The Thomistic Cosmological Argument

[warpspeedpetey]

Hear! Hear!

As I struggled with him on that topic, I realized that he has a mental “knee-jerk” response that evades the question, “There is always something because ‘nothing’ would be something.”

This is the result of a typical presumption on someone’s part (probably an errant philosopher/teacher). But in a defensive mode, most people find it difficult to slow down enough to catch the subtle errors of former teachings especially if there is additional logic to immediately add into the defense.

But as to that question, there actually is logic to dictate that it is impossible for Reality to have ever been simply nothingness.

i typed several things, and then figured my reaction would best be expressed as

 

[James_S_Saint]

yes, i know exactly what you mean. the semantics are incidental to the answer, there is no such thing as nothing or nothingness. you can only make it something by the very semantics you decry here. nothing is a word that indicates a concept that cannot have any form. you may be thinking to yourself something like “i can concieve of nothing”, if so, no you cant, in your conceiving, nothing becomes something. its not just semantics, its the nature of “nothing”

This is that false notion you have stuck in your head to which I was referring.

Nothing is not something. The fact that it has no form has no bearing on the issue. A something is not required to have form. Ever heard of “formless”. What is the shape of enjoyment?

You are completely missing out on why nothing cannot exist. It is not merely because it wouldn’t have form nor does it have anything to do with mental semantics.

You’re missing the boat.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This is that false notion you have stuck in your head to which I was referring.

Nothing is not something. The fact that it has no form has no bearing on the issue. A something is not required to have form. Ever heard of “formless”. What is the shape of enjoyment?

You are completely missing out on why nothing cannot exist. It is not merely because it wouldn’t have form nor does it have anything to do with mental semantics.

You’re missing the boat.

“nothing lacking form and substance” would seem to then be nothing but a artifact of language, and enjoyments shape is the chemical reactions in the brain. that said, i am interested in how you reach the same conclusion?

 

[James_S_Saint]

i dont agree with the above statement, but i am interested in how you reach the same conclusion?

From what I have seen, such an explanation would require a one-to-one discussion, void of interference and preferably void of any potential ego concerns. That is a little difficult to do on these kinds of forums.

You must begin with the idea of a truly total void of nothingness. It doesn’t matter at that point if it is a real possibility. You will prove that in fact, it could not be a possibility, but you must begin with the idea of it actually being real just to go through the logic.

The proceeding logic becomes the very make of what has been referred to as “First Cause”. It is the “cause” as in the “reasoning” the “because” of why any proposed void must certainly and instantly have something within - from “nothing”.

It is not a semantic argument, or merely naming concepts. It is a mathematical and/or logic derivation.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

From what I have seen, such an explanation would require a one-to-one discussion, void of interference and preferably void of any potential ego concerns. That is a little difficult to do on these kinds of forums.

You must begin with the idea of a truly total void of nothingness. It doesn’t matter at that point if it is a real possibility. You will prove that in fact, it could not be a possibility, but you must begin with the idea of it actually being real just to go through the logic.

The proceeding logic becomes the very make of what has been referred to as “First Cause”. It is the “cause” as in the “reasoning” the “because” of why any proposed void must certainly and instantly have something within - from “nothing”.

It is not a semantic argument, or merely naming concepts. It is a mathematical and/or logic derivation.

just send me a link, i can puzzle it out of the math if i have too.

 

[Oreoracle]

you refuse to read the the summa previously, it limits the way i can explain things to you.

The Summa explains very little. As I said, Aquinas assumed that those who would read it were already Christian (the purpose of the book was to answer common questions of Christians, not of non-Christians about Christianity).

see what i mean now? “complete” is the simplest way to describe it to you. you should do your own research.

After reading through some of the articles, I remember now why I stopped researching Aquinas’ proofs. It all sounds like total nonsense.

No, I’m afraid you’ll have to talk to me, since I can’t understand all that medieval rubbish. You say that goodness and potence are substantial, and that the opposites of these qualities–badness and impotence–are simply negations, and thus are not substantial. How do you know this? How do you know that it isn’t the reverse; badness could be substantial, while goodness is only the lack of badness (this depends on your ethical views, of course, and has nothing to do with metaphysics). Though this might not be the best example, you get the point. Even though your system may be self-consistent, there’s no way to know for certain which extreme is substantial and which is the lack.

Secondly, qualities, by their very nature, are exclusive. If a surface is smooth, it cannot be coarse. If something is blue, it cannot be red. If something is only three feet high, it cannot exceed a height of three feet. God can’t be everything at once. He can’t divide the contradictory qualities amongst various parts of himself, either, because he is supposed to be infinitely simple. It seems that the only way apologists can bypass this problem is to discount the existence of the negations. But you tell me: is coarseness a negation of smoothness, or is smoothness a negation of coarseness? Or are they, in fact, two different qualities entirely? If so, why is the pair of good and evil treated differently? Are you beginning to see why I think these assertions are arbitrary?

yes, i know exactly what you mean. the semantics are incidental to the answer, there is no such thing as nothing or nothingness. you can only make it something by the very semantics you decry here. nothing is a word that indicates a concept that cannot have any form. you may be thinking to yourself something like “i can concieve of nothing”, if so, no you cant, in your conceiving, nothing becomes something. its not just semantics, its the nature of “nothing”

I am very familiar with the concept of nothingness. I never claimed that nothingness was something. I am merely asking why you think a reality with objects is better than a reality without objects. Why is the material universe better than a void? Any objective reasons?

p.s. are you still a communist?

Yes. I will be taking Economics in my senior year, however. Perhaps then I’ll change my opinion if I find any reason to doubt communism.

we dropped the subject, but a prof sent me some more stuff, frankly the memorial to the victims of communism should have turned you off, but if not google “cuba hunger” on youtube, they just locked up some guy for a couple years for complaining that they dont have enough food.

Let’s rephrase this statement, just so I can show you how persuasive it was:

“We dropped the subject, but a professor sent me some more stuff, including some books chronicling events such as the Inquisition and the Crusades, which really should have turned you off to Christianity. But if it hasn’t, google “Jesus Camp” and watch how Christians treat indoctrinating children like a sport in order to compete with Muslims.”

See how fun it is to misrepresent an ideology? Play nice.

 

[Just_Lurking]

See here for a mathematical version of the ontological argument.

 

[James_S_Saint]

See here for a mathematical version of the ontological argument.

That link doesn’t work for me. I seriously doubt that it is the one I am talking about and I am pretty sure there will be no link to it either.

 

[liquidpele]

See here for a mathematical version of the ontological argument.

Wow… I’ve been out of school too long. That hurt my head.

 

[Just_Lurking]

That link doesn’t work for me. I seriously doubt that it is the one I am talking about and I am pretty sure there will be no link to it either.

It’s probably a different argument.

Here is a link to the main Computational Metaphysics Project page.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The Summa explains very little.

the summa explains a great deal and it is meant for beginners in theology.

After reading through some of the articles, I remember now why I stopped researching Aquinas’ proofs. It all sounds like total nonsense.

No, I’m afraid you’ll have to talk to me, since I can’t understand all that medieval rubbish.

youre just being lazy. ive seen you deal with concepts beyond your age bracket several times, you simply dont want to do it.

You say that goodness and potence are substantial, and that the opposites of these qualities–badness and impotence–are simply negations, and thus are not substantial. How do you know this? How do you know that it isn’t the reverse; badness could be substantial, while goodness is only the lack of badness (this depends on your ethical views, of course, and has nothing to do with metaphysics). Though this might not be the best example, you get the point. Even though your system may be self-consistent, there’s no way to know for certain which extreme is substantial and which is the lack.

evil is a privation of good. so the substantial quality is good. one can only talk about evil as a privation of good. murder is a loss of life, robbery is a loss of property, injustice is a loss of freedom, treating evil in reverse doesnt work. good isnt a privation of evil. life isnt a loss of murder, property isnt a loss of robbery, and freedom isnt a loss of injustice.

but what if it were subjective to you? what difference would that make?, your parents set subjective rules, does that mean that you are ok breaking them, because they are subjective, to you?

G-d is quite clear about what is substantial and what is not. now you may complain that assumes G-ds existence, but then any discussion of maximal qualities does as well, so youre already committed to the idea for the purposes of this discussion.

Secondly, qualities, by their very nature, are exclusive. If a surface is smooth, it cannot be coarse. If something is blue, it cannot be red. If something is only three feet high, it cannot exceed a height of three feet. God can’t be everything at once. He can’t divide the contradictory qualities amongst various parts of himself, either, because he is supposed to be infinitely simple. It seems that the only way apologists can bypass this problem is to discount the existence of the negations. But you tell me: is coarseness a negation of smoothness, or is smoothness a negation of coarseness? Or are they, in fact, two different qualities entirely? If so, why is the pair of good and evil treated differently? Are you beginning to see why I think these assertions are arbitrary?

ive always known why you thought they were arbitrary, its a good portion of your posts, but if you had done your research you would know why. here though.

newadvent.org/summa/1004.htm

Reply to Objection 1. Even as the sun (as Dionysius remarks, (Div. Nom. v), while remaining one and shining uniformly, contains within itself first and uniformly the substances of sensible things, and many and diverse qualities; “a fortiori” should all things in a kind of natural unity pre-exist in the cause of all things; and thus things diverse and in themselves opposed to each other, pre-exist in God as one, without injury to His simplicity. This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.

my bottom dollar says you find a way to call this rubbish or in some other way avoid the argument.

I am very familiar with the concept of nothingness. I never claimed that nothingness was something. I am merely asking why you think a reality with objects is better than a reality without objects. Why is the material universe better than a void? Any objective reasons?

same ones, a void is something, it is an object, with no other objects it is still one itself. you dont seem to understand that even now you claim that nothing is something, here you simply call it a void. nothing doesnt exist, its simply an artifact of language. you havent changed anything in your argument.

Yes. I will be taking Economics in my senior year, however. Perhaps then I’ll change my opinion if I find any reason to doubt communism.

high school econ is hardly an exhaustive treatment of the subject. you can simply look at the failed outcome of every single communist system. after all as the good book says, you know them by their fruits. that string of failures should be enough to doubt.

Let’s rephrase this statement, just so I can show you how persuasive it was:

it wasnt meant to persuade, it was to remind you of the argumentss already made.

"We dropped the subject, but a professor sent me some more stuff, including some books chronicling events such as the Inquisition and the Crusades, which really should have turned you off to Christianity.

why should the inquisition or crusades turn you off of Christianity? the inquisition was a court system entirely appropriate for the times, that executed fewer than 4000 people over the course of several centuries, the rest of the world executes that number for far less important reasons in only a year or two, whats so bad about that? the Crusades? why do you think the pilgrims to the Holy land needed protection to begin with? wasnt a war we started. islam spread by the sword we didnt, should we then just give over that land for all time? please.

But if it hasn’t, google “Jesus Camp” and watch how Christians treat indoctrinating children like a sport in order to compete with Muslims."

who doesnt indoctrinate their children? who indoctrinated you? i would suggest that we have an entire system for the indoctrination of children, we call it the public school system. you may say but thats just the 3 r’s! really? where did your communism and agnosticism come from? why dont you murder, rape rob, and pillage? because you were “indoctrinated!” the word indoctrination just carries a negative connotation when the same word could be used for “education” so the mere fact that you hold suchh views at such a tender age, is evidence of indoctrination. you think its right because that is what youve been exposed too. or should i say indoctrinated?

See how fun it is to misrepresent an ideology? Play nice.

more than 100 million murders, for the individuals property, the hunger that even now is occuring a scant 90 miles from our shore, and the “re education camps” where thousands upon thousands have been sent for minor infractions dont misrepresent an ideology, they truly represent the ideology. so i didnt misrepresent it, unlike you, i am old enough to remember it.

 

[Spock]

sure there is, existence itself is an object.

All you have to do now is to show me this “object” which is called “existence”. Not an object which exists, but the “object of existence” itself.

im only responding to things youve said that imply the necessity of STEM. though your claim here that movement cannot be seperated from STEM is as incongruous a the argument that existence isnt an object.

Movement is a property, not an object.

why do you? what is so strange about that? surely you dont think scientific theories of pre-BB environments are strange.

The phrase “pre-BB” is nonsense. Time is undefined for the singularity.

easily done, it might not have been. STEM has no necessity that i cannot assign to some non-STEM universe.

So you say that the physical university can be non-physical? Any and all existence we are aware of is STEM-based. You wish to establish a non-STEM “existence”, through the Thomistic argument. That is fine. But you cannot just posit it as an argument.

i think ive done a decent job so far of showing both why movement is not contained solely to STEM, and why STEM itself is defiecient. in the response immediately above. it might not have been.

Not at all. If metaphysics is more than empty speculation, then it cannot assume some “special” kind of physics, where the known physical facts are denied.

suppose we lived in a different universe and were constructed according to some other set of rules, would not the conservation of mass and energy seem like magic? as someone once said, any sufficiently advanced technology would seem like magic. further, your attempting to apply rules that we only know exist within STEM, to an entity upon which STEM is contingent. one who could author such rules, seems completely capable of bypassing them. after all if i create a universe in my mind with a certain set of laws, i could just as easily, break them, couldnt i?

Which is called empty speculation.

we have defined it for you several times now, the simplest metaphysical definition is to be complete, to not lack. so i assume you mean that it is not defined to a level you find suitable. what then would be your criteria for a meaningful definition?

Something that is not circular, as a bare minimum. Of course the concept of “perfection” or “completeness” are very well defined in relation to something, in the context of something. As I said before, a “perfect bullet is something that can penetrate any armor”, and a “perfect armor is something that cannot be penetrated by any bullet”. “Perfection” cannot be defined without some environment and some aim to fulfill. Yes, you can talk about an “abstract perfection” but it will be an empty category, exactly like “perfect beauty”.

I am going to summarize the problem at hand.
Aquinas had no idea about the physical properties of STEM. He had no idea that space and time are inseparable from physical existence. He had no idea about the principle of conservation of matter-energy-momentum. Due to his ignorance he engaged in some empty speculation about these categories, and incorrectly assumed that movement is not the inseparable property of physical existence. He was wrong. That is all. Of course he could not have known about the discoveries which happened centuries after his death. No one would blame him for his ignorance. The fault lies with those, who should know better by now, who should be aware that the picture Aquinas “imagined” is incorrect, and still try to use his wild and empty speculation as a foundation to establish some non-physical “mover”. That is all.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

See here for a mathematical version of the ontological argument.

have there been any other papers on the subject? refutations, etc?

 

[Spock]

Right, and no set of physical objects is self-sufficient.

That is one tall order to prove. Please read what I posted above to WSP.

I agree with you that nothingness is a logically impossible state of affairs. However, it begs the question to say that since something must exist, that that something is STEM.

This is supposed to be the **end result **of the Thomistic argument. You cannot also posit it as an argument. The question at hand is: “is motion an inherent part of STEM, or is it externally imposed?”. Physics established that it is. If metaphysics would be separated from physical facts, it would degenerate into an empty speculation.

I don’t see the parity between my question and those questions. We can demonstrate the circularity of any attempt to ground a necessary explanation in a physical object. Asking for an explanation for the physical realm of things isn’t like asking what’s north of the North Pole. The latter question is meaningless, since it’s impossible for anything to be north of the North Pole. But, asking what explains the universe may very well (and I contend that it is) be answered by positing an external, transcendent, personal mind.

So far there are no properties of the physical universe which cannot be explained via the laws of nature in a metaphysical sense. The physical explanations are incomplete, of course.

To be honest, it always saddens me when I see this approach taken. Calling something meaningless without even asking for clarification is a non-starter to any serious inquiry. There is meaning to both “eternal” and “will,” correct? Why do you contend that the conjunction of the two must be meaningless?

Well, eternal is already hazy. And “will” is a thought, a mental exercise. There is no example that one can create a physical effect through a mental exercise. The proponents of ESP, telekinesis, etc… assert that, but they still keep failing. It seems very well established that the four forces of nature exhaust all the possibilities. That may turn turn to be incorrect, and there might be some other, so far undicovered forces out there. But so far there is no reason to assume it. If and when a new discovery will necessitate a new hypothesis, then the new situation will have to be considered.

 

[Areopagite]

Kinda jumping in the middle of all this, so I ask forgiveness if I repeat things …

All you have to do now is to show me this “object” which is called “existence”. Not an object which exists, but the “object of existence” itself.

There is some major ambiguity that many here on this thread suffer with regard to the word “object.” I think it’s generally being used as “substance” in the Aristotelian sense, which is defined “that which exists in itself.” Substance is contrasted to “accident” which is “that which exists in a substance.” An example of a substance would be a tree, car, person, etc. An example of an accident would be purple, height, walking, etc.

Is this how you guys are using the word “object.” If so, I strongly recommend using the more traditional and less confusing term of “substance.” Because the word object is really a term used to describe a thing toward which something is directed. Purple can be an object of knowledge, but purple is not a substance.

Now is a good time to mention one of my favorite things:

Aristotle’s Ten Categories of Being
Substance
Quantity
Quality
Relation
Action
Passion (the receiving of an action, i.e. passivity)
Time
Place
Posture
Possession

Every kind of “being” (which is defined as “that which can exist”) can be classified under one or more of these categories. These categories can be called “forms of being.” The nine categories here after substance are accidents and thus cannot exist unless they exist in a substance. Some post-Aristotelian philosophers argue that only the first nine are valid, and others say only the first 8, or 6, or even first 4, saying that the extraneous ones can be derived from the valid ones. I like all ten personally.

Now, there are also things called transcendentals, which transcend the 10 categories (i.e. that can be predicated of all forms of being). The main transcendental is being, because each one of these can exist (as, once again, “being” means “that which can exist”). The other transcendentals are interchangeable with being … and this can get us really side-tracked … but I’ll mention them anyway … they are goodness, truth, unity, thing, and (some would say) beauty. So, I would say that existence is not a substance but can pertain to substances as well as accidents.

Movement is a property, not an object.

Once again, movement can be an object of knowledge, for example. But if you mean “movement is not a substance” then I and Thomas Aquinas would agree with you. Movement is an accident (and the word “property” is also sometimes used, although it’s usually mean “necessary accident” … which might still work here anyway).

So you say that the physical university can be non-physical? Any and all existence we are aware of is STEM-based. You wish to establish a non-STEM “existence”, through the Thomistic argument. That is fine. But you cannot just posit it as an argument.

It is often argued that abstract knowledge is immaterial, and if so, it would not be STEM-based. This goes into a really deep and painful discussion of epistemology. But I’ll throw that out there, and see what you say.

Not at all. If metaphysics is more than empty speculation, then it cannot assume some “special” kind of physics, where the known physical facts are denied.

I agree.

“Perfection” cannot be defined without some environment and some aim to fulfill. Yes, you can talk about an “abstract perfection” but it will be an empty category, exactly like “perfect beauty”.

Oh, dear, I hate to bring this up again. I would say that perfection does not necessarily have to do with “use.” Because a wounded deer is not a perfect deer no matter what it’s being used for. Perfection in a thing can be determined based on what the thing is and in what condition it is and how far that condition is from its optimum condition. “Use” does really ever enter into the equation.

Aquinas had no idea about the physical properties of STEM. He had no idea that space and time are inseparable from physical existence.

He most definitely believed space was inseparable from physical existence (for “space” fell under the accident of place, which cannot exist in itself, and one that does not pertain to incorporeal beings). He thought this about time too, I believe (as “time” is accident as well, not able to exist in itself). This is because he believed that “time was the measure of change.” If there is no change, there is no time. So, unless the material world is completely static, time is a necessary part of the physical world. God is unchanging and thus God is outside of time. There is a debate whether angels experience some kind of time … and I can’t remember how that panned out. But in any case, I would disagree with you here very strongly here. Thomas did in fact believe that space and time were inseparable from physical existence.

He had no idea about the principle of conservation of matter-energy-momentum.

You might have a point here. I must admit. I have no idea.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

All you have to do now is to show me this “object” which is called “existence”. Not an object which exists, but the “object of existence” itself.

think these simple words “cogito ergo sum” see, you exist. you didnt give yourself existence, so where did it come from? your parents, and theirs? back to the first organic molecules? back to the BB? and before? ultimately your a contingent being because you might not have been as is every other being in the universe. the chain doesnt stop until we come to the bare fact of existence, to go any farther is to go to the impossible nothing. there, at the maximal state of being, that which we call G-d, you hit a brick wall. there is no ICR from there. and that is how one demonstrates that existence is an object. you didnt cause your own existence.

Movement is a property, not an object.

i didnt say it was, i said it doesnt make sense to restrict it to SEM, yes i said SEM, time is the measure of change, its illusory, no us, no time., no change, no time. and i have my doubts about space.

The phrase “pre-BB” is nonsense. Time is undefined for the singularity.

what singularity? we dont see that, specifically because time doesnt exist at the singularity. but wait, what does that say about motion? there is no time because there is no motion, but then something moved! where did that movement come from? it couldnt have been a singularity with undefined time. so what makes you think that time movement cant be seperated from SEM? see, all we can really observe is a sudden expansion from nothing, the idea of a singularity is a simple assumption. but we dont see it or have any reason to say it is their in preference to G-ds finger touching the water, so to speak.

So you say that the physical university can be non-physical? Any and all existence we are aware of is STEM-based. You wish to establish a non-STEM “existence”, through the Thomistic argument. That is fine. But you cannot just posit it as an argument.

i can surely posit it as a possibility, why should a SEM universe be preferred over a non-SEM universe? surely our experience alone doesnt restrict the nature of the universe.

Not at all. If metaphysics is more than empty speculation, then it cannot assume some “special” kind of physics, where the known physical facts are denied.

your quite right, but then im not positing special physics, rather an ontology or order of beings, which are entirely seperate from physics, indeed it could as well be done with a non SEM universe.

Which is called empty speculation.

speculation yes, empty, no. it points out a range of possibilities that make the assumption of “magical” abilities, not really magic. just properties of technology or beings.

Something that is not circular, as a bare minimum. Of course the concept of “perfection” or “completeness” are very well defined in relation to something, in the context of something. As I said before, a “perfect bullet is something that can penetrate any armor”, and a “perfect armor is something that cannot be penetrated by any bullet”. “Perfection” cannot be defined without some environment and some aim to fulfill. Yes, you can talk about an “abstract perfection” but it will be an empty category, exactly like “perfect beauty”.

how do you know a pizza is complete? no slice is missing. how do you know that more slices arent necessary? in this case the pizza is infinite. there can be no more. perfect as in complete requires no standard then, not satisfied by the nature of G-d. there is no aim or purpose necessary, we are after all talking metaphysics and then should use the metaphysical definitions.

the definition is no more sircular than any other. there is a reason why words equate, if they didnt we wouldbnt have a way to define them would we?

I am going to summarize the problem at hand.
Aquinas had no idea about the physical properties of STEM. He had no idea that space and time are inseparable from physical existence.

time doesnt exist as anything but an illusion, only change exists and thats what he is talking about.

He had no idea about the principle of conservation of matter-energy-momentum. Due to his ignorance he engaged in some empty speculation about these categories, and incorrectly assumed that movement is not the inseparable property of physical existence. He was wrong. That is all. Of course he could not have known about the discoveries which happened centuries after his death. No one would blame him for his ignorance. The fault lies with those, who should know better by now, who should be aware that the picture Aquinas “imagined” is incorrect, and still try to use his wild and empty speculation as a foundation to establish some non-physical “mover”. That is all.

why do you imagine that movement is restricted to SEM? how then did the BB happen? no time means no change which means no movement. as youve already admitted to the no time of the “singularity” as “undefined” then obviously SEM, under the standard theory couldnt have moved by itself. where did that movement come from? where did that change originate?

what seems strange to me is this insistence that everything began with a clearly contingent being. the fatal flaw to your arguments is that SEM doesnt explain itself. and it needs an explanation according to the PSR.

 

[punkforchrist]

Spock:

That is one tall order to prove. Please read what I posted above to WSP.

I read it, but I don’t see where it addresses my point. The acorn-oak tree analogy I gave should suffice to demonstrate the inadequacy of appealing to the necessity of the universe. This must be addressed if we are going to reject the God hypothesis.

This is supposed to be the end result of the Thomistic argument. You cannot also posit it as an argument.

Posit what as an argument?

The question at hand is: “is motion an inherent part of STEM, or is it externally imposed?”. Physics established that it is.

That motion is inherently part of STEM isn’t at all in conflict with its being externally imposed. If we’re asking for the explanation of some thing, then it doesn’t make sense to merely point to a property of that thing, call it inherent, and conclude that that thing exists necessarily.

If metaphysics would be separated from physical facts, it would degenerate into an empty speculation.

This again appears to be question-begging.

So far there are no properties of the physical universe which cannot be explained via the laws of nature in a metaphysical sense. The physical explanations are incomplete, of course.

The question is whether or not the laws of nature exist by a necessity of their own nature. The idea that they are necessary runs into the two major problems I’ve already briefly touched upon. First, we can easily conceive of a possible world in which entirely different laws of nature exist. Secondly, the dynamism of each law requires that one be dependent on the other. If we stop there and claim that such an explanation is sufficient, then we are engaging in circular reasoning.

For example, the measurements of electromagnetism and gravity are each dependent on each other. Why is this so? If we explain this fact in terms of either electromagnetism or gravity, or both, then we’re basically saying that A because B, and B because A, which is clearly circular and doesn’t answer the question of why there is electromagnetism and gravity at all.

Well, eternal is already hazy. And “will” is a thought, a mental exercise. There is no example that one can create a physical effect through a mental exercise. The proponents of ESP, telekinesis, etc… assert that, but they still keep failing.

Well, I think this begs the question in favor of mind-body physicalism, which is a view I don’t agree with.

It seems very well established that the four forces of nature exhaust all the possibilities. That may turn turn to be incorrect, and there might be some other, so far undicovered forces out there. But so far there is no reason to assume it. If and when a new discovery will necessitate a new hypothesis, then the new situation will have to be considered.

Any scientific hypothesis will involve some physical object or constant. Physical things, however, are finite by nature, and nothing finite is self-sufficient.

 

[Just_Lurking]

have there been any other papers on the subject? refutations, etc?

I haven’t seen any, but I’m just starting to look into computational metaphysics.

 

[Spock]

Kinda jumping in the middle of all this, so I ask forgiveness if I repeat things …

There is some major ambiguity that many here on this thread suffer with regard to the word “object.” I think it’s generally being used as “substance” in the Aristotelian sense, which is defined “that which exists in itself.” Substance is contrasted to “accident” which is “that which exists in a substance.” An example of a substance would be a tree, car, person, etc. An example of an accident would be purple, height, walking, etc.

Is this how you guys are using the word “object.” If so, I strongly recommend using the more traditional and less confusing term of “substance.” Because the word object is really a term used to describe a thing toward which something is directed. Purple can be an object of knowledge, but purple is not a substance.

Now is a good time to mention one of my favorite things:

Aristotle’s Ten Categories of Being
Substance
Quantity
Quality
Relation
Action
Passion (the receiving of an action, i.e. passivity)
Time
Place
Posture
Possession

Every kind of “being” (which is defined as “that which can exist”) can be classified under one or more of these categories. These categories can be called “forms of being.” The nine categories here after substance are accidents and thus cannot exist unless they exist in a substance. Some post-Aristotelian philosophers argue that only the first nine are valid, and others say only the first 8, or 6, or even first 4, saying that the extraneous ones can be derived from the valid ones. I like all ten personally.

We might as well delve into some clarification here, though I think that this whole subject belongs to a separate thread of its own. So I will be brief here. As a short remark, the word “object” in English certainly has something to do with the “subject - object” dichotomy. In English… but not necessarily on other languages.

I agree that “object” is something that exists whether it is perceived, understood, recognized by someone or not. There is at least one sub-category of objects, which are called physical objects. Physical objects exist in space and time, and they are composed of matter-energy (which are interchangeable). It is pretty clear what we are talking about. These objects have properties, which may or may not be present in any one object. Objects can be categorized into arbitrary sets, based upon some attributes. It is obvious, that these categorization “boxes” are totally arbitrary. We can create (for example) the set of “round” objects, and the members can be “balls made out of rubber”, “balls made of clay”, planets or stars, all of which have an approximately “round shape”. We can also define some other categories, like “distance”, “before”, “after”, “in front of”, “behind”, etc… which descirbe the relation between objects. One important feature or attribute of this existence is the possibility to interact with other physical objects.

Are there other objects? Some philosophers argue that there are “abstract objects”, which do not exist as physical objects. They bring up examples as numbers, ideas, concepts. I find the term “object” unnecessary and confusing - and I prefer the term “concept”. The term “object” insinuates “objective” existence, apart from our perception. These philosophers argue that the “abstract objects” are not our “inventions”, rather they exist independetly from us, and they are merely “discovered”. Among the many problems that this concept creates, the foremost one is “existence”. What does it mean that “beauty” or “justice” or “distance” exists? They certainly do not exist as physical object. But we can agree that these “things” exist in a special manner - I prefer the term “conceptual existence”. One of the attributes that is missing from this “existence” is the ability to interact with either each other, or the physical reality. Example: to add two parts of conceptual hydrogen and one part of conceptual oxygen will not create a conceptual water molecule. In other words, concepts are inert. This is not a surprise, since action is composed of exchanging sub-atomic particles.

And there are some people, who insist on a third type os “existence”, which is not physical, but not merely conceptual, which “exists” apart from our perception, which is active - able to interact with physical objects. These “objects” do not reside in space and time, are not composed of matter-energy. The question arises, what does “existence” mean when applied to these “objects”? I have no idea, and the proponents cannot make it clear. Any and all “action” we are familiar with is an exchange of particles. This third type of hypothesized “thing” is not composed of particles, so its hypothesized “action” is not something we can even imagine. It is sheer magic.

And, of course, there is absolutely no physical evidence for such an “existence”. The offered “conceptual arguments” all disregard the known facts of physics - just like the current “prime mover” idea disregards the principle of conservation of matter-energy-momentum.

You might have a point here. I must admit. I have no idea.

He did not. Back then space and time were thought to be absolute categories, the universe was thought to be giant “balloon” drifting in empty space. Only Einstein disposed of this Newtonian concept.

Back then people thought that energy - which is motion, and interchange of sub-atomic particles needed to be imposed from “above”. We are past that naive worldview. The Thomistic argument belongs to the other ideas of the past, which have been superceeded by current understanding. They have historical interest, they give us some insight into the thought-process of those times. But their relevance is exhausted by giving that “window” into the past.

 

[Oreoracle]

the summa explains a great deal and it is meant for beginners in theology.

And what does one assume when they begin theology? It seems like an important assumption, but I just can’t put my finger on it…Ah, I dunno. It probably wasn’t too important anyway!

youre just being lazy. ive seen you deal with concepts beyond your age bracket several times, you simply dont want to do it.

Perhaps this concept lies before my age bracket. Maybe I’m too old for it.

evil is a privation of good. so the substantial quality is good. one can only talk about evil as a privation of good. murder is a loss of life, robbery is a loss of property, injustice is a loss of freedom, treating evil in reverse doesnt work. good isnt a privation of evil. life isnt a loss of murder, property isnt a loss of robbery, and freedom isnt a loss of injustice.

Rubbish! (You wanted to hear me say that, right?) Let’s take a look at the Epicureans, for example. In their conception, pain is evil (unlike modern utilitarians, they didn’t regard pleasure as being good in itself). To them, “goodness” consisted entirely of the negation of pain. It follows from their perspective that good is the privation of evil. In fact, there seems to be more than a few ideologies that work this way. If you studied more ethical systems, you would know this, but you only seem to have an eye for metaphysics. The Church isn’t all that’s out there, bud.

but what if it were subjective to you? what difference would that make?, your parents set subjective rules, does that mean that you are ok breaking them, because they are subjective, to you?

How is this relevant?

G-d is quite clear about what is substantial and what is not. now you may complain that assumes G-ds existence, but then any discussion of maximal qualities does as well, so youre already committed to the idea for the purposes of this discussion.

This is a very timely confession of yours. Just a few days ago, we were discussing in Geometry how, in logical proofs, you are free to make assumptions if necessary, but unless those assumptions are axiomatic, you have to prove them to be true later in the proof. I’m sorry, but if God’s existence is axiomatic, then it cannot be proven and I can only reject it. If it isn’t axiomatic, then, by definition, his existence doesn’t have to remain an assumption. So either prove that God exists without the circular argumentation, or don’t.

my bottom dollar says you find a way to call this rubbish or in some other way avoid the argument.

I’ll read it after I get home from school, where they’ll be finishing up the indoctrination process. The teachers say I’ll be a full-fledged atheistic communist in no time!

same ones, a void is something, it is an object, with no other objects it is still one itself. you dont seem to understand that even now you claim that nothing is something, here you simply call it a void. nothing doesnt exist, its simply an artifact of language. you havent changed anything in your argument.

A void is an empty space. Now, we can say that the size of a space is defined by certain boundaries; the void only lasts as long as the emptiness. In this hypothetical reality, there are no objects to interrupt that emptiness. The emptiness is infinite. This, by definition, would be a void.

…And despite what you say, voids are not objects. In our language, the word is used as a noun, but that’s just a limitation of language.

And I know that you know all of this, you’re simply evading the question. How did you put it when you were talking with wanstronian? Oh yeah: DODGE!!!

high school econ is hardly an exhaustive treatment of the subject. you can simply look at the failed outcome of every single communist system. after all as the good book says, you know them by their fruits. that string of failures should be enough to doubt.

I repeat: those countries failed for reasons other than communism, even if we assume that communism was a contributing factor. Capitalism doesn’t seem to be doing so well, either. It just took longer to fall.

who doesnt indoctrinate their children? who indoctrinated you? i would suggest that we have an entire system for the indoctrination of children, we call it the public school system. you may say but thats just the 3 r’s! really? where did your communism and agnosticism come from? why dont you murder, rape rob, and pillage? because you were “indoctrinated!” the word indoctrination just carries a negative connotation when the same word could be used for “education” so the mere fact that you hold suchh views at such a tender age, is evidence of indoctrination. you think its right because that is what youve been exposed too. or should i say indoctrinated?

Of course we indoctrinate our kids. We just do it to a lesser degree, so we don’t call it “indoctrination.” I think education and indoctrination work a bit like persuasion and coercion; the difference between the two is that of degrees. I think there’s a huge difference between passing on a few, if I may use the phrase, “idealistic ideals” and guilting kids into praising Jesus so much so that some of them were spasming on the floor in apparent ecstasy just to please their proctors. (Just watch Jesus Camp…)

Anyway, my teachers discourage my attitude toward life, and they certainly don’t want their students to be communists or atheists. They want mindless puppets, not analytical cynics. So saying that every political and ethical thought I’ve had was force-fed to me is absurd.