The 5 ways

[Pete_1]

I very much resepect the work of St Thomas Aquinas. Yet i am having trouble accepting the 5 ways, they don’t seem to hold up to close scrutiny.
I don’t really believe any of my arguments i just want them disproved , please help me.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity,

Couldn’t it be said energy was the first cause and is pure actuallity, and was the necesary ‘being’

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things.

I don’t see the necessity of an ulltimate good based on gradation.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result.

This could be explained by genetics and natural selection.

PLEASE HELP ME!

 

[davidv]

Couldn’t it be said energy was the first cause and is pure actuallity, and was the necesary ‘being’

Where did the “energy” come from?

 

[Pete_1]

it always existed - for the purpose of this argument.

 

[davidv]

it always existed - for the purpose of this argument.

Then I cannot participate in the argument, because i believe this is a false claim, which makes any conclusions based on it likely false also.

 

[Pete_1]

What i am trying to get as is why cannot energy be the first cause?

 

[davidv]

What i am trying to get as is why cannot energy be the first cause?

Because it is finite.

 

[Pete_1]

What about the first law of thermodynamics

energy can neither be made or destroyed only change form.

 

[dacoobob]

What about the first law of thermodynamics

energy can neither be made or destroyed only change form.

In other words, there is a finite and unchangeable (by physical processes) amount of energy in the universe. Emphasis on finite. So what?

 

[john_doran]

What about the first law of thermodynamics

energy can neither be made or destroyed only change form.

where did the first law of thermodynamics come from?

 

[Pete_1]

In other words, there is a finite and unchangeable (by physical processes) amount of energy in the universe. Emphasis on finite. So what?

Finite amount or finite as in it can be destroyed, could you tell me where you got your info from please

where did the first law of thermodynamics come from?

I don’t know all i know is its a scientific law like gravity.

 

[davidv]

I don’t know all i know is its a scientific law like gravity.

Then I suggest you learn some basic Aristotelian logic so you can understand the basis for Aquinas’s argument.

 

[Pete_1]

Then I suggest you learn some basic Aristotelian logic so you can understand the basis for Aquinas’s argument.

I do admit i am not an expert on St Aquinas however i am asking this question.
I do not believe this i just want it to be proved wrong:

Energy cannot be made or destroyed it can only change form:
Therefore energy is eternal:
As energy is what brings things from potentiality to actuality, it in itself is pure act.
Therefore energy is the unmoved mover.

Why cannot this be the case?

 

[East_and_West]

This could be explained by genetics and natural selection.

PLEASE HELP ME!

Not really. To assume that such incredible order is the result of mindless random processes is completely unreasonable. The universe is governed by laws. Who wrote these laws?

 

[davidv]

I do admit i am not an expert on St Aquinas however i am asking this question.
I do not believe this i just want it to be proved wrong:

Energy cannot be made or destroyed it can only change form:
Therefore energy is eternal:

Why cannot this be the case?

Just because energy is supposedly conserved does not imply that it always existed.

As energy is what brings things from potentiality to actuality, it in itself is pure act.
Therefore energy is the unmoved mover.

How do you know this is true. I believe this is a false statement because it denies God, who my reason tells me, exists.

 

[john_doran]

I do admit i am not an expert on St Aquinas however i am asking this question.
I do not believe this i just want it to be proved wrong:

Energy cannot be made or destroyed it can only change form:
Therefore energy is eternal:
As energy is what brings things from potentiality to actuality, it in itself is pure act.
Therefore energy is the unmoved mover.

Why cannot this be the case?

(A) from a scientific standpoint, our best cosmological theories all include an initial singularity at some point in the finite past. which means that energy did not always exist, as far as we know;

(B) from the thomistic perspective, even if you assumed an eternal energy field, you have to account for the cause of any change in that eternal field: what made the energy change when it changed? something must have originated the alteration, and since nothing can cause itself to do anything, the cause of the shift in the eternal energy must be distinct from that energy;

(C) if you go with bonaventure and the kalam cosmological argument, then we know that if all that is required to get the universe as it currently exists, is this putative eternal energy field, then it follows that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe have existed for all eternity; which means that the universe has always existed; but if the universe has existed from all eternity, then there have been an actually inifinte number of temporal moments prior to this moment; but that is impossible; therefore the postulated energy field cannot be the cause of the universe.

 

[Ghosty]

Energy cannot be made or destroyed it can only change form:
Therefore energy is eternal:
As energy is what brings things from potentiality to actuality, it in itself is pure act.
Therefore energy is the unmoved mover.

The fact that it changes form proves that it is neither eternal nor “pure act”. Something that is eternal is what it is at all moments, unchanging and unmoving. If it changes then it is not now what it was a moment ago, and therefore is not eternal.

If something can change it is not pure act, but has potential. If it can potentially be something else, then it isn’t actually everything it can be right now.

Something that is non-eternal and non-“actus purus” is subject to time and outside forces, and therefore can’t be the “First Cause” which is the source of all things. Energy by its very definition changes and therefore can never be considered the First Cause. In a “chain of causes” it may be very close to the First, at least in the material realm of Creation (similar to the concept of “Prime Matter”, actually), but it remains an object created and acted upon rather than the Source of all that is.

Does that help?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Metaron]

I do admit i am not an expert on St Aquinas however i am asking this question.
I do not believe this i just want it to be proved wrong:

Energy cannot be made or destroyed it can only change form:
Therefore energy is eternal:

God is outside of Creation; he is not a part of it. Therefore, he is not limited by it’s rules. Therefore, he can destroy and create energy.

As energy is what brings things from potentiality to actuality, it in itself is pure act.
Therefore energy is the unmoved mover.

Why cannot this be the case?

Because, energy is neither infinite, immutable, or intelligent.

 

[Pete_1]

I heard somewhere that many scientists believe that energy has always existed and this is what caused the Big bang.

Just to repeat i don’t believe this but i am wondering if it can be disproved.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I heard somewhere that many scientists believe that energy has always existed and this is what caused the Big bang.

Just to repeat i don’t believe this but i am wondering if it can be disproved.

You do see that the laws of thermodynamics essentially PROVE that there HAS to be God as the creator, right?

ANY energy system MUST trend toward maximum “gray”, to utter homogeneity of energy distribution, BOTH locally and globally because the “global” is just another “form” of the “local”.

Any system lasting FOREVER (eternally) would have already generated this “grayness” because ALL time, qua time, has “already happened”.

The mere fact that there is a variation in energy distribution in the UNIverse points right to God, just like a street light points right to the Power Company.

 

[Pete_1]

You do see that the laws of thermodynamics essentially PROVE that there HAS to be God as the creator, right?

ANY energy system MUST trend toward maximum “gray”, to utter homogeneity of energy distribution, BOTH locally and globally because the “global” is just another “form” of the “local”.

Any system lasting FOREVER (eternally) would have already generated this “grayness” because ALL time, qua time, has “already happened”.

The mere fact that there is a variation in energy distribution in the UNIverse points right to God, just like a street light points right to the Power Company.

Thanks, you pretty much answered my question for now