The Thomistic Cosmological Argument

[Areopagite]

Unfortuantely there is only one word: “existence”. I would suggest to “make up” different words to describe the the different types of existence.

Let p-existence denote physical existence, the objects which are made of matter-energy, and reside it spacetime.
Let a-existence designate the attributes (or properties) of p-existence. These “thingies” do not exist as “tangible” physical objects, they describe the attributes or properties of physical objects. The attributes are physical objects themselves, they are way how physical objects are. (Language is sometimes so inadequate.)
Let r-existence describe the relationships between p-existing objects.
Let c-existence be the word for concepts, whether these concepts are about physical objects, their attributes, their relationships or even other concepts.
And finally, let x-existence describe the hypotherical existence of “supernatural” or “transcendent” entites.

With these categories we can distinguish among the different types of existence.

Your system here is quite good. I commend you actually. However, there has been an existing system to distinguish types of existence that have been around for several centuries. And, at least to me, it’s a little less confusing than yours … and it uses language that is a little more common and recognizable. You are free to reject it of course:

Being: That which can exist. (this includes both things that DO exist as well as things that do not but can … obviously, this covers a lot)

Real Being: That which can have existence outside the mind.

Real Actual Being: That which does have existence outside the mind. (this can and is often called physical being)

Real Possible Being: That which can have existence outside the mind. (this can and is often called metaphysical being)

Ideal Being: That which exists in the mind.

Subjective Ideal Being: That which exists in the mind as a mental image representing a real being.

Objective Ideal Being: That which exists in the mind as an abstraction of the form of a real being (this is also called a concept)

Logical Being: That which can only exist in the mind and not in reality.

Logical Being without a foundation in reality: A purely mental construct (this is also called an “absolute nothing” and can exist as a “dual concept”, an example being a “square circle”)

Logical Being with a foundation in reality: A concept that cannot have real being but is sufficiently based on something in reality. This is subdivided into tree kinds:

1. Negative Logical Being: A concept that represents a mere absence of a certain kind of being in an object which does not require this kind of being. (example: the winglessness of a human)
2. Privative Logical Being: A concept that represents a lack of being in a thing which ought to have it according to its nature. (example: the winglessness of a bird)
3. Relative Logical Being: A concept that represents the relation between ideas, judgments, and reasoning processes. (examples: beauty and truth)

Also, as alluded to before, there is substantial being versus accidental being. Substantial being is that which can exist by itself (example: a deer). Accidental being is that which can only exist in a substance (example: color, walking, size). Both of these kinds of being can exist in reality and can exist in the mind.

This whole system was laid out by none other than Thomas Aquinas.

Now to return to the Thomistic argument. “Motion” would be an attribute of the physical universe. It is the inherent part of p-existence. Therefore it cannot be meaningfully asked: “where does motion come from?”, or “was motion imposed from above?”

I may be wrong, but isn’t it conceivable that the physical universe could be devoid of motion? Sure, it may be true that an inherent part of physical existence is the possibility of motion … but that does not equate to actual motion. Does it?

 

[JDaniel]

How wonderful. And of course she was just standing there, “willing” the car to move… was she a **Jedi **or something? Because even Superman used his muscles.

Of course she was. She merely transmitting her desires and the car was “magically” lifted. Sorry, this wasn’t worth responding to. I withdraw the comment.

jd

 

[wussup]

Whose side are you on?
jd

Oh my! Two in a row, I’m sorry, but the question is so sublime! Again, whenever you read this, I will still be laughing (with you!)

Here is my position on philosophy…Philosophy has, until the 20th century and in my mind, been the playground of the educated scientist. These can be theologians (sacred science), physicists, mathematicians, etc… These philosophers take the understanding of their world and do an Einstein on it, they theorize using accepted logical practices on how something might be in the context of accepted science, or theoretical possibilities. I enjoy the studying the TCA because while it may have many logical errors (because, as someone here told me, you cannot understand Thomas outside of the context of the knowledge available to him at the time), he contains within it gems of insight fascinating to me.

I am somewhat unique in that I attempt to understand the paradigm a person is constructing an argument from. So, when I ask a question, I do so with sincere desire to understand where that person is coming from, to learn from it. I do not ask questions so I may tear down the argument and convince the person of the logic of my argument. Hence, so few questions get answered. , For example, the claim someone made of matter and energy being destroyed. They still have not responded. I can only assume one of three things: they really do not believe this, they believe it but cannot find the source for the belief, they believe it but do not want to put their belief to criticism. Another is how someone can respond to the **billions/B] of people who do not accept, understand, or believe in the causative-first-mover argument in favor of those I listed.

The argument of a ‘first mover’ has a powerful weakness that has been illustrated here by several folks. In my opinion it creates a false dilemma. The false dilemma is that there is either nothing, or there is something (in simple terms). The argument is the Descartes (or pick your favorite permutation) ‘I think, therefore I am’. The Taoist would say, “I think” and have a problem with that because they seek not to think but simply to be. I certainly do not wish to speak for Spock because I have no clear understanding of the paradigm his cosmological construct has other than his firm belief in STEM as a necessary integral part of it. In his (and many others), STEM is inviolable. Furthermore, he has both a posteriori and priori proof to rationally believe this is the case. The Thomistic Cosmological Argument, while fascinating of its own, does not include, or even as it appears to be argued here, necessitates declaring that STEM ultimately must succomb to what Spock perceives as either a false dilemma or a basic logical fault of circular logic. How is it circular, I say this with reticence because philosophers in general, and theologians in particular are fussy about how they define words, but…as my Nuclear Physics Prof would say, the key word and tricky phrase here in Craigs argument is ‘explanation’. Craig is equating ‘necessity of its own nature’ = God. Premise (2) sort of just plops the ‘that explanation is God’ at the end of his premise. What is his logic for saying this? Why is it necessarily God being the explanation (logically speaking)? Answer, it isn’t. This appears to be a stretch of Logic (though I happen to believe it to be true), and he does nothing by appearing to give a series of false dilemmas based on this straw man. I hope Spock corrects me where I am wrong, but this is my problem with the argument.

I read the article and intially wondered whether Craig was arguing against the ‘necessity of its own nature’ or ‘there was no external cause’. Is the ‘explanation is God’ mean that God is the external Cause, or that God functions by the necessity of his own nature and is the external cause, a Being ‘trapped’ by His Nature to Create, as it were. The casual manner in which Craig dumps the planets into the ‘caused to exist’ category causes some to pause. This is so illogical that it does not deem a response.

So, in brief, my ramblings have identified the problems with Craig’s ‘airtight’ logic:

1. I will replace ‘everything’ with sein because it is not pertinent to the argument to discuss the rational causative effects of man making clay jars. That being the case, sein can exist (1) because it was created; (2) its nature is to exist; or (3) it is an illusion and really does not exist, a phantasm if you will of another sein. I am sure we can thing of alternatives besides these, but the point is there is more than one alternative. I happen to believe we are all (2), we exist because it is our nature to exist.
2. The Universe has equivalency to existence as sein. It does not have an explanation. It exists because its nature is to exist. The terms ‘never’, ‘eternity’, ‘forever’, ‘beginning’, or ‘end’ do not apply because its nature does not include within it these attributes.
3. The only relevant attribute is it is the Universe’s Nature to exist (and in reality as we experience it, a necessarily relevant attribute to Spock in the Universe’s Nature is STEM).

You may ask rightfully, where does God fit in this. Answer, he doesn’t. It is my belief that Craig’s argument is faulty, and while the average ‘atheist’ or ‘unbeliever’ may not be able to articulate why, I believe that they see the same faults as I.

Having said that, what of God then? What of Man? Is there such a Being? This is a topic of a different thread, and not relevant to TCA.**

 

[wussup]

Your system here is quite good. I commend you actually. However, there has been an existing system to distinguish types of existence that have been around for several centuries. And, at least to me, it’s a little less confusing than yours … and it uses language that is a little more common and recognizable. You are free to reject it of course:

Being: That which can exist. (this includes both things that DO exist as well as things that do not but can … obviously, this covers a lot)

Real Being: That which can have existence outside the mind.

Real Actual Being: That which does have existence outside the mind. (this can and is often called physical being)

Real Possible Being: That which can have existence outside the mind. (this can and is often called metaphysical being)

Ideal Being: That which exists in the mind.

Subjective Ideal Being: That which exists in the mind as a mental image representing a real being.

Objective Ideal Being: That which exists in the mind as an abstraction of the form of a real being (this is also called a concept)

Logical Being: That which can only exist in the mind and not in reality.

Logical Being without a foundation in reality: A purely mental construct (this is also called an “absolute nothing” and can exist as a “dual concept”, an example being a “square circle”)

Logical Being with a foundation in reality: A concept that cannot have real being but is sufficiently based on something in reality. This is subdivided into tree kinds:

1. Negative Logical Being: A concept that represents a mere absence of a certain kind of being in an object which does not require this kind of being. (example: the winglessness of a human)
2. Privative Logical Being: A concept that represents a lack of being in a thing which ought to have it according to its nature. (example: the winglessness of a bird)
3. Relative Logical Being: A concept that represents the relation between ideas, judgments, and reasoning processes. (examples: beauty and truth)

Also, as alluded to before, there is substantial being versus accidental being. Substantial being is that which can exist by itself (example: a deer). Accidental being is that which can only exist in a substance (example: color, walking, size). Both of these kinds of being can exist in reality and can exist in the mind.

This whole system was laid out by none other than Thomas Aquinas.

I may be wrong, but isn’t it conceivable that the physical universe could be devoid of motion? Sure, it may be true that an inherent part of physical existence is the possibility of motion … but that does not equate to actual motion. Does it?

Hey! This could be fun…here are some more that Thomas may not have thought of (or if he did, he did what I did not and recognized silence is the better part of valor)…

Philosophical Being-A being that may or may not have any bearing on reality or unreality, may or may not be imaginable, but whose attributes and forms will be argued over ad nauseum.

Theological Being-A being that is incomprehensible by all but one, and will be mocked by others relentlessly, and then cast aside.

Tomb of the Unknown Being-A being whose argument was started but was lost in the criticism never to be recovered.

Anyway, just funning ya’, a little levity never hurt…

 

[JDaniel]

1. Why do you think Aquinas thought of ‘time’ in this manner? I ask this in humility as I do not know much of Thomas besides readings of the Summa, I am very interested in Thomas’ philosophy and am interested in your source for this.

Summa Theol., Book I. And, Sum. cont. Gent., Book I. These are two of many places time is considered by St. Thomas.

1. In the absence of an answer to ‘1’ above (which I anxiously await), I find it hard to imagine Thomas did not understand that [the] world consists of mobile beings.

But he did. That is how he starts his general science of nature.

I am sure he would have been familiar with Parmenides and Antiphon ideas that time was not the chronological construct we perceive but rather an illusion we live under.

Yes, of course he understands it to be not the chronological construct some of us believe it to be. But, he did not perceive it to be an illusion, per se, either. As the measure of motion, he understood it to be never without motion.

Aristotle himself had a very comprehensive vision of ‘time’ (physics book iv, 10-14). I won’t go into the details of this extremely difficult work (not only because it is outside of the scope of this thread, but because it is something I am personally not familiar enough with to do so intelligently), however, at a high level, and in terms of what Aquinas’ would be familiar with, I think it is relevant.

That is correct and St. Thomas took this into careful consideration.

Aristotle explained part of Zenos’ paradox by the logical understanding that time was not moment to moment, but continuous. Aristotle hinted at the potential complex nature of time by suggesting, “Besides, if there were more heavens than one, the movement of any of them equally would be ‘time’, so that there would be many ‘times’ at the same time”.

Yes, St. Thomas considered that in the face of multiple mobile beings, the same time was common to all of them. There was not separate times for each mobile being.

Ooooh, so close, yet so far. Certainly Aquinas would have known of this statement. I suspect he would have denied this particular nature of time because of the implication of multiple universes.

I am not sure what you’re trying to say here. Please explain for me.

I make these points to express my belief that Thomas Aquinas’ understanding of time was far more complex than you appear to make it.

Of course it was. I did not want to re-write the entire Summa, and his other works, in this forum. I want to get some sleep from time to time. No pun intended.

Regarding your two definitions, one of “motion” and one of “mobile being”. Where do you get these definitions from?

Also from St. Thomas, his Commentary on the Physics, Com. on the Metaphysics and The Summa.

What else could ‘motion’ be without begging the question, how about the perceived change (in this reality) in position of one object (in this reality) relative to another object? And ‘physical being’ = ‘mobile being’, I don’t get your point. Sorry for being obtuse.

(You’re not obtuse and, please, no apologies are necessary. You are very gracious; thank you.) That would be the same as saying “motion is change,” or, “change is motion”. We’ve said nothing. We’ve used what we’re defining as the definition.

jd

 

[Spock]

Your system here is quite good. I commend you actually. However, there has been an existing system to distinguish types of existence that have been around for several centuries. And, at least to me, it’s a little less confusing than yours … and it uses language that is a little more common and recognizable. You are free to reject it of course:

I find it unnecessarily verbose and arbitrary. But I will read it in detail, later on.

I may be wrong, but isn’t it conceivable that the physical universe could be devoid of motion? Sure, it may be true that an inherent part of physical existence is the possibility of motion … but that does not equate to actual motion. Does it?

Since matter and energy are interchangable, and since energy is the exchange of subatomic particles, motion (change, whatever) is an integral part of p-existence. There can be no matter without it.

 

[JDaniel]

I am guessing you got your definition of Aquinas’ “time is from nothing else but the measure of before and after in movement” (Summa, I.10.1). However, this is only part of the story, he also understood the closely related principle of ‘eternity’ as “interminable – that is, has no beginning nor end (that is, no term either way); secondly, because eternity has no succession, being simultaneously whole”.

You are correct, Sir.

I am still unsure of where you get your definitions. Motion can be defined as the movement of one body (in this reality) relative to the movement of another body (in this reality). This does not beg the question. Vector analysis can be used to determine both relative direction and relative velocity. I don’t get the ‘mobile being’ thing. Why is it important to the topic?

I suppose that it can, but, then, that is begging the question. A form of the word “motion” is used to define it - see bolded text above. IOW, “motion is movement . . . .”

jd

 

[wussup]

Your system here is quite good. I commend you actually. However, there has been an existing system to distinguish types of existence that have been around for several centuries. And, at least to me, it’s a little less confusing than yours … and it uses language that is a little more common and recognizable. You are free to reject it of course:

Being: That which can exist. (this includes both things that DO exist as well as things that do not but can … obviously, this covers a lot)

Real Being: That which can have existence outside the mind.

Real Actual Being: That which does have existence outside the mind. (this can and is often called physical being)

Real Possible Being: That which can have existence outside the mind. (this can and is often called metaphysical being)

Ideal Being: That which exists in the mind.

Subjective Ideal Being: That which exists in the mind as a mental image representing a real being.

Objective Ideal Being: That which exists in the mind as an abstraction of the form of a real being (this is also called a concept)

Logical Being: That which can only exist in the mind and not in reality.

Logical Being without a foundation in reality: A purely mental construct (this is also called an “absolute nothing” and can exist as a “dual concept”, an example being a “square circle”)

Logical Being with a foundation in reality: A concept that cannot have real being but is sufficiently based on something in reality. This is subdivided into tree kinds:

1. Negative Logical Being: A concept that represents a mere absence of a certain kind of being in an object which does not require this kind of being. (example: the winglessness of a human)
2. Privative Logical Being: A concept that represents a lack of being in a thing which ought to have it according to its nature. (example: the winglessness of a bird)
3. Relative Logical Being: A concept that represents the relation between ideas, judgments, and reasoning processes. (examples: beauty and truth)

Also, as alluded to before, there is substantial being versus accidental being. Substantial being is that which can exist by itself (example: a deer). Accidental being is that which can only exist in a substance (example: color, walking, size). Both of these kinds of being can exist in reality and can exist in the mind.

This whole system was laid out by none other than Thomas Aquinas.

I may be wrong, but isn’t it conceivable that the physical universe could be devoid of motion? Sure, it may be true that an inherent part of physical existence is the possibility of motion … but that does not equate to actual motion. Does it?

Hey! This could be fun…here are some more that Thomas may not have thought of (or if he did, he did what I did not and recognized silence is the better part of valor)…

Philosophical Being-A being that may or may not have any bearing on reality or unreality, may or may not be imaginable, but whose attributes and forms will be argued over ad nauseum.

Theological Being-A being that is incomprehensible by all but one, and will be mocked by others relentlessly, and then cast aside.

Tomb of the Unknown Being-A being whose argument was started but was lost in the criticism never to be recovered.

Anyway, just funning ya’, a little levity never hurt…

 

[JDaniel]

No, indeed! If the universe did not exist God would still exist. This argument of yours reminds me of the following, by the way(taken from Craig’s article; and you would have seen the connection if you had actually read it):
*“Some atheists have tried to justify making the universe an exception to premise 1 by saying that it’s impossible for the universe to have an explanation of its existence. For the explanation of the universe would have to be some prior state of affairs in which the universe did not yet exist. But that would be nothingness, and nothingness cannot be the explanation of anything. So the universe must just exist inexplicably.

This line of reasoning is obviously fallacious. For it assumes that the universe is all there is, so that if there were no universe there would be nothing. In other words, the objection assumes that atheism is true! The atheist is thus begging the question, arguing in a circle. I agree that the explanation of the universe must be a prior state of affairs in which the universe did not exist. But I contend that that state of affairs is God and His will, not nothingness.”*
See also below.

No, something that could also have been otherwise does not exist by necessity.

It is universal and it applies to God. Why, this very principle makes us arrive at God! Since the universe does not exist by necessity it could also have been otherwise or could not have been at all. Then why is it like it is and why does it exist at all? God, to the contrary, exists by necessity. God can’t be different and cannot not exist(in opposition to the physical). Hence he himself explains himself sufficiently, so to say. Let’s employ your argument from above, which ran: “What is the alternative? That the universe “might not exist”? That would be equivalent to say that “nothing” exists - which is nonsense.” As said, you got this one wrong. If the universe might not exist there is still one who exists – God. But now that we’ve arrived at God PSR holds water. Because obviously it’s nonsensical to ask: Why is there God instead of nothing? It’s nonsensical because(he-he) what is the alternative? That God “might not exist”? That would be equivalent to say that “nothing” exists - which is nonsense.

See above.

Um… sorry. But you made an error. (It happens). See above… universe physical necessity and all this mumbo-jumbo.

I took pains also to show my original words to which you reply, Spock. I have been talking about a necessary being respective entity(something that could not not be and that couldn’t be different) you go on musing about “dependency”, somehow assuming that the non-dependency of a physical object upon any other physical object equals necessity. But I have already explained how necessity is to be understood. I and some other dozen posters before me.

Well, happy so. And you also know(oh, I’m sure) that the following is not a tautology(as you thought fit to affirm, for whatever nebulous reason):
*something exists(contingently), therefore something exists necessarily. *
Of course, it would be a tautology if you would say that contingency is the same as necessity. But then you wouldn’t want to do so, would you?

To cut matters short, I quote from warpspeedpeteys reply:
“the universe is nothing more than the sum of its parts, there is no whole “universe” apart from them, anymore than the human race is separate from its members. -Copleston (not an exact quote)”

I know it’s tiring to write this over and over again. But, my thanks goes out to you, warpspeed, wassup, areopagite, and others. I have noticed that he/she liberally takes the words we use and “define” and makes them whatever he wants them to be. It’s like playing cards with someone who keeps putting new and different cards in the game to represent the old cards, just to confuse his opponent. That makes him mostly “argumentative”.

jd

 

[wussup]

Yes, of course he understands it to be not the chronological construct some of us believe it to be. But, he did not perceive it to be an illusion, per se, either. As the measure of motion, he understood it to be never without motion.

My bad here, it was Antiphon who believed time to be an illusion.

Yes, St. Thomas considered that in the face of multiple mobile beings, the same time was common to all of them. There was not separate times for each mobile being.

My understanding of this portion of Summa is here he would be referencing objects as non-God, whereas the comment he made, “Besides, if there were more heavens than one, the movement of any of them equally would be ‘time’, so that there would be many ‘times’ at the same time” references more than one divine beings universe, and since there is only one God, to Thomas, there could be only one time. It seems to me he was differentiating each universe with its own relative time.

I am not sure what you’re trying to say here. Please explain for me.

This is a follow up on the previous statement. In context, if Thomas would have understood the Quantum Mechanics concept as theorized by Boehm, would he have so quickly dismissed the idea of multiple times in light of the potential for a Multiverse? This is conjecture on my behalf, but I find it amazing he would even realize the consequence of a multiverse existence, the relativity of time etc… given how the concept of QM was completely unknown then. In my mind it lends itself to the idea of eternal truths peaking out from around the edges of brilliant intuitive men such as Thomas.

jd

I still am not getting the definition. I searched the Summa Theologica and could find no reference to “mobile beings” as well as a google search. In fact this whole paragraph is vague to me:

*“Time, for Aquinas, was simply the measure of motion. What did he not understand? The world and the universe consists of mobile beings. It is sensible and necessary (if we are to understand them) to define both “motion” and “mobile being”. “Motion” is defined as the act of the potential precisely as potential. What else could it be and not beg the question? “Mobile being” is that which is and moves - in fact, all physical being is mobile being.” *

By “What did he not understand” were you referencing he did not understand the Universe consists of mobile beings?

Also, the phrase “potential precisely as potential” to define motion… In Physics a potential is thought of in terms of a field such as -gcM/r2. I don’t think this is what you are referencing.

Finally, I will accept Thomas believes all physical being is mobile being, but is God also a Mobile Being? Given that God ‘is’, must he move? Do you see movement as a necessary attribute of God?

 

[TheWhim]

Oh, this is getting so tiresome, **Spock… **

Notice what the atheist cannot say at this point. He cannot say that the quarks are just configurations of matter which could have been different, even though the matter of which the quarks are composed exists necessarily. He can’t say this because quarks aren’t composed of anything! They just are the basic units of matter. So if a quark doesn’t exist, the matter doesn’t exist.

Well, bully for Craig. The greatest minds in physics would not dare to say that “quarks aren’t composed of anything”. If matter is composed of “nothing”, then Mr. Craig can safely hit himself on the head with a heavy hammer, can’t he?

For heaven’s sake. Craig just wanted to express that quarks, as far as we know, are the basic units of matter. Matter consists of quarks. And since quarks could have been arranged otherwise, it follows that ‘matter’ could have been different and hence does not exist necessarily.

“So if a quark doesn’t exist, the matter doesn’t exist.

Amazing. Let’s see how does Craig support this nonsense. Something that is the “basic” building block (presumably) which cannot be created or destroyed is assumed “possibly” not to exist. Is there no level of irrationality which he does not embrace?

Ew…ouch. Is there no level of malicious ignorance which you do not embrace? Sorry, but this is decidedly vexing. –
Again, Craig was replying to the atheist who believes in the abstract necessary principle called ‘matter’. Craig says that there is no such principle and that the basic building blocks of everything are quarks. And quarks do not exist necessarily(as we’ve defined here necessary existence). There is no other abstract matter possibly underlying quarks that somehow could be necessarily existent. - Thus Craig does not assume that quarks do not exist. Rather he says that someone who belives in matter as basic principle must accept quarks, which compose matter. No quarks, no matter. But since quarks do not exist necessarily, ‘matter’ does not.

 

[Spock]

Oh, this is getting so tiresome, **Spock… **

Indeed it is. I am rapidly losing interest to point out the obvious over and over.

For heaven’s sake. Craig just wanted to express that quarks, as far as we know, are the basic units of matter. Matter consists of quarks. And since quarks could have been arranged otherwise, it follows that ‘matter’ could have been different and hence does not exist necessarily.

Which is a mere assuption, but I let that slide. No matter how the quarks are arranged, the result would still be “matter”.

Ew…ouch. Is there no level of malicious ignorance which you do not embrace? Sorry, but this is decidedly vexing. –

Imitation is the highest form of flattery…

Again, Craig was replying to the atheist who believes in the abstract necessary principle called ‘matter’. Craig says that there is no such principle and that the basic building blocks of everything are quarks. And quarks do not exist necessarily(as we’ve defined here necessary existence).

“As” you defined? Necessary existence is defined as “something that cannot non-exist”. And since the quarks cannot be created or destroyed, they fulfill that criterion.

 

[TheWhim]

JDaniel,

I know it’s tiring to write this over and over again. But, my thanks goes out to you, warpspeed, wassup, areopagite, and others. I have noticed that he/she liberally takes the words we use and “define” and makes them whatever he wants them to be. It’s like playing cards with someone who keeps putting new and different cards in the game to represent the old cards, just to confuse his opponent. That makes him mostly “argumentative”.

Oh, and my thanks go out to you and to everyone else on the line. For my part, I’ll drop out of the thread. It is quite beyond me to deal with such people. This is no discussion. This is simply a nonsensical playing with words. - Obviously, my hot indictives against philosophical formalism, against the overrating of terminology to the detriment of simple content, never envisioned such a trick-player outcome as Spock presents it. Against such a picture I hail MoM’s Thomism as the salvation of human reason!

And I wonder, JDaniel, that you can deal with wassup.

Wassup, I may be very much mistaken and truly sorry if this is a wrong assesment, but you seem to be fully floating on the illogical theosophical/buddhist tide. I coudn’t make out yet a single thought in all you’ve said. Perhaps I haven’t reached yet this state of enlightment.

Again, this is no insult! I’m just sharing my feelings. Perhaps you could just adopt a less…well… meditative style of writing. Again, no insult intended. Surely I’m wrong, anyway.

 

[wussup]

I must admit to being surprised at the sudden vexation of the threads…

Whim-
Theosophy? Hardly. Buddhism, no, though I have studied the multifaceted religion in a couple courses many years ago. I did a quick read on Wikipedia to look at Theosophy and absolutely not. Other than using some of the same combination of letters (truth, religion, the, and, numbers, etc…) there is nothing in common with what I put here. Calling Buddhism illogical, yeesh. I do not believe in reincarnation, I do not believe our purpose is to overcome existence and to become part of a pantheistic Om. I am not nor does anything I wrote suggest I am teaching something like Buddhism. On the other hand, in terms of pure logic, this is a religion that has stood up to 1,000s of years of intense scrutiny at the hands of the worlds brightest people. I (Wussup) would not have the chutzpah to call Buddhism illogical.

I’ll take into account it was 5 am when you wrote your last note. I hope you don’t leave. As for my own rantings, I don’t see how the logic cannot be seen. The point is not that what I say is true, only that it is a logically sound alternative to the TCA, supporting the existence of a redeeming God. We can get tied into the ‘First Mover’ concept so powerfully that it is difficult to see outside the box to others (like say 3-4 billion people) can’t see our God for our ‘logic’.

It is silly to hold on to a logical construct at odds with reality as we know it. There are certain consequences in TCA that do not match reality at a fundamental way. However ‘logical’ TCA may be, if it does not match the known truths of reality, you’ll have a hard row to hoe convincing others of the veracity of the argument.

Spock,
‘Quarks’ are not the fundamental building block of matter. “Quarks” are composed of a family of different ‘flavored’ quarks. These ought not be thought of as the same elementary particles of simply minor differences. For example, these different ‘flavors’ of quarks vary in mass. Two particles of different masses cannot be thought of as the same type of particle. Furthermore, heavier quarks become lighter ‘up’ and ‘down’ quarks through particle decay. Simple elementary school math suggest that if a quark loses mass through particle decay, some of that quark is then ‘something’ else, a smaller particle of the quark would make even more building blocks. My point is that all these ‘particles’ ultimately do not exist other than points (euclidean speaking) in which the ‘wave’ collapses into a recognizable position (with no momentum) etc… The difficult part is imagining a ‘substance’ infinitely solid, with absolutely no voids or space in between. How would we move about in such a thing?

JD…
As for definition of Motion being circular because the words ‘movement’ and ‘motion’ are similar, key word and trick phrase here is ‘similar’. Movement is defined as the ‘change of place or position’, ‘motion’ could then be defined by substitution as the “change in place or position of one body in relation to the another body”. That should not be considered circular.

I am getting concerned that people are going to bale on this thread without answering question legitimately put.

Thomas points regarding time need clarification. This again gets to the root of a problem. Thomas considered ‘time’ to be uniform and continuous throughout the universe. Thomas’ understanding of time in incorrect. Time does not flow uniform but is relative to the mass and momentum of the ‘potential’ fields the object is in. The Big Question then becomes, how does Thomas being incorrect about the attribute of time affect his TCA?

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi wussup,

The TCA doesn’t really depend on any particular view of time, whether Newtonian absolute time or Einsteinian relational time. Thomas’ objection to an infinite regress is strictly causal, or ontological in nature. Regardless of how time flows, the argument may be stated via analogy (I apologize if I’ve already mention this earlier):

Imagine a watch exists from all eternity. If there is no first member (the spring) of the watch that causes the motion of all the gears, then none of the gears will move. This is true even if there are infinitely-many gears, since the entire set has no spring to bring about the motion of the infinity of gears.

Likewise, if a first mover does not exist, then there is no motion. But since there clearly is motion, then a first mover must exist. This is true on both Newton’s and Einstein’s theories of time.

For what it’s worth, though, the Scholastics held to a relational view of time. The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “In fact, say the Scholastics, we never perceive time apart from movement, and all our measures of our temporal duration are borrowed from local movement, particularly the apparent movement of the heavens.” newadvent.org/cathen/14726a.htm

Thomas himself states with respect to physical bodies: “since it cannot be fitting for a body to be moved without time, it does not follow that it moves without time.” newadvent.org/summa/1105.htm#article2

So, Thomas sees time and motion as intrinsic to one another.

 

[wussup]

The TCA doesn’t really depend on any particular view of time, whether Newtonian absolute time or Einsteinian relational time. Thomas’ objection to an infinite regress is strictly causal, or ontological in nature. Regardless of how time flows, the argument may be stated via analogy (I apologize if I’ve already mention this earlier):newadvent.org/summa/1105.htm#article2

So, Thomas sees time and motion as intrinsic to one another.

See! I am not so hard headed. Great response! I am not a fan of the watchmaker analogy because like all analogies, that which makes the analogy eventually fails, though I do see the value of using it to illustrated specific attributes relevant to the teaching. I am not so obtuse as to nit pick. Thanks for the response.

First, I do not subscribe to ‘infinite regression’ because, as I have stated, I think it is an anthropomorphic construct based on faulty logic and understanding of the existence as described by God in Scripture. I really need to finish my just started reading of Summa to intelligently address the Thomas’ arguments.

 

[wussup]

First of all, I strongly recommend you to scrutinize closely the following answer by Craig: reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5847
I recommend everyone to do the same who still feels confused as to what is actually discussed in this thread and who wants to get an easy-to-read overview of the question

Are you familiar with some of the works being done re the thought experiments on No-Quarks or Fewer Quark and Craig’s modal epistemiology is ‘twisted’ to justify the non-existence of God?

 

[TheWhim]

Are you familiar with some of the works being done re the thought experiments on No-Quarks or Fewer Quark and Craig’s modal epistemiology is ‘twisted’ to justify the non-existence of God?

First of all, I’m quite sorry for what I’ve written in your regard. I can only say I hope it’s the privilege of youth to be vexed some time or other. But in my Dadaistic exchange with Spock my nerves really suffered a little crack

Well, no, I know nothing at all about physics but of course that’s not the point here. If it’s Quarks or Fewer Quarks or Whatever Quarks that is the building block of the universe is quite irrelevant to the question. What I tried to convey to Spock was the idea that the present configuration of the physical universe is not necessary. Spock replied that matter exists necessarily. But then ‘matter’ is just an abstract concept. In reality we find tiny particles(or whatever you like) as the building block and those particles(or whatever you like) could have been arranged otherwise or been of a different kind/nature… What we easily catch by intuition, namely the notion that on a macro-scale the universe could have been otherwise, we also perceive on the level of the infinitely small. Macro-scale: If certain parameters after the big bang(density, expansion) would have been different just by a tiny degree, the universe would have collapsed again and we wouldn’t see all the array of stars and blackness we do today. Micro-scale: if those tiny particles etc.

So, in essence, what I was trying to say that the flight to an abstract concept(‘matter’) that Spock took was an illegitimate way to proceed in order to arrive at the necessity of anything physical.

 

[Spock]

First of all, I’m quite sorry for what I’ve written in your regard. I can only say I hope it’s the privilege of youth to be vexed some time or other. But in my Dadaistic exchange with Spock my nerves really suffered a little crack

Well, no, I know nothing at all about physics but of course that’s not the point here. If it’s Quarks or Fewer Quarks or Whatever Quarks that is the building block of the universe is quite irrelevant to the question. What I tried to convey to Spock was the idea that the present configuration of the physical universe is not necessary. Spock replied that matter exists necessarily. But then ‘matter’ is just an abstract concept. In reality we find tiny particles(or whatever you like) as the building block and those particles(or whatever you like) could have been arranged otherwise or been of a different kind/nature… What we easily catch by intuition, namely the notion that on a macro-scale the universe could have been otherwise, we also perceive on the level of the infinitely small. Macro-scale: If certain parameters after the big bang(density, expansion) would have been different just by a tiny degree, the universe would have collapsed again and we wouldn’t see all the array of stars and blackness we do today. Micro-scale: if those tiny particles etc.

So, in essence, what I was trying to say that the flight to an abstract concept(‘matter’) that Spock took was an illegitimate way to proceed in order to arrive at the necessity of anything physical.

Since you refer to our discussion, I will respond. I never asserted that the current arrangement of matter was “necessary”. Indeed there exists the so-called “anti-matter”, where the electric charge is “reversed”. The collision of matter-antimatter would result in mutual “annihilation”, which is another ill-conceived word. The pair of electron-positron particles will not “disappear”, rather they will transform to another type of “matter-energy”.

Whatever the final building blocks of matter (in this existing universe) turn out be (and the current quark scenario is just a beautiful mathematical construct) the result will be always “matter”. Yes, it is also an abstraction, but it is nevertheless something “tangible”, physical substance - with certain physical charateristics or attributes. The attributes are not “arbitrary”, they are the corollaries of the physical substance. The principle of conservation of matter/energy/momentum would hold no matter how the building blocks are arranged and no matter “what” they eventually turn out to be.

The concept of necessary existence has nothing to do with the “blocks” themselves, nor does it have to do anything with their possible different arrangement. As long as something cannot be created or destroyed, **and **that “stuff” already exists - it cannot non-exist, and that is the definition of necessary existence. I wonder why do you call that simple and straightforward reasoning “illegitimate”.

 

[JDaniel]

I still am not getting the definition. I searched the Summa Theologica and could find no reference to “mobile beings” as well as a google search. In fact this whole paragraph is vague to me:

“Time, for Aquinas, was simply the measure of motion. What did he not understand?”

In the Commentary on the Physics of Aristotle, St. Thomas said, "And because everything having matter is mobile, it follows that mobile being is the subject of natural philosophy. Moreover, natural science is about natural things; what is natural is that whose principle is nature; nature is the source of motion and for rest in that which it is; natural science therefore is about those things which have in themselves a principle of motion.” – Translation from the Angeli-Pirotta Edition, (Naples 1953) Book I, les. 1, nn 1-4.

The question was merely a rhetorical question for certain members of this thread that are always saying that Aquinas did not know, or is wrong by today’s standards, etc…

The world and the universe consists of mobile beings. It is sensible and necessary (if we are to understand them) to define both “motion” and “mobile being”. “Motion” is defined as the act of the potential precisely as potential. What else could it be and not beg the question?

To properly define something, we must take care not to merely re-use the word being defined in our definition. What if we were to simply say motion is motion? Or, motion is movement?” which is essentially what you were stating. That is called begging the question and does not define anything very well, as you can see.

“Mobile being” is that which is and moves - in fact, all physical being is mobile being."

“Being” = “that which is”. “Mobile being” = “that which is” and exhibits “motion”, i.e., moves.

By “What did he not understand” were you referencing he did not understand the Universe consists of mobile beings?

Again, a rhetorical question to certain members of the audience, not directed to you in particular.

Also, the phrase “potential precisely as potential” to define motion… In Physics a potential is thought of in terms of a field such as -gcM/r2. I don’t think this is what you are referencing.

Again, you are correct. “Motion” is best defined as “the act (actualization) of the potential (the state preceding actualization) precisely as potential (the prior state which is in privation of actualization).” Thus, if I pass my arm from left to right in front of me, my arm on the left is in potential to be on the right and, when on my right, it is actualized on the right (in act). “Potential” is used in its common and usual usual sense here, not in some particular sense from physics.

Finally, I will accept Thomas believes all physical being is mobile being, but is God also a Mobile Being? Given that God ‘is’, must he move? Do you see movement as a necessary attribute of God?

No. St. Thomas (and I) believed God to be immobile. If a non-physical being is infinite, where can it move. What does He move in relation to? Since there can be no other infinite beings, He is One. He occupies all there is. I am not saying here that movement is relative to God, as it is relative to us, I am saying that as an infinite being, (it would at least seem that) He has no need of movement, nor does He consist of matter/energy, so He would consist of no quantum particles which might be in a state of flux or set into motion.

jd