Back again.
Suppose 3 is false; it would mean that the causal chain that you were examining would not exist for you to examine it. 3 in part relies on 2. I don’t want to speak to the air, so if there are further questions with regards to 3 and what I say, then I am all ears.
Anyone familiar with aristotelian metaphysics and thomism in general will tell you that you are off your rocker! These supposed counterexamples from physics are very particular and could not possibly violate the principles that Aquinas has stated. The objections you bring up are similar to those who object to the principle that no thing is moved by itself by pointing to an animal and say, “See, look! It’s moving itself!” But would you not agree that one part of the animal moves another part; the impulse from the brain moves the muscles which moves the limb? But in order for the principle in question to be wrong, muscles would have to move themselves or the limb would have to move itself. We simply do not find counterexamples in nature, nor could we since the principle in question is very closely associated with the principle of non-contradiction.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. That’s why I said as much and invited your critiques.
Are you on the same thread that I am? If you think the answer “philosophy” is much too vague than please look at Aquinas’ five ways—something that we have started to engage in!
There were differing opinions because we did not know enough about biology, about exactly what moment a human being exists. We now know that human life begins to exist at conception. Since murder is the intentional taking of innocent human life, it would be important to know when you have human life. But murder was always wrong.
Perhaps you don’t realise that some of the principles of Aristotlean and Thomistic metaphysics are abstracted by inductive observation of the world. Consequently, if a metaphysicist misunderstands some critical aspect of the natural world (on which his principles or axioms are based) then the deductive logic he builds from them will also be flawed. That includes some principles that appear to be common sense or self evident.
That is wrong on at least two levels. First the idea that a supernatural proposition “the body is ensouled at conception” surely cannot be shown to be true using biology. How on earth would you test it using biological techniques? Second, the very thing about the start of human life you assert with such certainty is a matter of controversy, even in biology and depends on exact and controversial definitions of what a “human being” means - the propositions “A fertilised human egg is a human being” or “an eight cell blastocyte is a human being” cannot be shown to be true in biology and are controversial. I am not saying that they are not true - merely that it is not a settled case as you would have it.
Just to repeat, neither the OP nor I are seeking “proofs for the supernatural”. We are saying, let’s assume and grant the existence of the supernatural as a separate and independent domain for the purposes of this thread. Got that? We are taking the existence of the supernatural for granted. You’re answering the wrong question.
A falling stone is unaware that it is engaged in the activity of falling. Only a mind can have the thought “x is performing an activity” because such observations, and the idea of activity in particular, are conceptual. I agree that the activity of the mind (thinking) is not a physical object and is therefore something incorporeal. If by supernatural we mean “that which is beyond the corporeal universe” we must include thinking, thoughts, the rational soul and yes, even angels.
I’m not entirely sure about it, but let’s say that, for the sake of argument, I agree with premise #2. That is, I agree that a thing changing requires something else to act on it. I still don’t see how this implies that infinitely long causal chains are impossible. You’re going to have to spell it out for me.
To address this question we need to (1) define some terms and (2) evaluate the method of finding an answer: “terms” so that we don’t confuse types of knowledge in Catholic usage; and “methodology” so we don’t demand a method that a priori rules out the realities under investigation even if they did exist. In such a case what would need to be established is the legitimacy of the method first, not the existence of the realities in question. So, for example, if I said “I’ll accept the existence of atoms only if I can see them with the naked eye because I only accept what I can see with the naked eye,” then even though atoms actually do exist I would have ruled them out a priori.
You are mistaken. Induction is the coming to a probable conclusion based upon a representative sample of a population; moving from a particular claim to a general claim. When the principles of non-contradiction, metaphysical identity, causality, and other principles are arrived at, no such method is employed. It is not that I infer that ‘since I have observed the principle of metaphysical identity to hold in these selected instances, that the principle of metaphysical identity will most likely hold in the rest.’ To go from here we must talk about abstraction and essences and not induction.
I did not make this claim. I am merely using the facts of biology to state that yes, we have a human organism at conception. I don’t see how you could disagree with that.
I hate to use such a simple saying that I’ve heard so many times before, but, “What else is a fertilized human egg other than human? Is it going to grow into a rhinoceros or a squid?” Do you still care to disagree? Perhaps you meant to argue instead that the definition of “person” is awfully hazy and controversial, but notice I did not mention personhood at all.
Why do I need to prove that proposition in order to show that abortion is wrong? Answer: I don’t.
#2 implies a series of causes ordered “per se” or essentially rather than “per accidens”. What does that mean? It means that while it does seem perfectly conceivable that there exist a series of causes that stretch back infinitely into the past, it is besides the point. The “first” in First Mover is not a first ordered in time but ordered in a simultaneous hierarchy.
From reading that I almost get the impression that if one made a device that was “Aware” of what was going on around it and being able to respond as “having a mind” since it both possesses knowledge and can react to it.
Insightful post! And very clear!
Okay, so your position is not so much that an entity has to come first chronologically, but that some entity has to sustain the existence of other entities? Why should that be the case?
How do you know that the chain of events cannot be explained by this father-like infinite chain? Why is the concept of “essence” necessary to explain a causal chain?
When we build a simple device like a grandfather clock we do not imagine that it is knows what time it is. Similarly a more complex device like an alarm clock radio does not know the time or comprehend what the disc jockey is saying. This is because we cannot manufacture supernatural mind stuff, a prerequisite of incorporeal knowledge. As our devices get more complicated (i.e. Big Blue) the illusion of mind gets more powerful, but none of these devices are actually aware of anything.
Hi Spock.
I have just a few minutes before eating my leftover lunch though I have several other topics (threads) to return to, which I will later move onto, but first off share with you the following from the The National Science Foundation: It seems to work where I work. Thank you.