The Thomistic Cosmological Argument

[Spock]

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.

In that case, how is it relevant to the current discussion? Besides having a duration within time does not necessarily involve a change. An analogy would be a mathematical “constant” as opposed to a “variable”.

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 sure did, but did not give any reason why those attributes should be considered. None of those attributes pertain (in a logical fashion) to a necessarily existing entity.

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.

Movement / change is just as part of STEM as space and time. The principle of conservation of momentum is just as strong as preservation of matter-energy.

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

Cute, but what is the relevace? Change is part of STEM, and cessation is not a necessary part of change. That is all.

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.

Actually, the definition leaves a lot out, even with your correct disclaimer about the logical impossibilities. But there is no need to go into that since you did not establish (so far) that there is any need to involve these esotertic attributes. Remember, we are talking about the necessarily existing entity, and not a necessarily exiting being - with all its overtones.

 

[wussup]

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.

electrons are identical, except for spin. One can not ‘distinguish’ and subatomic particle from another because that would involve location, something that can never be ascertained but only approximated (pesky ol’ Schrodinger and his odd little cat)

 

[Just_Lurking]

how are you drawing the conclusion “The concept of “transition” seems more metaphysical than modal.” from the examples given? im missing it here.

I tried to apply the principle of actualization in the context of space-time events, and again in the context of abstract modal theory, and both times I reached a contradiction, so I assumed that it was specific to only certain things in metaphysical reasoning.

 

[Just_Lurking]

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.

You may be thinking of the Many Worlds Interpretation here. The Fock space is an advanced concept in quantum field theory, and you may not have encountered it before.

Here is an analogy with twins:

Classical physics: There are two twins, exactly identical, down to the clothes and hairstyle. If you placed them next to each other, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. They are immutable, so you can’t change them in any way, or give them any kind of identifying mark. You can interact with them, but they will not remember any new information given to them, like that Fifty First Dates movie. So no matter what happens, they will remain identical to each other and to what they were like in the past.

This seems to pose no problem for the metaphysical theory of objects, because they can still be distinguished by their relation to the rest of the universe, e.g., their location, who they are talking to, and so on.

Quantum physics: In addition to the above, the twins have the ability to instantly switch places with each other via teleportation. This teleportation is undetectable, and happens randomly and uncontrollably, so that at any time it is impossible to say which twin is which. (Actually, both twins exist in both places simultaneously via quantum superposition, but teleportation is closest analogy I can think of.)

This seems to break the metaphysical theory of objects, because we have two objects that cannot be distinguished by any intrinsic property nor any property relating to their location or any other interaction with the rest of the universe.

 

[punkforchrist]

Spock:

In that case, how is it relevant to the current discussion?

STEM isn’t something transcendent; so if there is something transcendent that is responsible for the things in motion, it is not STEM.

Besides having a duration within time does not necessarily involve a change. An analogy would be a mathematical “constant” as opposed to a “variable”.

Mathematical constants are abstract, and abstract objects don’t stand in causal relations. The discussion is centered around objects that do stand in causal relations.

You sure did, but did not give any reason why those attributes should be considered. None of those attributes pertain (in a logical fashion) to a necessarily existing entity.

Do you maintain that STEM exists by some logical necessity?

Movement / change is just as part of STEM as space and time. The principle of conservation of momentum is just as strong as preservation of matter-energy.

I agree with that, but that doesn’t mean that STEM sufficiently explains its own motion. Consider the set of acorns, which gives rise to the set of oak trees, and vice-versa. In this case, the activity of the members of the set of acorns explains the activity of the members of the set of oak trees, and the activity of the members of the set of oak trees explains the activity of the members of the set of acorns. This is circular and doesn’t explain why there are acorns and oak trees at all. This applies to any set of physical objects.

Cute, but what is the relevace? Change is part of STEM, and cessation is not a necessary part of change. That is all.

The relevance is that the first mover cannot itself be in motion (i.e. it cannot change), since otherwise it would be moved by something else and wouldn’t be first, which is a contradiction.

Actually, the definition leaves a lot out, even with your correct disclaimer about the logical impossibilities. But there is no need to go into that since you did not establish (so far) that there is any need to involve these esotertic attributes.

I realize you disagree with my argument, but I did give a reason. Partly actual beings (i.e. humans) possess some power, and since Pure Act (actuality) is the fullness of actuality, Pure Act must possess all power.

Remember, we are talking about the necessarily existing entity, and not a necessarily exiting being - with all its overtones.

Besides the fact that I disagree that STEM exists by any logical necessity, even if it exists at all times it is still dependent on a first mover. By analogy, the gears of an infinitely-old watch are still dependent on the spring.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Actually, sorry to disappoint you, but, L. Ron Hubbard, the original Scientologist, coined it in the late 50’s or early 60’s but as “MEST”, matter - energy - space and time. Interesting company you keep!

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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”?

eternity, is the metaphysical description of existing apart from time, if memory serves. a temporal singularity to my mind.

Explain its own existence?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I tried to apply the principle of actualization in the context of space-time events, and again in the context of abstract modal theory, and both times I reached a contradiction, so I assumed that it was specific to only certain things in metaphysical reasoning.

the problem may be as you say, or it may be using STEM as an ontological foundation as spock says.

existence is the predicate, the ontological foundation. think in terms of potential and actual, but not in simply modal terms that assume STEM. then again im late to the conversation, i may just be missing something.

i picked up a book the other day on the philosophy of mathematics, im only a few chapters in, but im already starting to discern the divide that we often seem to be unable to overcome, maybe when i understand it better i can help bridge the gap in our modes of thought. of course one book doesnt have all the answers, but i hope to gain sopme insight at least. as spock says, “i dont understand you” but maybe i will in a while

of course i mean “you” in the general modes of mathematical thought, not you personally

 

[Spock]

STEM isn’t something transcendent; so if there is something transcendent that is responsible for the things in motion, it is not STEM.

Correct, but there is no need for the “if”. The forces (strong and weak nucleonic force, electromagnetic force and gravity) adequately explain the existence of motion. Of course in the times of Aquinas none of this was even suspected, much less understood.

Do you maintain that STEM exists by some logical necessity?

Sure. Since we exist, therefore STEM must exist. Since something exists, something must exist - it comes from the principle of conservation of matter-energy-momentum, etc. None of these can be created or destroyed. They simply “are”.

I agree with that, but that doesn’t mean that STEM sufficiently explains its own motion.

STEM is energy. Energy (the 4 forces) is the explanation.

I realize you disagree with my argument, but I did give a reason. Partly actual beings (i.e. humans) possess some power, and since Pure Act (actuality) is the fullness of actuality, Pure Act must possess all power.

“Act” or “pure act” can only make sense if the “actor” moves or acts and there is “time” which separates the “before the act” and “after the act” - which contradicts your idea of “unmoved mover”. The concept of “unmoved mover” is simply a nonsensical paradox.

 

[Spock]

eternity, is the metaphysical description of existing apart from time, if memory serves. a temporal singularity to my mind.

Sure thing. But that is just a concept not an ontologically existing “object”.

mathematically it is, but metaphysically to explain something is to give a reason for its existence, a cause, to justify it.

Not just mathematically. In the exact sciences we start with axioms, in the natural sciences we start with principles. Any explanation is always a reduction to the basic axioms or principles. They cannot hang in the air - so to speak.

how can the ontological foundation of anything be something itself that needs an explanation?

What explanation? The axioms and the principles need no explanation, nor can they be explained.

This is the basic problem: you guys assert that everything physical “needs” an “explanation”. I present the STEM as a self-sufficient foundation, which serves as an explanation. The basic principles are the explanation. The concepts of “space and time” were once thought to be absolute categories. Today we know better. Space and time cannot be applied to STEM, they are inseparable part of STEM. Movement cannot be applied to STEM, it is an unseparable part of STEM.

id say they are well defined, just not mathematically, perfect, or lacking nothing doesnt have a composite nature if i understand you correctly. a maximal evil, is a perdition of good, therefore it is simply a lack. what other attributes may you be refering too?

There is no “perfection” without some aim: a perfect bullet is one that can pierce any armor, and a perfect armor is the one that cannot be pierced by any bullet. Something that is “maximally big” cannot also be “maximally small”.

typically omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient.

And these are all undefined. Good sounding words, without meaning. We could try and hash out some meaning to them, but not in this thread. I would rather stay on course.

 

[Spock]

Actually, sorry to disappoint you, but, L. Ron Hubbard, the original Scientologist, coined it in the late 50’s or early 60’s but as “MEST”, matter - energy - space and time. Interesting company you keep!

Ugh! Well, I never read his stuff, so I came up independantly with the phrase. And STEM sounds so much better that MEST, don’t you think?

 

[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.

I give up. What are you referring to?

 

[Just_Lurking]

i picked up a book the other day on the philosophy of mathematics, im only a few chapters in, but im already starting to discern the divide that we often seem to be unable to overcome, maybe when i understand it better i can help bridge the gap in our modes of thought. of course one book doesnt have all the answers, but i hope to gain sopme insight at least. as spock says, “i dont understand you” but maybe i will in a while

That sounds interesting. Which book is it?

A while back, I looked at “New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics” by Thomas Tymoczko, but I don’t remember much about it now.

Here is a link to it on Google Books.

 

[punkforchrist]

Spock:

Correct, but there is no need for the “if”. The forces (strong and weak nucleonic force, electromagnetic force and gravity) adequately explain the existence of motion. Of course in the times of Aquinas none of this was even suspected, much less understood.

The forces explain how things move, but they don’t explain why moving things exist.

Sure. Since we exist, therefore STEM must exist. Since something exists, something must exist - it comes from the principle of conservation of matter-energy-momentum, etc. None of these can be created or destroyed. They simply “are”.

The law of conservation is a physical law, not a logical law. The fact that we exist doesn’t mean we have to exist, since it logically may have been the case that STEM never existed.

STEM is energy. Energy (the 4 forces) is the explanation.

STEM is the material cause of motion. We still have to consider things like efficient cause and explanation.

“Act” or “pure act” can only make sense if the “actor” moves or acts and there is “time” which separates the “before the act” and “after the act” - which contradicts your idea of “unmoved mover”. The concept of “unmoved mover” is simply a nonsensical paradox.

Things composed of both potentiality and actuality must move as a result of moving something else. Pure Act, on the other hand, eternally wills the motion of things, so there needn’t be a before and after.

 

[punkforchrist]

Spock:

Ugh! Well, I never read his stuff, so I came up independantly with the phrase. And STEM sounds so much better that MEST, don’t you think?

Definitely.

 

[punkforchrist]

Just Lurking:

. . . Quantum physics: In addition to the above, the twins have the ability to instantly switch places with each other via teleportation. This teleportation is undetectable, and happens randomly and uncontrollably, so that at any time it is impossible to say which twin is which. (Actually, both twins exist in both places simultaneously via quantum superposition, but teleportation is closest analogy I can think of.)

This seems to break the metaphysical theory of objects, because we have two objects that cannot be distinguished by any intrinsic property nor any property relating to their location or any other interaction with the rest of the universe.

This is very interesting. I just bought David Bohm’s classic, Causality and Chance in Modern Physics. I’ll have to look into Fock Space some more.

Nevertheless, what I understand of it so far doesn’t suggest to me that these electrons are absolutely identical. The only implication is that they cannot be distinguished. We may not be able to predict when or why exactly one electron switches positions with another, but it doesn’t follow from this that they are identical. The term, “identical,” is being used in an equivocal sense.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Sure thing. But that is just a concept not an ontologically existing “object”.

of course not, why should it be? eternity describes a relationship between the concepts of “time” and “being” it is not a thing in and of itself.

Not just mathematically. In the exact sciences we start with axioms, in the natural sciences we start with principles. Any explanation is always a reduction to the basic axioms or principles. They cannot hang in the air - so to speak.

and so then how does STEM? thats just “hanging in the air” so to speak.

What explanation? The axioms and the principles need no explanation, nor can they be explained.

yes, STEM needs an explanation. the only ontologically necessary foundation is “existence” itself.

This is the basic problem: you guys assert that everything physical “needs” an “explanation”. I present the STEM as a self-sufficient foundation, which serves as an explanation. The basic principles are the explanation. The concepts of “space and time” were once thought to be absolute categories. Today we know better. Space and time cannot be applied to STEM, they are inseparable part of STEM. Movement cannot be applied to STEM, it is an unseparable part of STEM.

as Copleston said, the universe is nothing more than the sum of its contingent parts, there is no “universe” as a whole apart from them. the reason that we “assert” that everything needs an explanation called the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the very basis of the scientific method, by ignoring the PSR, whatever the reason, one is actually denying the very basis of the sciences, when atheists do it, it is akin to shooting oneself in the foot. if your a scientifically minded person, one cant really then stop at SYEM, as though it just hangs in the air, as above, the only ontologically necessary foundation is existence itself.

There is no “perfection” without some aim: a perfect bullet is one that can pierce any armor, and a perfect armor is the one that cannot be pierced by any bullet. Something that is “maximally big” cannot also be “maximally small”.

why does perfection need some aim? perfection in our view is aristotelian, and Aquinan, as in the summa theologica

as to maximally small, that would be a perdition, of size, making it imperfect and not then a maximal quality. it would simply be another lack, in this case of size.

And these are all undefined. Good sounding words, without meaning. We could try and hash out some meaning to them, but not in this thread. I would rather stay on course.

we define these as perfect qualities, if that is no sufficient, then i wonder how you might consider soemthing to be defined? though if you wish not to hijack the thread, i understand. happens to mine all the time.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That sounds interesting. Which book is it?

A while back, I looked at “New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics” by Thomas Tymoczko, but I don’t remember much about it now.

Here is a link to it on Google Books.

im starting with an overview “the mathematical experience” an old book from the used book store, then, im going with another book, “the philosophy of mathematics” when i trade that one in.

 

[punkforchrist]

warpspeedpetey:

yes, STEM needs an explanation. the only ontologically necessary foundation is “existence” itself.

This is an excellent point. STEM certainly exists, but it is not existence itself.

 

[Just_Lurking]

im starting with an overview “the mathematical experience” an old book from the used book store, then, im going with another book, “the philosophy of mathematics” when i trade that one in.

The mathematical experience by Davis and Hersh is a very good book. I liked it better than What is Mathematics? by Courant and Robbins.