Thomas Aquinas, The Unmoved Mover

[JDaniel]

Yes.
All I can say is that human nature as created by God has been under greater attack than I originally imagined. No wonder Catholics are confused about Adam and Eve. I started out looking for a way to defend Adam’s reality from analyzing scientific methods and materials. It seemed like all I had to do was find a scientist willing to test my various hypotheses. Looks as if there is double the work from the philosophical position. Not to mention the theological attack–though I don’t know how strong that is.

Plus snow is forecasted for tonight.

Blessings,
granny
:snowing:

Granny:

Lucky you! It’s quite warm here in Florida. We could use some snow. :tanning:

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Actually, I have been reading an explanation about the Latin, but I am not sure how to say it in English.

Please correct me. If I am going to use philosophy in my project, I need to have it corrected just as I need my science corrected.

About two years ago, I was on the internet and came across the comment that Thomism was dead and was replaced. Going by what I am learning about Hume, etc.,
An understanding of Thomism is needed more than ever.

Granny:

Thomism has been the perennial thorn-in-the-side of all those who don’t want there to be God. And, there are those critics who profess a belief in God, but for the life of me I can’t understand why!

God bless,
jd

 

[Wayward_Wind]

Originally Posted by Wayward Wind
Why can’t the first cause be outside of time, what law defines what is in or out of time?

-sorry to have arrived late, but better late than never…

WW:

Rossum is a stickler for the proper understanding of sequential reality and proper grammar. He would say, a thing is not a Cause until it has caused. Nor can one call a thing a Cause until after it has caused. So, how could God be a Cause before causing the universe? And, more specifically, how could a being that is outside of time have a “before?”

Good points for debate, don’t you think?

God bless,
jd

Quoting Kreeft on understanding First Cause, "The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. We have to become complex and clever in order to doubt or dispute it. " Which, by-the-way, reminds me of Razor’s Theorem…

The ultimate “First Cause”, or First Movement, must originate before time, which is part of our dimensional universe, or it wouldn’t be the “First”. Airstotle believed that First Movement was energy; I believe it was God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Wayward
**
Airstotle believed that First Movement was energy; I believe it was God. **

How about an energetic God?

 

[kbachler]

What are these flaws? Are you sure their not just biases?

Yep. Positive. And so are all logicians since around 1900.

 

[kbachler]

jd, betterave has a good point here. You are on different pages. The four causes work as well for demonstrative inferences as well as speculative inferences ( those in which St. Thomas would probably agree with me), come from the possible intellect. they are distinct beings, you can’t get an ought from an is. You can’t get an up from a down, matters of faith are separate creatures from matters of material fact. Meanness is meanness and niceness is niceness, they are separate entities. Yet we use them legislatively, making a world where we hopefully protect and serve each other.

The four causes work well for demonstrative inferences (less well for speculative) within NORMAL life. In a way similar to Newtonian physics working well for normal life.

If you start dealing with things outside of normal everyday life, where our sense of meaning and knowledge has to be more formally defined and in a new way, things dealing with existence, or the infinitely large, the infinitely small, happenstance, regressions, etc., there is little reason to expect the four causes to work as well.

In fact, in dealing with many of these issues, mankind had to learn to free itself of the old approach. Yet here we are, trying to use the very same old approach to deal with issues where we know it does a very poor job.

 

[kbachler]

Granny:

Thomism has been the perennial thorn-in-the-side of all those who don’t want there to be God. And, there are those critics who profess a belief in God, but for the life of me I can’t understand why!

God bless,
jd

I want there to be a God, but Thomism just mucks things up. There’s no way that his approach can come close to working; his tools are just too limited.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kbachler

**I want there to be a God, but Thomism just mucks things up. There’s no way that his approach can come close to working; his tools are just too limited. **

It’s true that Thomas was limited by the limited knowledge of his day.

However, since the discovery of the Big Bang in the last century, the idea of a First Cause has taken root in the fact that science cannot logically account for how or why the Big Bang happened. It certainly happened on a Day without Yesterday. This strongly argues a Prime Mover who would not be subject to the principle of causality, time, and space because it created those principles in the first place.

 

[kbachler]

kbachler

**I want there to be a God, but Thomism just mucks things up. There’s no way that his approach can come close to working; his tools are just too limited. **

It’s true that Thomas was limited by the limited knowledge of his day.

However, since the discovery of the Big Bang in the last century, the idea of a First Cause has taken root in the fact that science cannot logically account for how or why the Big Bang happened. It certainly happened on a Day without Yesterday. This strongly argues a Prime Mover who would not be subject to the principle of causality, time, and space because it created those principles in the first place.

Not just the limited knowledge, but problems in logic, knowing/epistemology, mathematics, the philosophy of mathematics, etc.

But you are wrong. Science CAN logically account for how and why Big Bang happened. In fact, it can account for it in several different ways. And none of it argues for a prime mover.

For you see, the early universe was also not subject to causality, time, and space.

Your argument just doesn’t fly.

 

[grannymh]

I want there to be a God, but Thomism just mucks things up. There’s no way that his approach can come close to working; his tools are just too limited.

At the moment, I cannot back up the following statements. So chalk this post up to the creativity of my right brain.

The operative word should be “approach”. This does not mean that “tools” should be eliminated. It means one needs to look at “approach” first. I would place my money on the “approach” of Descartes to the age-old problem of dualism as what mucks things up. My creative guess is that Aquinas as a person correctly understood the wholeness of human nature, i.e., the holistic approach or perhaps hylomorphism. Human nature has not changed since its beginning so Aquinas’ basic approach or basic assumption if you will, still stands…

What has changed is the interpretation of human nature due to the development of Descartes’ dualism over time. One professor from my past demonstrated a line of thought which led from Descartes through subsequent philosophers to Communism. Personally, I can see a line from Descartes to the present interpreters of science who attempt to eliminate what is spiritual from daily life.

As I think about this, I up the ante on Descartes as the mucker.

Blessings,
granny

The wait for Spring is sometimes longer than expected.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kbachler

Science CAN logically account for how and why Big Bang happened. In fact, it can account for it in several different ways.

Please give your sources. This is going to be interesting!

Science entering the mind of God.

 

[kbachler]

At the moment, I cannot back up the following statements. So chalk this post up to the creativity of my right brain.

The operative word should be “approach”. This does not mean that “tools” should be eliminated. It means one needs to look at “approach” first. I would place my money on the “approach” of Descartes to the age-old problem of dualism as what mucks things up. My creative guess is that Aquinas as a person correctly understood the wholeness of human nature, i.e., the holistic approach or perhaps hylomorphism. Human nature has not changed since its beginning so Aquinas’ basic approach or basic assumption if you will, still stands…

What has changed is the interpretation of human nature due to the development of Descartes’ dualism over time. One professor from my past demonstrated a line of thought which led from Descartes through subsequent philosophers to Communism. Personally, I can see a line from Descartes to the present interpreters of science who attempt to eliminate what is spiritual from daily life.

As I think about this, I up the ante on Descartes as the mucker.

Blessings,
granny

The wait for Spring is sometimes longer than expected.

Another professor would show you a line from Decartes to western civilization.

But I was less focused on the nature of the person than on the 5 ways.

An interesting aside: consider the changes in philosophy, mathematics, science and technology from the time of Aristotle to the time of Aquinas, and then again from Aquinas till now…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

As I think about this, I up the ante on Descartes as the mucker.

Blaise Pascal would have liked to join you in that bet.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I want there to be a God, but Thomism just mucks things up. There’s no way that his approach can come close to working; his tools are just too limited.

How are his tools limited? Reason is the only tool we have ever had. Reason may be limited, but that’s not going to change anytime soon. So I guess I am asking what is different know?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kbachler

**An interesting aside: consider the changes in philosophy, mathematics, science and technology from the time of Aristotle to the time of Aquinas, and then again from Aquinas till now… **

Why is this an interesting aside, other than the fact that science and technology were still relatively under control from Aristotle to Aquinas, but are now out of control when you consider that science and technology have handed man the means by which to blow the whole human race to smithereens in a few minutes?

 

[JDaniel]

The four causes work well for demonstrative inferences (less well for speculative) within NORMAL life. In a way similar to Newtonian physics working well for normal life.

If you start dealing with things outside of normal everyday life, where our sense of meaning and knowledge has to be more formally defined and in a new way, things dealing with existence, or the infinitely large, the infinitely small, happenstance, regressions, etc., there is little reason to expect the four causes to work as well.

In fact, in dealing with many of these issues, mankind had to learn to free itself of the old approach. Yet here we are, trying to use the very same old approach to deal with issues where we know it does a very poor job.

Friend:

Can’t you see that yours is just a series of naked assertions? (See bolded lines above.) You tend to make statements with never a line of any supporting dialectic. That is the problem most of us are having with your so-called reasonings; they aren’t reasonings, IMHO. I/We wouldn’t let an atheist get away with that - and, of course, we get the same right back from them; so, why do you think it is acceptable that we let you get away with it? Seriously?

You say you’re a Christian, in fact, a Catholic, but you are the only non-atheist person that I know that is making such outlandish statements! I say that with full Christian humility. I reason that you are grossly mistaken. I would appreciate it if you would deist disparaging St.Thomas’ logic with naught more than unassailable naked assertions. If you have some assailable rationale to back up your assertions, please, by all means, let’s discuss them.

It truly is either one of you or all of us: can you understand that? (Unless someone out there wants to jump to your defense!)

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

Here is Pascal’s verdict on Descartes:

“useless and uncertain…. I cannot forgive Descartes. In all his philosophy he would have been quite willing to dispense with God. But he had to make Him give a fillip to set the world in motion; beyond this he has no further need of God.”

I think Descartes did start the agnostic/atheist ball rolling among scientists. Newton was not struck by the ball (he had too powerful a brain to be bowled over). But Darwin and his legions of evolutionary warriors were, and now atheism has spread like an unchecked virus throughout the modern scientific community. There are, of course, notable exceptions to this trend.

Every hypothesis today in science is given at least lip service by the scientific community as a whole; every hypothesis but one: that there might be a Creator God and Master Designer behind the universe. That is verboten, and even some Catholics seem happy to say they believe God designed and created the universe, but that God hides from us any rational scientific evidence whatever that the universe was designed or created.

 

[JDaniel]

I want there to be a God, but Thomism just mucks things up. There’s no way that his approach can come close to working; his tools are just too limited.

Look: they’ve worked quite well for the vast majority of us, in my opinion; although they are tough to understand if straw-manned - which they very often are. I just don’t have any idea from where you derive the bases for such statements.

Take one Thomistic concept at a time; try not to disparage it; attempt to prove it wrong, or even un-workable - with a good, cogent dialectic. Let’s start there. What do you think?

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JDaniel

It truly is either one of you or all of us: can you understand that? (Unless someone out there wants to jump to your defense!)

I won’t be jumping in that direction, since I have had the same problem with him as you will see in the following sentences by him.

But you are wrong. Science CAN logically account for how and why Big Bang happened. In fact, it can account for it in several different ways. And none of it argues for a prime mover.

That’s it. No evidence cited. Not yet, anyway. If you see my last post, last paragraph, you will see that I was anticipating your remark before I read yours. Glad to learn that on separate tracks we came to the same conclusion.

kbachler:

Do you just enjoy playing the devil’s advocate? That’s fine, but let’s not be knocking down our Catholic icons without a darn good rationale.

 

[Betterave]

…

Take one Thomistic concept at a time; try not to disparage it; attempt to prove it wrong, or even un-workable - with a good, cogent dialectic. Let’s start there. What do you think?

That’s a good idea! There’s little point in making sweeping dogmatic statements about the whole history of philosophy (a lot of that in this thread), while refusing to engage in any real discussion of (i.e., any real attempt to demonstrate an understanding of) any particular element in that history.