Whatever the problem, I hope it either gets fixed or you leard how to tolerate it. At least you are back.
I’m still dealing with Newton and will be for awhile. I know less about " space time curvature and its relation to mass than what might be found on a bad Wikipedia. What I hope to establish is that modern science does not conflict with the First Way. If that includes Relativity and Special Relativity, I hope to deal with that too. But I will say that those who say it does should explain just how it does, not just repeat assertions.
Coming back to this, I now realize that from the perspective of modern physics, the First Way isn’t just out of skew, it actually disproves the existence of the unmoved mover! (Not God, just the unmoved mover of the argument.) And it does so in every way imaginable: the unmoved mover (i) has nothing to do in spacetime, (ii) impossibly does opposite things simultaneously in relativity, and (iii) redundantly duplicates every man and his dog at atomic scales.
The first thing is to get a proper handle on how reality is to be understood philosophically, secondly one has to see how it can indeed accomodate whatever physics is thrown at it. Then of course one must understand exactly what modern physics says and what it doesn’t say. Then those who raise objections must do more than object, they must show how the objection is valid. So far the latter has not been done - by anyone. There has been a lot of rhetoric but that is all. They certainly haven’t been proven by anything said on this thread or by any other thread on this forum that I have seen. So far the objections have been made along ideological lines such as Aristotelian/Thomistic Philosophy is old hat so certainly couldn’t have any applicability to modern physics.
You went and got all defensive again.
I don’t see how you can regard anything I said as " defensive, " just stating facts. You surely don’t expect me to respond to all these misplaced allegations. Why does it upset you so that I want to show that modern science does not confilict with the philosophy of Aristotle-Thomas Aquinas. I may convince some, others will not be convinced. I see no reason why the effort should get you so upset. And of course I can’t do it in a couple of posts. So stay tuned but I need time to present the case.You went and got all defensive again.
The author of the video which you recommended in your OP also pointed out that the First Way is based on a physics which is now known to be dead wrong, thus the argument fails. You’ve said you don’t have much knowledge of physics such as relativity. As a result it appears you don’t understand the magnitude of the errors. I’ve tried to help but am not the one to teach, nor is an online forum a suitable venue.
Your response to specific objections has been to call Dr Magee names and do some vague arm waving at me. Rhetoric and ideology indeed.
Anyhow, what can I say that might be helpful?
“As far as theological views of this sort are concerned, finally, quite a number of people have the abiding impression that the church’s faith is like a jellyfish: no one can get a grip on it and it has no firm center. It is on the many half-hearted interpretations of the biblical Word that can be found everywhere that a sickly Christianity takes its stand – a Christianity that is no longer true to itself and that consequently cannot radiate encouragement and enthusiasm. It gives, instead, the impression of being an organization that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say, because twisted words are not convincing and are only concerned to hide their emptiness.”
- Thomas said truth cannot contradict truth, so you can’t follow a Thomist path by saying “the laws of physics really do not matter” (post #62) or what you said above. A true philosophy can’t be based on what we know to be false. Fairy tales yes, philosophy no.
- Other posters have had pet theories or projects. Now this might be teaching you to suck eggs, but from what I’ve seen the one thing common to those who fail is they don’t write down their objectives and stick to them. Are you trying to explain the First Way in its historical context? To test it against modern science and philosophies? To place it in a contemporary theological context? Something else? You can’t do them all.
- If your objective is to bring atheists into church, the Popes’ remark about decadent Thomists reminded me of a stinging warning about abstract argumentums from the previous Pope in his book “In the Beginning”:
I have already responded to these opinions of yours. They are not " dead wrong " and neither you nor anyone else has proved them to be. So I’m not a physicist, do physicists and scientists have a corner on objective judgment on transmiting the unvarnished truth, do you? I think not. I will do my own thinking thank you. And I have proven to you that the First Way does not depend on place to place motion, you prefer not to accept my explanation because you have an agenda, that has been adequately demonstrated.
Because I reject Magee’s objections, I’m arm waiving. No Thomist of any standing would agree with Magee. I reject him absolutely.Your response to specific objections has been to call Dr Magee names and do some vague arm waving at me. Rhetoric and ideology indeed.
Oh boy, here it comes, the unvarnished truth.
I never said " science does not matter " in the sense you imply. I meant that sciece does not conflict with the philosophy of St. Thomas and no true science would. Nor does it disprove the First Way, as I hope to demonstrate. I appreciate science, everything around me depends on its success. But that does not mean that I agree with certain men and women who have taken it upon themselves to speak on behalf of science to the detriment of philosophy.
Really, now come the little scribblings on walls in out of the way places.
Thank you for all the encouragement. Very helpful, I will keep it in mind.
You seem to have a fixation on my trying to " bring atheists " or some innocent into church. I really don’t give a plug nickle for atheists, it is hopeless to argue with them. I care about the truth. Why should that be so hard to accept. If you want quotes from Popes, I can show you glowing words for St. Thomas’ philosophy by many Popes. And, not that it will mean anything to you, but Francis mentioned no names. You are extrapolationg to suit yourself. That won’t be missed by anyone.
Perhaps you will show us all the way to do it. Good ideas are always welcome. The Pope will listen to anyone.
I’m afraid that your objections are not clear. If you want to object, fine. But explain why you think you are right. You can’t just shout, " I don’t agree, you are wrong. " You can say it of course but it has no convincing force.
One can only try.
He certainly isn’t talking about Thomas Aquinas or Aristotle. By the way Thomas was not teaching science, so what’s the beef? He is simply talking about movement and change, pretty hard to see how that could violate science, even Einstein’s. You do agree there is obvious movement and change in the world don’t you? Yes, and so does Feynman, otherwise he would never get in his car in the morning or he would never fly to the appointment of his next lecture. Or shall we say he lacks the conviction of his principles. He teaches one thing and he lives exactly contrary to those principles. Personally, I think he is a bit of a conceited boor.
On the last page you said:
Interesting that you describe gravity as an “interaction.” Perhaps you were speaking loosely, but such a description does not seem to preclude the First Way. (At least not obviously - not obviously enough that one can drop “that little word geodesic” and be done with it.)
I wanted to come back to this remark you made because it is mystyfing to say the least. I never said " …the laws of physics really do not matter…" or any thing that could even remotely be so construed. If I did, please quote the offending passage. Thomism is based on nothing false. Just tell me what it is based on that is false, I will try to explain why you are wrong. The thing you must keep in mind is that Thomas was not teaching science but philosophy, two entirely different animals. But Thomas’ philosophy does not contradict anything in modern science.
Apologies for not replying yet but the sun has got his hat on, there’s butterflies everywhere, it’s 26º (google says that’s 79 in ye olde scale you guys use), so I’m off out of here.We are having highs in the 50s-60s and lows in the 30s-40s and they say it will continue through the month. I wonder what space, time, mass have to do with that or perhaps Thomas would say that is the natural unfolding of the nature of things?
It’s been said before that an argument requiring so much explanation that opponents wander off or fall asleep is called proof by intimidation, argumentum verbosium.
People who point out the flaws in arguments are not “ideologues”. You make it sound like there’s an international conspiracy. The truth is simply that we’ve learned a lot over the centuries, and as a result many arguments have bitten the dust.
Whoa, back up. If you’re saying the First Way was dictated or inspired by God then you’re very much at odds with the CCC, which says revelation ended with Christ, specifically “Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment”.
Reason is fine, but that assumes the First Way is reasonable, and we now know it isn’t.
That’s completely wrong. Reading the Bible doesn’t make someone a Christian any more than accepting abstract arguments such as the First Way makes someone a Christian.
Oh, and yet you say you’re not being defensive.
I guess you could always start a blog instead. They’re free and it would allow you to post your opinions while avoiding any adverse comments.
That sounded like a statement of faith, i.e. you made up your mind beforehand that “no true science” can conflict with Thomas. How doth thee know?
Not sure how that can apply to the First Way, which is an argument relying on physics, albeit a wrong physics.
:curtsey:
Interesting that me saying “if your objective is” managed to get converted to “fixation”… . And yes, agreed, I’ve said several times that Thomas did a lot of good work, but will point out once again to his fan club that Thomas was human, and humans are not perfect, humans make mistakes.
When Ratzinger wrote “[they give] the impression of being an organization that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say” and Francis said “those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists”, I think they were speaking of the same people, so I reckon they know what needs to be done OK.
Que? Not upset, except when personal remarks are made against guys like Magee.
“Interaction” is defined as any action where objects have an effect on each another - so gravity isn’t a property of an object.
Errr… I quoted you verbatum from your post #62.Surely if we know for a fact that something is impossible in nature then any philosophy which doesn’t acknowledge that fact must be false?
I did not say that gravity is a property of an object. I am pointing out that if you are describing gravity as an interaction between matter and spacetime, you simply haven’t ruled out causality of the sort the first way calls for.
Actually, it doesn’t show that potentiality and actuality are false hypotheses. I will reiterate:
Since “motion” does not strictly refer to “local motion,” it’s just a false inference to conclude that “motion” is generally false because its application to local motion is in question. That said, as I noted above, as long as you are still describing gravity as an interaction, you don’t seem to be substantively disputing the first way.