is very simple. When Aquinas uses the term motion, he, like Aristitle means by “Motion” the concept of “Change.” The first argument is not concerned with moving objects as in modern physics, but change.

Thus whatever modern physics can tell us does not impact Aquians’s argument.

 

[belorg]

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.

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!):

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…

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

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.

I quoted

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 you base upon a single phrase without understanding it in the context where it was written.

As the Cathechism CC explains:

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.

I know what “nothing” means. Now, are you going to say something that is actually relevant to what I said?.

 

[belorg]

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.

I knwo this. And it’s exactly what my argument is about.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I knwo this. And it’s exactly what my argument is about.

Well, I think you are wrong to say that “creation comes from God” is not in line with Thomistic principles. It is, as Aquinas does agree that all being emanates from God. I think that is all Ismael was saying, and that he did not see the entire discussion. I see where you were discussing with rom422, and he states something to the effect that ‘creation comes from potential beings’, which is, as you correctly stated, in conflict with Catholic doctrine.

The thing is, G + U does not imply a change in G. G does not ‘become’ G + U, he stays G, just as I do not become “myself + my children” when I reproduce. My children are distinct entities apart from myself, just as the universe is a distinct entity apart from God.

 

[Love4All]

Well, I think you are wrong to say that “creation comes from God” is not in line with Thomistic principles. It is, as Aquinas does agree that all being emanates from God. I think that is all Ismael was saying, and that he did not see the entire discussion. I see where you were discussing with rom422, and he states something to the effect that ‘creation comes from potential beings’, which is, as you correctly stated, in conflict with Catholic doctrine.

The thing is, G + U does not imply a change in G. G does not ‘become’ G + U, he stays G, just as I do not become “myself + my children” when I reproduce. My children are distinct entities apart from myself, just as the universe is a distinct entity apart from God.

I want to wish you best of luck, explaining your view to belorg. God knows I tried. Maybe you will fare better.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Unsubstantiated assertions which are false into the bargain because we have **chosen **to believe in Christianity - unlike many in our secular society who have been conditioned to reject religion by the mass media under the influence of atheists like Dawkins who abuse their academic position to distort the facts about evolution.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I want to wish you best of luck, explaining your view to belorg. God knows I tried. Maybe you will fare better.

I have held a brief discussion with belorg in the past regarding this same subject matter. He had stated that my view was logical but that it may have some repercussions for the average Catholic. I do not recall him offer any explanation of said repercussions.

One problem is that we, as temporal beings, tend to see things like “God created, then he sustains us all, and then he redeems mankind, and then…” as if God were a temporal being performing one action followed by another – but truly, God performs one action from eternity, and that action is the operation of his will. His will pertains to things which change, yet it does not change.

 

[Love4All]

I have held a brief discussion with belorg in the past regarding this same subject matter. He had stated that my view was logical but that it may have some repercussions for the average Catholic. I do not recall him offer any explanation of said repercussions.

One problem is that we, as temporal beings, tend to see things like “God created, then he sustains us all, and then he redeems mankind, and then…” as if God were a temporal being performing one action followed by another – but truly, God performs one action from eternity, and that action is the operation of his will. His will pertains to things which change, yet it does not change.

You are correct. What I saw in your recent interchange with belorg was you trying to convince him, essentially, that God is not the World.

Belorg has a magical argument that goes something like this:

1. In some possible world, wG, God alone exists.
2. If God were to create, that would change wG.
3. But there is nothing in wG save for God. (1)
4. Therefore, if wG changes, it must be that God changes.
5. Therefore, if God creates, God cannot be immutable.

I tried, and tried, and tried, to demonstrate to him that wG = G amounts to pantheism, and further, that it is absurd to assert that a set is the same as its members. All to no avail. But I wish you the best!

 

[belorg]

Well, I think you are wrong to say that “creation comes from God” is not in line with Thomistic principles. It is, as Aquinas does agree that all being emanates from God. I think that is all Ismael was saying, and that he did not see the entire discussion. I see where you were discussing with rom422, and he states something to the effect that ‘creation comes from potential beings’, which is, as you correctly stated, in conflict with Catholic doctrine.

I know that Aquinas says that all being is an emanation from God. the probllem is that this is inconsistent with God’s immutability.

The thing is, G + U does not imply a change in G. G does not ‘become’ G + U, he stays G, just as I do not become “myself + my children” when I reproduce. My children are distinct entities apart from myself, just as the universe is a distinct entity apart from God.

If G does not becaome G+U, then, unless U can pop into existence, from nothing ( thus violating ex nihilo nihil comes) there can never be a U.

 

[Love4All]

I know that Aquinas says that all being is an emanation from God. the probllem is that this is inconsistent with God’s immutability.

If G does not becaome G+U, then, unless U can pop into existence, from nothing ( thus violating ex nihilo nihil comes) there can never be a U.

Because, “popping into existence from nothing” = “being created by God.”

Because, God = Nothing.

Belorg is an atheist. Why didn’t we notice this before?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I know that Aquinas says that all being is an emanation from God. the probllem is that this is inconsistent with God’s immutability.

If G does not becaome G+U, then, unless U can pop into existence, from nothing ( thus violating ex nihilo nihil comes) there can never be a U.

The problem Belorg is that you do not want to understand because you have errected an artificial fire wall, you intentionally ground your thought processes in scientism. For you no mode of thought exists except the scientific. This is the great flaw of materialism. The fact is that there are existing realities ( the purely Spiritual ) which are beyond the purely material and can be reached only two ways, both valid; by Revelation and/or by a posteriori reasoning.

God is one thing and the universe is another, entirely different thing. " Ex nihilo nihil fit " applies to the causality between the material beings universe only. This restriction does not apply to God, who causes the material universe to exist, etc. And he does so " ex nihil. " Your intellect refuses to acknowledge this because you are " pledged " to scientific materialism. " But neither science nor materialistic " philolophy " has the right to arbitrarily limit man’s knowledge to what can be " put into a test tube. "

Now, you and your pals can go on forever in this fashion but men and women of faith will never agree with you. Why you persist in coming here year after year saying the same things over and over is beyond me. You have admitted once, I believe, that you do it just " to keep in practice, " or just for sport. The question remains then, why anyone here continue to treat you seriously? That people keep responding can only mean the there are " innocent " people here ( mostly juvenials I suspect ) who have the erroneous notion that they can " convert " anyone. I do not share that optimism. Those who choose to remain obstinately in darkness are welcome to it.

But then perhaps the reason you remain is simply to destroy the Forum. And this you have largely succeeded in doing because, as far as I am concerned, this Forum has become as near to being useless as it can possibly be. So congratulations there.

Of course you and your pals aren’t the only " klinkers " in the stove. There are those here ( again I suspect juvenilies ) who persist in asking the most idiotic questions. So together, the Forum is just about useless for serious minded folks. Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

The problem Belorg is that you do not want to understand because you have errected an artificial fire wall, you intentionally ground your thought processes in scientism. For you no mode of thought exists except the scientific. This is the great flaw of materialism. The fact is that there are existing realities ( the purely Spiritual ) which are beyond the purely material and can be reached only two ways, both valid; by Revelation and/or by a posteriori reasoning.

God is one thing and the universe is another, entirely different thing. " Ex nihilo nihil fit " applies to the causality between the material beings universe only. This restriction does not apply to God, who causes the material universe to exist, etc. And he does so " ex nihil. " Your intellect refuses to acknowledge this because you are " pledged " to scientific materialism. " But neither science nor materialistic " philolophy " has the right to arbitrarily limit man’s knowledge to what can be " put into a test tube. "

Since my position has nothing to do with scientusm, you had better address this to someone else.

Now, you and your pals can go on forever in this fashion but men and women of faith will never agree with you. Why you persist in coming here year after year saying the same things over and over is beyond me. You have admitted once, I believe, that you do it just " to keep in practice, " or just for sport.

I have never admitted any such thing. I do it because I keep hoping that, among the vast majority of blind believers, there are a few who are really willing to (and able to) discuss these things in some depth.

The question remains then, why anyone here continue to treat you seriously? That people keep responding can only mean the there are " innocent " people here ( mostly juvenials I suspect ) who have the erroneous notion that they can " convert " anyone. I do not share that optimism. Those who choose to remain obstinately in darkness are welcome to it.

Since you are one of those who keeps responding to me, I suppose you are also “innocent”

But then perhaps the reason you remain is simply to destroy the Forum. And this you have largely succeeded in doing because, as far as I am concerned, this Forum has become as near to being useless as it can possibly be. So congratulations there.

Do you actually think that a few fundamental questions can destroy the forum? If that’s the case, i wonder how strang the faith of the majority of members here is. Is their belief really that shaky?

Of course you and your pals aren’t the only " klinkers " in the stove. There are those here ( again I suspect juvenilies ) who persist in asking the most idiotic questions. So together, the Forum is just about useless for serious minded folks. Linus2nd

What on earth is someone who believes there is only one truth that cannot be questioned in any way doing in a forum in the first place?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Since my position has nothing to do with scientusm, you had better address this to someone else.

I have never admitted any such thing. I do it because I keep hoping that, among the vast majority of blind believers, there are a few who are really willing to (and able to) discuss these things in some depth.

Since you are one of those who keeps responding to me, I suppose you are also “innocent”

Do you actually think that a few fundamental questions can destroy the forum? If that’s the case, i wonder how strang the faith of the majority of members here is. Is their belief really that shaky?

What on earth is someone who believes there is only one truth that cannot be questioned in any way doing in a forum in the first place?

As ususal, a meaningless response. You presume you and your pals have a corner on truth. If you are atheist and adhere neither to " scientism " nor " materialism, " what, pray tell, is left ? Sounds like more Sophism to me.

I don’t often respond to your Sophism, but occasionally " dark " forces tempt me beyond resistence. Linus2nd

 

[ivebeenshown]

I know that Aquinas says that all being is an emanation from God. the probllem is that this is inconsistent with God’s immutability.

It is only inconsistent with God’s immutability if God’s substance changes in doing. I tell you, it does not. That we distinguish the beginning of the material universe as the act of creation, or all being emanating from God, does not diminish the operation of God’s will to a series of temporal acts. God’s will consists of things that change, yet his will does not change, thus the operation of bringing to actuality the things to which his will pertains is a constant and unchanging motion.

If G does not becaome G+U, then, unless U can pop into existence, from nothing ( thus violating ex nihilo nihil comes) there can never be a U.

This is what I do not understand. When I reproduce, I don’t become myself plus my child. My child and I are then distinct entities. When God creates ex nihilo, he and his creation are then distinct entities. You seem to think that when God creates ex nihilo, he is adding a part to himself, which is not the case.

 

[inocente]

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.

Thanks for that long argument, which is even more pessimistic than mine. If only an astute philosopher can determine for himself which, if any, school of philosophy is correct then there is no possibility of any generation weeding out incorrect schools of philosophy. Since more schools are appearing all the time, the number of different schools must grow inexorably until not even an astute philosopher could read them all in his lifetime, and therefore not even an astute philosopher could determine for himself which, if any, is correct.

That’s very clear, thanks.

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.

Thomas’ personality is irrelevant, we are discussing his philosophy.

Regarding the argument from motion, I’ve already put forward standard philosophical and physics arguments but they’re now several pages back. The standard arguments are easy enough to find online, so rather than write them out again, here’s an example of why his physics fails from aquinasonline.com.

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.

You still refer to differences in scripture as errors.

I said “In any event Almighty God is ultimately beyond description and so authors can only reflect Him imperfectly”.

Why do you think that implies error?

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Maybe this is a helpful (albeit loose) analogy to G and wG. A set containing the number one is different from the number one. Now two and any other natural number can created by the addition of one with itself, but these numbers are not 1 and we can’t say that 1 = {1, 2, 3}. Not only would this be a confusion of categories, but is an algebraic fact that no number is another number.

 

[inocente]

There are no atheists then! Good to know. We should take down the Philosophy section of this forum, because, plainly, philosophy is unnecessary, the whole world is already Catholic.

You are Catholic, right? Because, the truth is so obvious that it needs no argumentation.

Or could it rather not be, that human perversity is so strong that many allow themselves to be deceived, and cannot come to proper knowledge of truth, because their own perversity blinds them?

It is obvious to me that if God is God, then the Catholic Faith is the truth. Why isn’t it obvious to you? After all, “what may be known about God is plain to [you], because God has made it plain to [you.]” So what gives?

There is a fact of human nature, that some things that seem obvious can be denied for the sake of an agenda. That fact cannot be denied.

Consider the expression, 0.99999. . ., the nines going on to infinity. It is fact that this expression is = 1. Some deny it, because they do not understand it. It is in fact obvious, yet some still deny it. Some insist that it is ever-so-slightly less than 1. But it isn’t, it is equal to 1. This can be shown in several different ways. Usually, once a person is shown, they accept it. But it is an example of something that is obvious and yet denied. And this, without even having an agenda. It is hard to imagine anyone having a vested interest in 0.99999. . . < 1, so it seems it is not from an agenda, but only from the inability to grasp the obvious without help.

Saint Thomas wanted to help. He has, in fact, helped many, over centuries, and to this day. If everything that can be known about God is obvious to you, then you are in fact a Roman Catholic. But we see that you are not, so it is apparent that not everything that can be known about God is obvious to you, and you need some help in grasping some of it. There is no shame in needing help. But there ought to be shame in dismissing someone like Saint Thomas, who is trying to help others, and you, if you will receive it.

Your argument appears to be that if I am a Catholic/Baptist/Jew/Muslim/etc. who believes that everything which can be known about God is obvious to me, then it is because I am a Catholic/Baptist/Jew/Muslim/etc.

That kind of thinking may have led to a few religious wars.

And again, we are discussing Thomas’ philosophy, not his personality.

*My original statement: ‘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.’

To formalize my argument:

1. God is omnipotent.
2. Therefore, God has the ability to establish a Church to teach the fullness of Truth.
3. God is Love.
4. Therefore, God has the desire to establish a Church to teach the fullness of Truth.
5. God came among us as a man.
6. Therefore, God had the opportunity, in history, to establish a Church to teach the fullness of Truth.
7. That which God could do, and desired to do, and had the opportunity to do, God did.
8. Therefore, God established a Church to teach the fullness of Truth.*

All you have to do now is prove that the entity you call “Church” is in fact your religion, and disprove all those who claim it is theirs.

You should also prove that God is concerned about “the fullness of Truth”, and indeed what that might mean, and why He doesn’t just zap it into us.

Oh, and also you might get a few objections to 5 from some quarters. Oh, and does God have opportunities.

Oh, and … well you get the idea.

 

[belorg]

Maybe this is a helpful (albeit loose) analogy to G and wG. A set containing the number one is different from the number one. Now two and any other natural number can created by the addition of one with itself, but these numbers are not 1 and we can’t say that 1 = {1, 2, 3}. Not only would this be a confusion of categories, but is an algebraic fact that no number is another number.

This is exactly what Love4All is trying to claim, but a set is a mathematical construction and what we are talking about here is whether there is any ontological diffrence between wG and G.
Now it should be noted that wG is the way the world would be if God did not create anything at all. So, I don’t see any ontological difefrence between wG and G and even if there were a difference, that would mean that there is at least something other than God that God did not create, which is a direct violation of Catholic doctrine.

So, while it is true that no number is another number, this is completely irrelevant to this discussion.