On to the argument itself: the real point of contention is whether the laws of causality apply to supernatural entities. Although the laws are within the realm of the natural, we have never observed the supernatural, thus it is a possibility those laws exist there as well.
it seems that you are implying that there is some non-physical universe. some shadowing system of ghosts, goblins and such.
but there is no evidence of such a system or realm at all, and no one is claiming that to exist.
we can only observe 1 thing, physical matter. we can as a matter of Thomistic proofs, show that such matter is incapable of self creation.
from that we can only conclude that the first cause must necessarily be non-physical.
but that is it, nothing more follows without beginning to assume things like a ‘supernatural shadowing universe’ for causality to operate in.
as there is no evidence of any kind for such a realm it is an inappropriate addition to the conversation.
we only have observation of physical matter, and a logical existence of a first cause, nothing more.
You would postulate that the laws of causality as we know them do not exist in the supernatural, while Leela would say they do. Both claims are not really based on evidence.
there is actually no proof of this ‘supernatural realm’ at all
Although you might say it is a necessity for them to not apply to the supernatural realm in order for there to be a first cause, as Aquinas does as well, essentially that argument boils down to,
actually Aquuinas makes no claim of a ‘supernatural realm’ at all
“There must be something that the laws of causality do not apply to, and we call it God.” (If this is a strawman, please point out what is wrong with the statement or rectify it and make your preferred statement for review).
Aquinas’ eliminates all physical causes, leaving a non-physical first cause. not a supernatural(as in ghosts and goblins) cause.
misleading ideas like this indicate a lack of understanding of what the arguments actually mean and what they dont.
This argument, however, is basically an admission that we truly do not know what caused all that there is, and simply a theory to suggest what it might be.
it is actually an exclusion of all possible physical causes, at its core that is all it is.
Since this theory is not a scientific theory (not backed up by evidence- it would be known as a “hypothesis” in the scientific community) it remains just that, a hypothesis. An “educated guess.” Until we test it, we can’t make statements about its validity.
sure we can, we just have to find one physical object that can create itself, in all of human history, in every instance of scientific endeavor, in all the known universe, no such object has ever been known to exist.
since such an object is not possible, as nothing can cause itself. we can verify that the idea is valid, by excluding every other possibility.
Essentially, what I am saying is that all Aquinas proves is that there must be something in the beginning that the laws of causality do not apply to, which I think the majority of the scientific community would agree with. However, as of yet, we have no idea what that might be.
we know it must be something non-physical, we cant call it G-d as a matter of observation. but it fits our millennium old description of some of His attributes
