St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[catholictiger]

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

never said there was a conflict all I’m arguing is that we should not combine science and philosophy, any time you try to use modern physics to argue to God’s existence you are in a losing game it will never work. St. Thomas’ arguments are not scientific arguments and scientific arguments can never justify those proofs.

The problem with most new atheist today is they try to reduce everything to science they try and explain how science can show God doesn’t exist. The simple fact is that science cannot do this. As David Quinn said an english Catholic Journalist said something along the lines that the focus of scientific research is on matter and only matter. It studies matters tries to explain how it works what it is. But if science attempts to find this origin of matter it will fail. If it claims it is matter it hasn’t found its origin, something can’t be the origin of itself that is not infinite. If it is something outside of matter it has overstepped the bounds of science.

All I’m trying to say is that DON’T use science to prove that God exists because it will never work and it will put people’s faiths at way to large of a risk.

One more thing.

Thomistic Causality = what is the sufficient reason for the existence of a being.
Scientific Causality (hume causlity) = what things immediately preceded this event which caused X to happen.

Thomistic Causality and Scientific Causality and two different things. Scientific causality fails to explain the existence of God because scientific causality requires time to exist. God doesn’t exist in time and he created the universe at time 0 there was nothing before time 0 if we try to use scientific causality to prove that God created the universe we can’t because you can’t have a time -.0000000001 it doesn’t exist. Time beings at 0 and ends at X.

Thomistic Causality does explain how God can create the universe because the universe must have a sufficient reason for its existence in itself or in another, it can’t be in itself because it is finite and moving from potentiality to actuality, so it must be in another.

When you talk about science and philosophy especially thomistic philosophy you are dealing with two different ideas of causality. Science will never deal with thomistic causality because there is no way to empirically prove the principle of sufficient reason. They will deal with hume’s causality which simply says X causes Y to happen in a spacio temporal order.

 

[belorg]

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.

No, wrong again, I don’t suppose this, i argue for it

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.

So, you seem to think that, if God had decided not to create a single thing, thiks would not be the totality of reality because the totality of reality would consist of an immutable subtstance (God, I presume) plus '‘its own reality’ Whijc means that ‘in the beginning’ there was God plus R. That’s fine, except that it contradicts Catholic doctrine, because in that case an entity exists (R) that has not been created by God. And its the reality R that eventulaay changes…

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.

I do not assume that all things with beginnings have efficient causes. There is no reason to assume that. and lots of reasons to deny it.

 

[TarkanAttila]

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

Well, that’s true.

All pantheists are practically atheists, but clearly not all atheists are pantheists. I never assumed you believed there was any higher power than yourself.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

never said there was a conflict all I’m arguing is that we should not combine science and philosophy, any time you try to use modern physics to argue to God’s existence you are in a losing game it will never work. St. Thomas’ arguments are not scientific arguments and scientific arguments can never justify those proofs.

The problem with most new atheist today is they try to reduce everything to science they try and explain how science can show God doesn’t exist. The simple fact is that science cannot do this. As David Quinn said an english Catholic Journalist said something along the lines that the focus of scientific research is on matter and only matter. It studies matters tries to explain how it works what it is. But if science attempts to find this origin of matter it will fail. If it claims it is matter it hasn’t found its origin, something can’t be the origin of itself that is not infinite. If it is something outside of matter it has overstepped the bounds of science.

All I’m trying to say is that DON’T use science to prove that God exists because it will never work and it will put people’s faiths at way to large of a risk.

One more thing.

Thomistic Causality = what is the sufficient reason for the existence of a being.
Scientific Causality (hume causlity) = what things immediately preceded this event which caused X to happen.

Thomistic Causality and Scientific Causality and two different things. Scientific causality fails to explain the existence of God because scientific causality requires time to exist. God doesn’t exist in time and he created the universe at time 0 there was nothing before time 0 if we try to use scientific causality to prove that God created the universe we can’t because you can’t have a time -.0000000001 it doesn’t exist. Time beings at 0 and ends at X.

Thomistic Causality does explain how God can create the universe because the universe must have a sufficient reason for its existence in itself or in another, it can’t be in itself because it is finite and moving from potentiality to actuality, so it must be in another.

When you talk about science and philosophy especially thomistic philosophy you are dealing with two different ideas of causality. Science will never deal with thomistic causality because there is no way to empirically prove the principle of sufficient reason. They will deal with hume’s causality which simply says X causes Y to happen in a spacio temporal order.

O.K., but I think causality in the Thomistic frame work can embrace and subsume scientific causality. Perhaps I am wrong for thinking so. Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

Well, that’s true.

All pantheists are practically atheists, but clearly not all atheists are pantheists. I never assumed you believed there was any higher power than yourself.

I do not think that all pantheists are practically atheists either, I know a few pantheists who are not.
And I do believe there is a higher power than myself. The sun, e.g. is much more powerful than I am.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

I do not think that all pantheists are practically atheists either, I know a few pantheists who are not.
And I do believe there is a higher power than myself. The sun, e.g. is much more powerful than I am.

the sun doesn’t know anything.
how is this thread doing? where are you at now?

 

[ivebeenshown]

No, wrong again, I don’t suppose this, i argue for it

I do not wish to argue any further with you on what your argument does or does not suppose, especially when we are getting to something more critical.

So, you seem to think that, if God had decided not to create a single thing, this would not be the totality of reality because the totality of reality would consist of an immutable substance (God, I presume) plus '‘its own reality’ Which means that ‘in the beginning’ there was God plus R. That’s fine, except that it contradicts Catholic doctrine, because in that case an entity exists (R) that has not been created by God. And its the reality R that eventually changes.

Then this is where you err. The totality of all real things is not an entity in its own right. It is just a summation, a reckoning of quantity, a mathematical idea. Each thing that exists is said to have its own reality, and there is no such thing as reality apart from the individual reality of each existing thing. So if there exists one real thing, God, and then there exists another, the Universe, the only reality that changes is that of the Universe. God maintains his individual reality. To say that ‘the totality of all real things changes’ in this event is really to say that some real thing has changed.

I do not assume that all things with beginnings have efficient causes. There is no reason to assume that. and lots of reasons to deny it.

Alright, I can give you this, it is a matter of faith to believe that all things with beginnings have efficient causes. I can just tell you that I cannot believe that virtual particles are not the result of quantum fluctuations or other energy related phenomena, and if I hear a window break on my house, I am going to assume that there was some efficient cause. I don’t need to see the cause to believe there was one.

 

[belorg]

Then this is where you err. The totality of all real things is not an entity in its own right. It is just a summation, a reckoning of quantity, a mathematical idea. Each thing that exists is said to have its own reality, and there is no such thing as reality apart from the individual reality of each existing thing. So if there exists one real thing, God, and then there exists another, the Universe, the only reality that changes is that of the Universe. God maintains his individual reality. To say that ‘the totality of all real things changes’ in this event is really to say that some real thing has changed.

I am glad you say this, because if there exists one real thing, God, then by definition, there is no other things that can change.
Hence there is nothing that can change,. We have the only existing thing (God) and the only existing thing cannot change, hence it is impossible for another thing to exist.

I think your reply here is a splendid illustration of the utter absurdity of Thomist Cosmology.

Alright, I can give you this, it is a matter of faith to believe that all things with beginnings have efficient causes. I can just tell you that I cannot believe that virtual particles are not the result of quantum fluctuations or other energy related phenomena, and if I hear a window break on my house, I am going to assume that there was some efficient cause. I don’t need to see the cause to believe there was one.

And I cannot believe that an immutable entity can, without applying any sort of force, transform the lack of anything into something.
I think it was Wes Morriston who made the observation that if we were to find a heap of wood somewhere that vaguely resembles a cabine, we would find it remarkable if someone said that this wood just fell there in this shape, but it would be infinitly more remarkable if someone claimed a carpenter constructed it tthere without using any wood, or any sort of tool, not even his own hands.

 

[catholictiger]

O.K., but I think causality in the Thomistic frame work can embrace and subsume scientific causality. Perhaps I am wrong for thinking so. Linus2nd

I think you are but please explain yourself.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I am glad you say this, because if there exists one real thing, God, then by definition, there is no other things that can change.
Hence there is nothing that can change,. (1) We have the only existing thing (God) and the only existing thing cannot change, hence it is impossible for another thing to exist.

And I cannot believe that an immutable entity can, without applying any sort of force (2),** transform the lack of anything into something.(1)**

Regarding (1), you are right in that transformation necessarily involves a material cause. But we are not speaking of transformation, we are speaking of creation. But even transformation, say in the case of building a house, is making there to be a house where there was no house. Creation is similar in that God makes there to be another being where there was no other being.

Regarding (2), we are not asking you to believe that creation is done without God using his power.

 

[belorg]

Regarding (1), you are right in that transformation necessarily involves a material cause. But we are not speaking of transformation, we are speaking of creation. But even transformation, say in the case of building a house, is making there to be a house where there was no house. Creation is similar in that God makes there to be another being where there was no other being.

Regarding (2), we are not asking you to believe that creation is done without God using his power.

When I create e.g. a clay pot, then I transform clay into the shape of a pot. The kind of creation you are proposing is an infinitely more fundamental kind of transformation.
The problem is that there is nothing to transform.

Regarding (2) : that’s exactly what you are asking, because there is no way in which a force can be applied without change. The very fact that we can distinguish between a state of affairs in which no force is applied (God without creation) and another at which a force is applied means a change.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I do not think that all pantheists are practically atheists either, I know a few pantheists who are not.

And I do believe there is a higher power than myself. The sun, e.g. is much more powerful than I am.

I mean this on a moral level.

If everything is God, that is the ultimate moral authority, omnipotent, omniscient, etc, it is as good as having nothing as God.

The sun commands no morals. It has no mind or soul. Only a thing with a reasoning mind can reason morality - good and evil.

 

[belorg]

I mean this on a moral level.

If everything is God, that is the ultimate moral authority, omnipotent, omniscient, etc, it is as good as having nothing as God.

The sun commands no morals. It has no mind or soul. Only a thing with a reasoning mind can reason morality - good and evil.

Not that i care too much about pantheism, but “if everything is God then nothing is God does not seem coherent to me.”

 

[ivebeenshown]

When I create e.g. a clay pot, then I transform clay into the shape of a pot.

We tend to use the word ‘create’ to mean ‘transform’ in casual discussion, but creation in the sense that God performs is a unique motion, where new substance is produced, but not by transformation.

The kind of creation you are proposing is an infinitely more fundamental kind of transformation.
The problem is that there is nothing to transform.

We do not believe that creation is a kind of transformation. If we did, our belief would be incoherent, because one cannot transform something from nothing, because ‘nothingness’ has no ‘form’ to ‘trans’.

Regarding (2) : that’s exactly what you are asking, because there is no way in which a force can be applied without change. The very fact that we can distinguish between a state of affairs in which no force is applied (God without creation) and another at which a force is applied means a change.

What God wills about entails a lot of change, like the generation of the universe where there was nothing before, but since God’s will does not in itself change, his exercise of power in willing about that which he does undergoes no substantial change – it is one fluid motion.

 

[belorg]

We tend to use the word ‘create’ to mean ‘transform’ in casual discussion, but creation in the sense that God performs is a unique motion, where new substance is produced, but not by transformation.

We do not believe that creation is a kind of transformation. If we did, our belief would be incoherent, because one cannot transform something from nothing, because ‘nothingness’ has no ‘form’ to ‘trans’.

Do you honestly think that by calling it something else it will become coherent?

What God wills about entails a lot of change, like the generation of the universe where there was nothing before, but since God’s will does not in itself change, his exercise of power in willing about that which he does undergoes no substantial change – it is one fluid motion.

I think you misunderstand me. The fact that God is immutable does not just mean He does not change in this world, it also entails that He is the same in every possible world.
So to say that there is a possible state of affairs in which God does and another possible state of affairs in which God does not apply a force contradicts God’s essentail immutability.

 

[davidv]

Do you honestly think that by calling it something else it will become coherent?

I think you misunderstand me. The fact that God is immutable does not just mean He does not change in this world,

This is self contradictory based on the standard dictionary definition of the word immutable.

it also entails that He is the same in every possible world.
So to say that there is a possible state of affairs in which God does and another possible state of affairs in which God does not apply a force contradicts God’s essentail immutability.

Invalid conclusion based on a false premise.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Do you honestly think that by calling it something else it will become coherent?

You made the statement that we propose a transformation from nothing. Your statement is incorrect. “Creation ex nihilo” as we speak of means to cause a substance to begin existing without having transformed from anything else. There is nothing incoherent about the concept, it is simply a matter of faith to believe that it happened (or does happen, as some who study quantum mechanics maintain.)

I think you misunderstand me. The fact that God is immutable does not just mean He does not change in this world, it also entails that He is the same in every possible world.
So to say that there is a possible state of affairs in which God does and another possible state of affairs in which God does not apply a force contradicts God’s essentail immutability.

You misunderstand us. We speak of God doing something at some point in the past as such speech satisfies our perception and typical manner of conversation. Truly, God always does that which he does, which is his will. God’s will is like “the universe begins to exist before some specific stuff happens before other specific things happen.” It does not change, even though it regards change. And because it is one cohesive and infinite thing that does not change, there is no change in God’s power as he exacts that will.

 

[belorg]

You made the statement that we propose a transformation from nothing. Your statement is incorrect. “Creation ex nihilo” as we speak of means to cause a substance to begin existing without having transformed from anything else. There is nothing incoherent about the concept, it is simply a matter of faith to believe that it happened (or does happen, as some who study quantum mechanics maintain.

The problem is that under your view obvuously hasn’t trasformed from something else, so it has transformed from nothing. This transformation fropm nothing, whteher you wish to call it that ot not, is a much more radical change than a transformation from something, hence you are still stuck with a change in something that iks immutable.

And if, as you suggest, it is simply a matter of faith to believe this happens, you are basically saying that “ex nihilio nihil fit” is not correct.In that case, we have nothing to discuss because my argument assumes that it is true that “ex nihilo nihil fit”.

You misunderstand us. We speak of God doing something at some point in the past as such speech satisfies our perception and typical manner of conversation. Truly, God always does that which he does, which is his will. God’s will is like “the universe begins to exist before some specific stuff happens before other specific things happen.” It does not change, even though it regards change. And because it is one cohesive and infinite thing that does not change, there is no change in God’s power as he exacts that will.

I am not disputing that God always does that which He does. The point is that there is a possible world in which God does not do that which He does, which enatils that it is not true that God is fundamentally immiutable.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Not that i care too much about pantheism, but “if everything is God then nothing is God does not seem coherent to me.”

If something is everything, it’s redundant to call it anything but “everything”. God then becomes a meaningless word.

 

[belorg]

If something is everything, it’s redundant to call it anything but “everything”. God then becomes a meaningless word.

That would depend on the properties of said ‘everything’, wouldn’t it?