St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[Love4All]

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.

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.

All I have to do is stay Catholic and die.

You, however, have more things on your agenda.

 

[Love4All]

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.

Logic doesn’t work on belorg.

 

[Love4All]

I am an atheist, Linus, not a pantheist, so i am not aiming at this at all.

Atheism/pantheism is a false dichotomy, which makes your whole argument a false dichotomy fallacy.

Oops, sorry, logic. My bad.

 

[belorg]

Then your argument fails, because it supposes that creation (the substance, not the act) is a mutation of or an addition to God’s own substance, and not an entirely new and distinct substance as an effect of God’s act. To state it differently, your argument supposes that God is equal to the set of all existing things rather than a member of the set of all existing things.

No, it does not suppose that creation is a mutation or an addition to God’s own subtstance, and I have specifically argued why this set analogy dos not work in this case.

And again, “Ex nihilo nihil fit” refers to there being no cause whatsoever, while “ex nihilo” in the Catholic doctrine refers to there being no *material *cause.

I know what it refers to, but my argument is set up to show the absurdity of such notiion.

 

[belorg]

Atheism/pantheism is a false dichotomy, which makes your whole argument a false dichotomy fallacy.

Oops, sorry, logic. My bad.

I know that logic is your bad. Maybe you could do something about that.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Polytheism is a form of theism, but I don’t suppose you are a polytheist

I’d actually argue that it isn’t, based on the Christian definition of a “theos”. A “theos” must only be one, because, as Aquinas notes, division supposes a distinction. Distinction supposes a lacking in both parties. A lacking in both parties supposes a lack of omniscience, omnipotence, and eternity.

If there is a God, there can be only one.

If there is no difference between two “Gods” proper, the division is redundant.

 

[inocente]

But Protestants do not read Scripture correctly, rather, they twist and distort it to their own destruction. As we witness, in you.

Everyone who has actually read the bible knows that Christ would never stereotype millions of people and they shouldn’t either.

All I have to do is stay Catholic and die.

You, however, have more things on your agenda.

Everyone who has actually read the bible knows that Christ is not impressed by ego.

 

[belorg]

I’d actually argue that it isn’t, based on the Christian definition of a “theos”. A “theos” must only be one, because, as Aquinas notes, division supposes a distinction. Distinction supposes a lacking in both parties. A lacking in both parties supposes a lack of omniscience, omnipotence, and eternity.

If there is a God, there can be only one.

If there is no difference between two “Gods” proper, the division is redundant.

It is based on tyhe polytheist’s definition of a theos, though. And my pont was that one just cannot just throw pantheism and atheism on one heap. I , e.g. am not a pantheist

 

[ivebeenshown]

belorg,

Here, you state that your argument does not suppose that creation would be an addition to God’s own substance:

No, it does not suppose that creation is a mutation or an addition to God’s own subtstance, and I have specifically argued why this set analogy dos not work in this case.

I know what it refers to, but my argument is set up to show the absurdity of such notiion.

And here, in your previous argument, you suppose that God “becomes God + universe”, i.e., that creation is added to God’s substance:

Let G be an immutable God.
let U be the universe.
So we have G, who becomes G+U. That’s a change, sin’t it? But G cannot change, so He cannot become G + U

So you have contradicted yourself here, in addition to offering no explanation as to why God could not create a distinct material substance without a contributing material cause.

God is the efficient cause and the final cause for the existence of the universe. He is not the material cause, and there is no material cause for the existence of the universe.

 

[belorg]

belorg,

Here, you state that your argument does not suppose that creation would be an addition to God’s own substance:

And here, in your previous argument, you suppose that God “becomes God + universe”, i.e., that creation is added to God’s substance

So you have contradicted yourself here:

No, I haven’t. My argument does not ‘suppose’ this, it follows from my argument.
What my argument does is examine a possible state of reality and conclude that, given the truth of Catholic doctrine, as well as Thomism, there is a possible state of reality that is immutable.

, in addition to offering no explanation as to why God could not create a distinct material substance without a contributing material cause.

I did offer such explanation, because that wouold mean a change in a reality that is immutable.

God is the efficient cause and the final cause for the existence of the universe. He is not the material cause, and there is no material cause for the existence of the universe.

Apart from the problems I have already shown with this concept, there is also the fact that there are examples of things that have no efficient cause and no final cause, but there are no examples of things that have no material cause.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

belorg,

Here, you state that your argument does not suppose that creation would be an addition to God’s own substance:

And here, in your previous argument, you suppose that God “becomes God + universe”, i.e., that creation is added to God’s substance:

So you have contradicted yourself here, in addition to offering no explanation as to why God could not create a distinct material substance without a contributing material cause.

God is the efficient cause and the final cause for the existence of the universe. He is not the material cause, and there is no material cause for the existence of the universe.

" B " has interpreted Catholic teaching and the teaching of St. Thomas incorrectly. Neither Creation nor God’s provident governance of the universe implies change in God. Nor does it imply that God is a part of the universe. God, though he works in the universe and will do so until the end of time, is entirlely other than and absolutely separate from the universe. This is one of the problems you run into when you allow non-believers to define the rules discusion and define the meaning of terms. Linus2nd

 

[Love4All]

I know that logic is your bad. Maybe you could do something about that.

I will not apologize for logic, which contrary to your mind, is a good thing.

 

[Love4All]

Everyone who has actually read the bible knows that Christ would never stereotype millions of people and they shouldn’t either.

Everyone who has actually read the bible knows that Christ is not impressed by ego.

Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Martin Luther attempted to reform it, but failed miserably. You are invited into the fullness of truth. The invitation stands open. I would counsel you not to keep putting it off.

 

[Love4All]

It is based on tyhe polytheist’s definition of a theos, though. And my pont was that one just cannot just throw pantheism and atheism on one heap. I , e.g. am not a pantheist

You argue that God must either be a pantheist or fail to exist. The truth is neither.

 

[belorg]

You argue that God must either be a pantheist or fail to exist. The truth is neither.

Even if that’s the truth, that does not alter the fact that I am no pantheist. Since I am someone who doesn’t think God exists, I am an atheist.

 

[Love4All]

Even if that’s the truth, that does not alter the fact that I am no pantheist. Since I am someone who doesn’t think God exists, I am an atheist.

Pantheism/atheism = false dichotomy. Get a new schtick.

 

[ivebeenshown]

No, I haven’t. My argument does not ‘suppose’ this, it follows from my argument.

I will give you that. But I will then say that it only follows from your argument because your argument supposes that God is equivalent to the totality of real things.

What my argument does is examine a possible state of reality and conclude that, given the truth of Catholic doctrine, as well as Thomism, there is a possible state of reality that is immutable.

We do not believe in an immutable ‘state of reality’, a term for which we should see if we can agree upon a definition. We believe in an immutable substance with its own reality. ‘The state of reality’ as you put it seems to refer to the totality of real things.

I did offer such explanation, because that wouold mean a change in a reality that is immutable.

Again, in this sentence, you use the word ‘reality’ to refer to ‘the totality of real things’. We believe in an immutable substance with an immutable reality. We do not believe that the totality of real things is immutable. Each letter I type now causes the totality of real things to change in some fashion.

Apart from the problems I have already shown with this concept, there is also the fact that there are examples of things that have no efficient cause and no final cause, but there are no examples of things that have no material cause.

There are examples of things for which we can discern no efficient cause, but assuming that all things with beginnings have efficient causes, they would also have final causes.

 

[catholictiger]

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?

It doesn’t need to fit into the frame work of modern physics, the demonstration from motion a philosophical argument from our experiences science doesn’t have to confirm or deny it.

Also thomistic motion has to do with causality not motion in the modern sense of the word.

something moving from potentiality to actuality is considered motion by thomistic. Science can’t explain philosophical causality so any scientific argument against the first way is stepping into philosophical arguments.

 

[Love4All]

We do not believe in an immutable ‘state of reality’, a term for which we should see if we can agree upon a definition. We believe in an immutable substance with its own reality. ‘The state of reality’ as you put it seems to refer to the totality of real things.

In eternity before God created His Creation, there is an immutable state of affairs, God and His Beloved Wisdom. That has not changed, nor can it, for all eternity, including both eternity before and after God created His Creation. There is still God and His Beloved Wisdom, in an unchangeable relationship of Love. That is the eternally immutable state of reality, and God’s Creation exists within it without changing it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It doesn’t need to fit into the frame work of modern physics, the demonstration from motion a philosophical argument from our experiences science doesn’t have to confirm or deny it.

Also thomistic motion has to do with causality not motion in the modern sense of the word.

something moving from potentiality to actuality is considered motion by thomistic. Science can’t explain philosophical causality so any scientific argument against the first way is stepping into philosophical arguments.

You are certainly wrong here. Every motion or change is a movement from a potential extant to an actual extant whether we are considering change and causality in a philosophical or a scientific sense. I don’t see the conflict. Linus2nd