The Thomistic Cosmological Argument

[James_S_Saint]

yup! i went 850 posts with the moderators on an atheist board over the same contention, they just cant seem to get past the idea that if there be no necessary being then they are insisting on a POOF! theory, which, as you can imagine i joyfully batted them about the head and ears with for hundreds of posts

Hmm… yet with a truly infinite amount of nothing, you DO get something. :yukonjoe:

 

[Spock]

Okay, but it doesn’t necessarily assume any particular shape (form)?

No, why would it? A loose analogy might be a piece of “putty”. It could assume many different “forms”, “shapes”, and neither one is “necessary”.

The KCA aside, I’m not arguing that there must be a first cause in the sense of a first entity in time. Imagine watch that exists from all eternity. The spring causally precedes the gears, even though the former doesn’t temporally precede the latter. So, even if the universe is eternal, or temporally necessary, it is still dependent on the first cause.

Eternity is undefined. If you mean “eternal” in the sense that it existed “thoughout all time”, then STEM fulfills this requirement - since time is an unseparable part it. And again: causation is not defined for STEM.

What I’m getting at is this. If the first cause (or, first mover, per Thomas’ “first way”) possesses certain attributes that the physical universe does not, then the two cannot be identical. I would argue that the first cause/first mover must possess divine attributes (I apologize for the length).

Why is there a need for non-physical (divine) attributes? “Movement” as you say is also inseparable from STEM. It is a dynamic system, not a static one.

First of all, the first mover must be eternal. For, if the first mover ever came into being or ceased to exist, it would be changed from potentiality to actuality, or from non-being to being, or vice-versa. Since the first mover is changeless, then, it must exist at all times, and is therefore eternal.

Eternal - as defined above is already an attribute of STEM. It did not “come” into existence, and it cannot “cease” to exist. I see no reason for “changlessness”. A change does not have to entail “cessation” of existence.

Secondly, the first mover must be one. If there were more than one first mover, then there would be distinctions between them. But, distinctions entail limitations, and limitations entail potentiality. For example, if A is distinct from B, it can only be because A lacks something B has, or else B lacks something A has. This implies that if one lacks something, it can have something added to it. However, any addition would result in a change, and we have seen that the first mover is changeless. As a result, there can be only one first mover, and not many.

Just Lurking already answered this, no need for me to repeat his arguments.

Finally, the first mover must be omnipotent and omniscient. Beings composed of potentiality and actuality, like human beings, are said to be partly actual. We have some power and some knowledge. From this we may infer that a purely actual being would possess all power and all knowledge, e.g., the first mover is all-powerful (omnipotent) and all-knowing (omniscient). This confirms our intuition that effects have a certain, even if not exact, likeness to their cause. In order for intermediate movers to be powerful and knowledgeable, their first mover, or source of motion, must itself possess these qualities.

Both “omnipotent” and “omniscient” are undefined in a rigorous manner. And even if they could be defined, there is no reason to assume that any one entity can even theoretically possess either one or both of them.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hmm… yet with a truly infinite amount of nothing, you DO get something. :yukonjoe:

im missing something here. where are you getting the idea of an infinite amount of nothing?

 

[James_S_Saint]

from the infinite “void”?

Although “if we have infinitely-many chocolates, we don’t get a sheep”, an infinite amount of nothing gets you something. “First Cause”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Eternity is undefined. If you mean “eternal” in the sense that it existed “thoughout all time”, then STEM fulfills this requirement - since time is an unseparable part it. And again: causation is not defined for STEM.

sure it is defined by the PSR the reason must be “sufficient”, nor does time have anything to do with the arguments from contingency. time is nothing more than our measure of change. it exists in no platonic form as part of the universe if we disappeared time disappears.

Why is there a need for non-physical (divine) attributes?

because a physical universe, even infinite, cannot explain its own existence. see below.

Eternal - as defined above is already an attribute of STEM. It did not “come” into existence, and it cannot “cease” to exist. I see no reason for “changlessness”. A change does not have to entail “cessation” of existence.

so the universe is necessary? so there are no other possible worlds? hardly, this world might not have been and therefore requires a cause. it therefore did need to come into existence, it was not then necessary as implied.

Both “omnipotent” and “omniscient” are undefined in a rigorous manner. And even if they could be defined, there is no reason to assume that any one entity can even theoretically possess either one or both of them.

it depends what level of rigour you mean, i assume mathematical rigor, in that case then, being no mathematician myself, a case might be made that the infinite set of existence must by defintion contain this maximal qualities. if you arent talking mathematical rigour, the same holds true. the necessary being is existence itself, or the maximal state of being. nothing farther up the chain could be said to exist, so thats the stopping point.

 

[James_S_Saint]

so the universe is necessary? so there are no other possible worlds? hardly, this world might not have been and therefore requires a cause. it therefore did need to come into existence, it was not then necessary as implied.

Spock is right when he says “it did not come into existence”. The First Cause issue is about “logical first cause”, not the first event in history.

God is a timeless issue of Reality. God is what “logically speaking” causes the universe to be/exist. This is not saying that God “at one time long ago” decided to bring the universe into existence. That is a common misconcept. The Big Bang actually has nothing at all to do with Scriptures.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

from the infinite “void”?

Although “if we have infinitely-many chocolates, we don’t get a sheep”, an infinite amount of nothing gets you something. “First Cause”

the infinite void? maybe i should have read the thread, but i dont know what an infinite void is. do you mean space, the vacuum or what? nor does an infinite amount of nothing get you first cause, it gets you nothing… your being a little cryptic here. what are you refering to? the Copleston-russell debate? please make a full explanation of what your refering to. or to the relevant posts. thank you.

 

[James_S_Saint]

the infinite void? maybe i should have read the thread, but i dont know what an infinite void is. do you mean space, the vacuum or what? nor does an infinite amount of nothing get you first cause, it gets you nothing… your being a little cryptic here. what are you refering to? the Copleston-russell debate? please make a full explanation of what your refering to. or to the relevant posts. thank you.

Read the post above that one.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Spock is right when he says “it did not come into existence”.

i just showed that he wasnt in the phrase you qouted. it did have to come into existence for the reason already given. it might not have been, and therefore is contingent. needing a cause to exist.

The First Cause issue is ont of “logical fist cause”, not the first event in history.

not the first event in history ill buy, after all it hasnt a thing to do with time. from a metaphysical point of view time is a singularity an eternal now, not to deny an order to cause and effect only the misconception that time is necessary to define order… not though i think it is indeed the logical first cause is the best way to approach it

God is a timeless issue of Reality.

G-d is existence. the maximal state of being

God is what “logically speaking” causes the universe to be/exist.

fair enough

This is not saying that God “at one time long ago” decided to bring the universe into existence. That is a common misconcept. The Big Bang actually has nothing at all to do with Scriptures.

from our view point it was long ago, from the metaphysical viewpoint it is the eternal now, though i dont mean to suggest that the BB is Scriptural. though i think its interesting that non-theists wish to multiply entities at that point.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Read the post above that one.

its late, i dont have the foggiest. what post number? ill look at it in the morning.

 

[James_S_Saint]

If you start with the concept of an infinite void of nothingness, what would be the first logical cause to proclaim that such a void must actually have something within it and thus could not really exist as a void, ever.

The void is impossible. The “First Cause” principle (ie “devine”) is why it is impossible. That First Cause is the First Cuz of why there ain’t no void.:yukonjoe:

 

[wussup]

Spock says: You are most welcome “butting in”. I am not talking about “one” anything. Space, time, energy, matter exist. Since they exist, and cannot be created or destroyed, they fulfill the role of “necessary entity”. That is all.

I like this STEM. Kinda surprised I haven’t heard it put that way before. Sounds suspiciously like the ol’ Matter can not be destroyed or created, only changed in form… If my inference is correct, then the reality is there is only one ‘substance’ (as Spinoza called it), only many attributes of it. Many in my faith use this law to rationalize why we do not subscribe to the conventional ‘first cause’ argument.

We made a few steps in cosmology since his time. He was a very smart fellow, but his views cannot be separated from the general knowledge when he lived.

I am not a Descartes umfundi, and will not attempt to a defense of his arguments…

The “form” STEM assumes is variable. STEM itself is invariant. Matter and energy (the two faces of physical existence) can assume many shapes.

Following up on this, I had saved an article from the Scientific American from Oct 1999. In this article entitled, “What exactly is the ‘spin’ of subatomic particles such as electrons and protons?”, several professors give very interesting and simple to understand statements which I think are relevant to this conversation. Prof. Tavel made a quote I found fascinating, ‘the very notion that electrons and protons are solid ‘objects’ that can ‘rotate’ in space is itself difficult to sustain’. Another entry in this article by Stenger explains that elementary particles have point-like properties with characteristics of spin. He even suggests these (currently) most elementary of particles are themselves composites of even smaller particles. However, the wavelike nature described by quantum mechanics leads me speculate that ultimately, there is NO particle at all, but a continuous ether-like non-physical %>&^+&^# (for lack of better words) through which waves create the phenomenon of existence as we perceive it, both the ordered and the chaotic. I wish I had both the Philosophical, Scientific, and Mathematical background to explore this more fully for myself.

Prove A: A first mover exists.
Assume ~A: A first mover does not exist.
~A → B: If a first mover does not exist, then there are no intermediate movers.
~B: There are intermediate movers.
Hence, ~~A: by modus tollens.
Therefore, A: A first mover exists.
Q.E.D.

You get a nerd and yukonjoe when you have a truly infinite amount of nothing? I don’t get it…

 

[James_S_Saint]

Don’t get too used to that STEM notation, both mass and energy have been destroyed. You might need to update your Science reviews.

 

[wussup]

Don’t get too used to that STEM notation, both mass and energy have been destroyed. You might need to update your Science reviews.

Here I thought it was my strict diet and daily exercise regimen…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you start with the concept of an infinite void of nothingness, what would be the first logical cause to proclaim that such a void must actually have something within it and thus could not really exist as a void, ever.

The void is impossible. The “First Cause” principle (ie “devine”) is why it is impossible. That First Cause is the First Cuz of why there ain’t no void.:yukonjoe:

an infinite void of “nothingness” is something. “nothing” doesnt exist it has no form or substance, it is merely an artifact of language. if you mean to say that the necessary being is existence itself, the maximal state of being, i obviously agree. but im not sure thats how you mean it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Don’t get too used to that STEM notation, both mass and energy have been destroyed. You might need to update your Science reviews.

im interested in how mass and energy have been destroyed?

 

[Spock]

sure it is defined by the PSR the reason must be “sufficient”, nor does time have anything to do with the arguments from contingency. time is nothing more than our measure of change. it exists in no platonic form as part of the universe if we disappeared time disappears.

Eternity as PSR? And reason for what? (By the way, I find it amusing that there is no PSF - principle of sufficient faith. ) So, what is “eternity”?

because a physical universe, even infinite, cannot explain its own existence. see below.

Explain its own existence? To explain something is to reduce it to something more fundamental. Since the STEM is offered as the ontological foundation of explanation, there is no way nor necessity to reduce it something more fundamental.

so the universe is necessary? so there are no other possible worlds?

What do you mean by other “possible worlds”? All possible worlds are STEM. Whether they contains electrons or positrons, protons or antiprotons, or whatever… they are all STEM.

hardly, this world might not have been and therefore requires a cause. it therefore did need to come into existence, it was not then necessary as implied.

See above.

it depends what level of rigour you mean, i assume mathematical rigor, in that case then, being no mathematician myself, a case might be made that the infinite set of existence must by defintion contain this maximal qualities. if you arent talking mathematical rigour, the same holds true. the necessary being is existence itself, or the maximal state of being. nothing farther up the chain could be said to exist, so thats the stopping point.

Maximal qualities are again undefined. The purported definition of “one cannot conceive anything more perfect” - or Greatest Conceivable Being is totally vague. “Greatness” if could be defined objectively - would be a composite attribute - and as such there is no assurance that something having “maximal attribute ‘A’” will also have “maximal attribute ‘B’” - since “A” and “B” may be mutually exclusive.

But I would like to know what the “omnimax” attributes mean? No need for mathematical precision, since these are not mathemantical terms. But, we can postpone this to another thread, since they are not relevant to the current discussion.

 

[Spock]

I like this STEM. Kinda surprised I haven’t heard it put that way before. Sounds suspiciously like the ol’ Matter can not be destroyed or created, only changed in form… If my inference is correct, then the reality is there is only one ‘substance’ (as Spinoza called it), only many attributes of it. Many in my faith use this law to rationalize why we do not subscribe to the conventional ‘first cause’ argument.

The phrase has been around for quite a while. To my best knowledge I coined it (I used to use a different avatar back then), though it is possible that someone else did it before me.

Following up on this, I had saved an article from the Scientific American from Oct 1999. In this article entitled, “What exactly is the ‘spin’ of subatomic particles such as electrons and protons?”, several professors give very interesting and simple to understand statements which I think are relevant to this conversation. Prof. Tavel made a quote I found fascinating, ‘the very notion that electrons and protons are solid ‘objects’ that can ‘rotate’ in space is itself difficult to sustain’. Another entry in this article by Stenger explains that elementary particles have point-like properties with characteristics of spin. He even suggests these (currently) most elementary of particles are themselves composites of even smaller particles. However, the wavelike nature described by quantum mechanics leads me speculate that ultimately, there is NO particle at all, but a continuous ether-like non-physical %>&^+&^# (for lack of better words) through which waves create the phenomenon of existence as we perceive it, both the ordered and the chaotic. I wish I had both the Philosophical, Scientific, and Mathematical background to explore this more fully for myself.

You are not alone. The physicists would like to know it, too. Sadly, the history of sciences is littered with ill-conceived names, like “spin” or “irrational numbers”, or “imaginary numbers” etc… When a new concept is offered, a seemingly suitable name is “invented”, and later that name is the source of confusion. Too bad that they became part of “lingo”, and the confusion just lingers on…

 

[punkforchrist]

Just Lurking:

This would be true for indistinguishable objects in classical physics, but not in quantum physics. In quantum physics, indistinguishable particles don’t have an identity different from each other (see here). Mathematically, this is called a Fock space (see here). . . .

We need to be careful about the use of the word “identity”. Some have mistakenly assumed that QM violates the law of identity. The truth is, whenever physicists say electrons are identical, they simply mean that they are indistinguishable. This isn’t surprising, given that each existing electron possesses the same charge.

We can conceive of another example in which you and I exist in an alternate universe. “Punkforchrist” and “Just Lurking” in this alternate universe have the same physical characteristics as we do, and they are “identical” to us in the sense that one would be incapable of distinguishing which set is which. But, you and I, as persons, do not exist in this other world. Regarding the first mover, however, it is Pure Act and there is only one existence (existence considered in and of itself). A being whose essence it is to exist can, therefore, only be one.

 

[punkforchrist]

Spock:

No, why would it? A loose analogy might be a piece of “putty”. It could assume many different “forms”, “shapes”, and neither one is “necessary”.

Okay.

Eternity is undefined. If you mean “eternal” in the sense that it existed “thoughout all time”, then STEM fulfills this requirement - since time is an unseparable part it. And again: causation is not defined for STEM.

By “eternity,” I’m referring to timelessness. Having a duration throughout time would result in a change. If something exists at all times, it is said to be omni-temporal.

Why is there a need for non-physical (divine) attributes? “Movement” as you say is also inseparable from STEM. It is a dynamic system, not a static one.

The need for divine attributes is brought out in the arguments I made earlier about eternity, omniscience, et al. We will have to examine these further.

You’re correct that STEM is dynamic, which is why I’m suggesting that it is moved by a first mover that exists beyond space and time. Things that change are changed by something else.

. . . I see no reason for “changlessness”. A change does not have to entail “cessation” of existence.

A change doesn’t entail a cessation of existence, but a cessation of existence does entail a change.

Both “omnipotent” and “omniscient” are undefined in a rigorous manner. And even if they could be defined, there is no reason to assume that any one entity can even theoretically possess either one or both of them.

Omnipotence is the power to do all things*, and omniscience is the knowledge of all things. The reason I gave for inferring the first mover possesses these qualities is that it is Pure Act.

*This doesn’t include absurdities, like the ability to create a square-circle. Square-circles aren’t things, so this doesn’t have any effect on God’s omnipotence.