Thomistic Argument

[belorg]

How does God being in motion mean that He was in turn moved by another?

All that it points to so far is that God is in motion but it does not mean that His motion was caused by another.

Yes, but a “God who is in motion” is definitely NOT the God of Aquinas, nor is it Aristotle’s God.

As the Thomist point tries to explain you cannot go into infinite regress.

The Thomist point does not explain that. The Thomist point asserts this.

I don’t think there is any conclusive argument against an infinite regress and even if there is one, I don’t think the impossibility of an infinite regress is in any way cumbersome for the atheist.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think there is any conclusive argument against an infinite regress and even if there is one, I don’t think the impossibility of an infinite regress is in any way cumbersome for the atheist.

1. Are there any arguments in favour of an infinite regress?
2. Wouldn’t a First Cause be cumbersome for the atheist?

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, but a “God who is in motion” is definitely NOT the God of Aquinas, nor is it Aristotle’s God.

Depends what you mean by in motion,. If you think in terms of spatial and temporal then obviously that is not Thomas’s God.

The Thomist point does not explain that. The Thomist point asserts this.

I don’t think there is any conclusive argument against an infinite regress and even if there is one, I don’t think the impossibility of an infinite regress is in any way cumbersome for the atheist.

Perhaps then you can give an explanation of the rationality of infinite regress.

And we are not talking about the cumbersomeness or not of infinitie regress. Is it a sensible and logical proposition?

 

[belorg]

1. Are there any arguments in favour of an infinite regress?

I don’t know.

1. Wouldn’t a First Cause be cumbersome for the atheist?

Not in the least.

 

[belorg]

Depends what you mean by in motion,. If you think in terms of spatial and temporal then obviously that is not Thomas’s God.

No it doesn’t depend on what I mean by motion. The God of A and A is un unmoverd mover, motionless in any sense of the word.

Perhaps then you can give an explanation of the rationality of infinite regress.

And we are not talking about the cumbersomeness or not of infinitie regress. Is it a sensible and logical proposition?

I don’t see any reason to think of an infinite regress as any more counterintuitive than e.g. a beginningless first cause.
And the reason I was talking about the non-existence of an infinite regress not being cumbersome for the atheists is because it is often stated by theists that it’s either God or an infinite regress. That’s simply false.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Jaaanosik:

Really? How?

God bless,
jd

If we are Catholics then we proclaim:
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: any logic/philosophy that does not allow for the Most Holy Trinity is wrong!

… so you either deal with it or you are going against the Trinity.

 

[Jaaanosik]

^
Jesus came to this world.
He changed and moved in our space and time.

 

[JDaniel]

If we are Catholics then we proclaim:
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: any logic/philosophy that does not allow for the Most Holy Trinity is wrong!

… so you either deal with it or you are going against the Trinity.

Once again: how does that show that God “changes?” Remember, the Son and Holy Ghost have always been with the Father. They were not after thoughts.

God bless,
jd

 

[Jaaanosik]

Once again: how does that show that God “changes?” Remember, the Son and Holy Ghost have always been with the Father. They were not after thoughts.

God bless,
jd

Yes, but Jesus changed and took the form of His body in our space and time.

 

[JDaniel]

^
Jesus came to this world.
He changed and moved in our space and time.

Jesus came into the world as a fully human being that just so happened to be God. The absolute contra-distinction in Him has been more and more stressed by the Church, these days. That He can incarnate a procession from Himself does not mean that He changes. Also remember that He told us that He didn’t change. A question: can you even imagine how an “infinite” being would “change?” He is One, Simple being that does not consist of parts, as we do. He is “outside” of Time and Change takes, or consumes, Time. He engulfs Time as He engulfs Space: wouldn’t He have to have someplace to change to or move to, e.g., a new place, if He were to change?

The procession from Himself we know as Christ is called a “hypostatic union,” and is described in the following link:
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Hypostatic_Union

It is true that He did come into the world, which is understood by recognizing that Creation is not an instantaneous occurrence for us. For us, it is a roll-out, an un-folding. For God, though, it is instantaneous, because He exists in an infinite Now. We exist in a plethora of Nows.

God bless,
jd

 

[empther]

I am amazed at the ignorance displayed on this thread, even by Catholics!

Somebody whose profile says Catholic wrote this:

Yes, but Jesus changed and took the form of His body in our space and time.

The Son of God did not change when he took upon himself a human body and soul named Jesus.

Jesus was a devine person, not a human person. True, he really does have a human nature with a body and soul, but his soul’s will was totally in agreement with the Son of God.
Was this a denial of Jesus’s free will? No, because he was a divine person.

Top better understand this, consider the following.
Suppose Jesus in his human body and soul had human personhood. Then, either one being would have two personhoods ( impossible! absurd! :whackadoo, which would make him some kind of monster, or, Jesus would have just been another human being with no more ability to save us than the kid flipping burgers at MacDonald’s.

Since Jesus was a diviine person, there was no change in the Son of God who was infinite and could not be changed by a finite being…

The only thing that “changed” was the coming into existence of the human body and soul of Jesus which were created some 2,000 years ago, but his divine personhood was eternal.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Yes, but Jesus changed and took the form of His body in our space and time.

Jesus was willed into being from an eternal standpoint as the absolute primacy of being. You should read the Franciscan thesis by Bl. Scotus.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

That’s all true on Thomas of Aquino’s ideas of reality, which the majority of contemporary philosphers reject, BTW.
There is no reason, other than Aquinas’ vivid phantasy, to think that the first mover must be the maximum of being. The first mover just has to be able to move itself, nothing more, nothing less.
And, FYI I do not believe there is any real difference between essence and existence, but that’s not so imporatant for the current discussion.

So how do you account for degrees of being if not sourced from the uncaused being?

 

[empther]

So how do you account for degrees of being if not sourced from the uncaused being?

I have written on this point elsewhere many times.

It’s impossible that only finite things exist. Everything would have limits, but something has to determine those limits. There must be an infinite being that measures out other things’ beings.

 

[Perplexity]

How does God being in motion mean that He was in turn moved by another?

All that it points to so far is that God is in motion but it does not mean that His motion was caused by another.

As the Thomist point tries to explain you cannot go into infinite regress.

That was the point of my argument: if something moves, then it is moved. But, I’ve retracted this argument due to issues with the definitions involved.

 

[JDaniel]

I am amazed at the ignorance displayed on this thread, even by Catholics!

Empther:

Don’t forget, many cradle-Catholics have had less “training” in Catholicism than any and all Tiber swimmers have had, or are in the process of getting. I know cradle-Catholics that I’m sad to say know very little of their religion.

What we must do is aid them in their training. They are very vulnerable at this time in their lives. Stupid arguments can sway them in the wrong direction. On the other hand, sometimes it is stupid arguments that triggers the response to “look it up!” So, on behalf of whoever that was that stated whatever was stated, guess what!? S/he’s here now! It’s up to us.

Hopefully, s/he will find the time to continue his/her search. We must pray that God’s Providence will provide for that.

God bless, Empther
jd

 

[tonyrey]

1. Are there any arguments in favour of an infinite regress?

Not in the least. Do you agree that it would be quite different from all other causes and pose problems for both scientists and philosophers because of its unique status?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

I have written on this point elsewhere many times.

It’s impossible that only finite things exist. Everything would have limits, but something has to determine those limits. There must be an infinite being that measures out other things’ beings.

Henological argument (4th way). Love the typical ignorant response to it, “non-sequitur”

 

[dandingo]

Has something ever come from nothing in the history of the universe? If so, please provide empirical evidence.

 

[empther]

Empther:

Don’t forget, many cradle-Catholics have had less “training” in Catholicism than any and all Tiber swimmers have had, or are in the process of getting. I know cradle-Catholics that I’m sad to say know very little of their religion.

Perhaps I overreacted a little,
and I’m sorry,
but that comment, besides being completely wrong, fell right into line with the arguments put forward by the atheists on this thread, that is, there is no unchanging God. I couldn’t let it stand.