Thomistic proofs for the existence of God in the light of modern science

[Deum_quaerens]

Greetings,

Would you please be able to provide me with resources on the question of the Thomistic proofs for the existence of God (particularly the first three) in the light of modern science (especially quantum physics)?

God bless,

DQ

 

[JDaniel]

Greetings,

Would you please be able to provide me with resources on the question of the Thomistic proofs for the existence of God (particularly the first three) in the light of modern science (especially quantum physics)?

God bless,

DQ

Welcome, Deum:

Google “New Advent Summa”. Let me know if you have any trouble finding it.

God bless and Merry Christmas,
JD

 

[Ghosty]

Greetings,

Would you please be able to provide me with resources on the question of the Thomistic proofs for the existence of God (particularly the first three) in the light of modern science (especially quantum physics)?

God bless,

DQ

Modern science doesn’t touch on the Thomistic proofs since they are metaphysical proofs, so I’m not sure what you’re looking for. Any suggestions?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Deum_quaerens]

Thank you for your welcome and replies.

I presented the cosmological proof based on causality in motion to an agnostic, who answered that this is invalid, on the basis that such causality has been disproved in the realm of quantum physics (see the Wikipedia article on causality).

Does this fact have a bearing on the second or third proofs of St Thomas, which I do not quite understand?

According to Fr Copleston, the third proof is considered the fundamental one by neo-Thomists, but I do not quite understand what St Thomas meant by saying that we “find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be”, since he surely did not mean that there was constant ex nihilo creation of matter and, afterwards, annihiliation thereof; and as Lavoisier said: “Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed.” Could someone please explain that proof to me, or direct me to a good explanation thereof?

Thank you and God bless,

DQ

 

[JDaniel]

Welcome, Deum:

Google “New Advent Summa”. Let me know if you have any trouble finding it.

God bless and Merry Christmas,
JD

After thinking about your request a bit, there is one book I would recommend, although I think it is out of print and probably unavailable right now. You may find it in an established library, at a Catholic college, university, or, a Catholic bookstore.

The name of the book is: The General Science of Nature. It was written by Vincent Edward Smith. I have a copy, but, it is packed away and in storage due to my last move, 4 years ago.

If you live near a Catholic college or university, you might check with them for some newer material especially if it is run by Jesuits. Otherwise, you may find what you need here on CAF.

Merry Christmas and
God bless,
JD

 

[itinerant1]

Thank you for your welcome and replies.

I presented the cosmological proof based on causality in motion to an agnostic, who answered that this is invalid, on the basis that such causality has been disproved in the realm of quantum physics (see the Wikipedia article on causality).

Does this fact have a bearing on the second or third proofs of St Thomas, which I do not quite understand?

According to Fr Copleston, the third proof is considered the fundamental one by neo-Thomists, but I do not quite understand what St Thomas meant by saying that we “find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be”, since he surely did not mean that there was constant ex nihilo creation of matter and, afterwards, annihiliation thereof; and as Lavoisier said: “Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed.” Could someone please explain that proof to me, or direct me to a good explanation thereof?

Thank you and God bless,

DQ

The belief that causality has been disproved by quantum physics is a myth. Heisenberg, Bohr, and the Copenhagen school made a colossal error. From the fact we cannot measure exactly the interactions of quantum particles it was quickly assumed that matter has no determinate location. This effectively eliminated the notion of causality for the Copenhagen school. It was easy for Heisenberg to give up the notion of causality because he held to a faulty notion derived from Kantian philosophy.

Einstein strongly disagreed with the Heisenberg interpretation of quantum activity. Einstein was correct but he could not explain his objection well enough because he was not a philosopher. Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty prevailed but it is merely a faulty interpretation of quantum activity and reflects a pseudo-philosophy.

Einstein once remarked that men of science make bad philosophers. So true. Neils Bohr sported a pseudo-metaphysics.

The bottom line is quantum particles have specific locations and speeds even if we are unable to accurately measure both simultaneously.

Copleston and Aquinas, when referring to the fact that it is possible for things in nature “to be” and “not to be”, mean that created things do not have a necessary existence. Their existence is contingent, i.e. dependent on something else. Everything we experience comes into existence and loses existence. For example, a tree grows from a seed (generation) and eventually dies (corruption). The tree’s existence is dependent on a number of factors or causes such as soil, water, air, the sun, etc. We can proceed in a vertical chain of causes that account for the trees existence, but we cannot proceed to infinity. We must come to a first cause that itself is uncaused, and on which the whole chain of contingent causes hang.

There is no question here of creatio ex nihilo when Aquinas is speaking of generation and corruption. He is speaking of a series of causes in which things come into being and cease to exist in nature (eg. a tree). The problem with Heisenberg, Bohr, Stephen Hawking, and company is they do not take “To be or not be” seriously as did Hamlet.

Trendy physics theorizes that matter pops in and out of existence on its own.Hawking fantasizes about entire universes that are self-creating. It’s just their way of eliminating God. It’s their rank materilistic philosophies that have corrupted modern cosmology.

Have you read Father Copleston’s book “Aquinas”? It’s a very good introduction to the life and works of Aquinas. He does a good job of explaining the five ways of proving the existence of God.

 

[JDaniel]

I presented the cosmological proof based on causality in motion to an agnostic, who answered that this is invalid, on the basis that such causality has been disproved in the realm of quantum physics . . .

I think not. Quantum physics studies “motion” on a more specific level, seeking to understand the mechanisms it has derived from postulating and testing what happens, and how. St. Thomas (Aristotle and others) studied motion from a more general perspective.

Both “sciences” are valid ways to look at the subject, and, neither disputes the other, in my opinion. Quantum physics studies, for example, the “track” of an object in motion by understanding what happens at each point on that track, and what forces are present, as the object moves.

Thomist’s study our example object without using a microscopic lens, but rather, using a lens that sees the whole motion on a general level. So, by this method, motion is broken down into two essential parts: potency and act. At the beginning of any motion, an object is in potency to be at its final destination, or act. Also, at any place along the motion-track, the object is still in “potential” to be at its destination, or “act”. This proof postulates a “law” that says that nothing “moves” except by being “moved” by something that already exists.

Neither physics nor a general science refutes the other, nor is either intended to be a refutation of the other. The relationship is kind of like the relationship between astronomy and particle physics.

There is a concept that a particle “exists” that comes into existence and goes out of existence, in fractions of a second. These particles are said to hold electrons in their respective shells. However, their existences have not been proven and a number of scientists aren’t completely behind the postulate. They are posited, similarly to how electrons are posited, because certain “seen” behaviors seem to require them. However, even if they were to be found to exist, they may simply be unmaterialized “forces” that behave as though they were material. Besides, these particles may be “borrowed” energy/matter so they would not violate any Law of Thermodynamics.

Does this fact have a bearing on the second or third proofs of St Thomas, which I do not quite understand?

St. Thomas’s second proof is proof from efficient causality. It postulates a “law” that nothing can be the (efficient) cause of itself, otherwise, it would be prior to itself. So, I do not believe there is any conflict here either.

According to Fr Copleston, the third proof is considered the fundamental one by neo-Thomists, but I do not quite understand what St Thomas meant by saying that we “find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be”, since he surely did not mean that there was constant ex nihilo creation of matter and, afterwards, annihiliation thereof; and as Lavoisier said: “Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed.” Could someone please explain that proof to me, or direct me to a good explanation thereof?

The third proof is the proof from necessity. It says that there are things in nature that come into existence and go out of existence, however, not in an ex nihilo sense. It postulates a “law” that says that if everything can not exist then nothing would be existing now, because things that do not exist only come into existence by things that already exist. Thus, if all things are simply possible, there must be some existing thing that is not just possible, it must also be necessary (necessarily existing).

For example, everything that we see has been brought into existence by something already in existence. A child is brought into existence by his/her parents. A house is brought into existence by the builders. It is possible for both of these to not exist, and, in fact, they did not prior to conception or construction. But, the same is true of everything. (This may be called “contingent” existence.) However, this being obviously true, there would have been a point, moment, or time when nothing existed, in which case we would not be here now. So, there must be some necessary being that is not merely possible being, but is necessary being or else all else would not exist, and this being is God.

Merry Christmas and God bless,
JD

 

[Diddi]

This is an excellent thread. I love the question and the replies. Would any of you who provided such clear answers please comment on this article that appeared in This Rock Magazine a couple of years ago. It has to do with what Aquinas meant by the word “proof”.

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0601uan.asp

Thanks and Merry Christmas

 

[Diddi]

By the way, here’s the follow up to the article that I just posted.

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605uan.asp

Thanks again, and God bless.

 

[JDaniel]

This is an excellent thread. I love the question and the replies. Would any of you who provided such clear answers please comment on this article that appeared in This Rock Magazine a couple of years ago. It has to do with what Aquinas meant by the word “proof”.

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0601uan.asp

Thanks and Merry Christmas

Diddi, welcome to CAF:

True, the Proofs of St. Thomas were not “proofs” in the way we would generally regard the meaning of that word, especially these days. In a court of law, where a defendant was on trial for commiting murder, for example, “real” proof, in the sense we mean it today, could only come from the eyewitness corroboration of everyone in the room as well as multiple cameras, and hundreds in instant replays!

In mathematics and geometry, proof = truth from definition. IOW, a triangle is a three-sided geometric figure and 2 + 2 + 2 = 6. Everyone in the courtroom can, and has, seen that these are provable (probably without the need for the instant replay.)

Nevertheless, we’ve had four more centuries to diminish the veracity of the five ways and haven’t (despite a myriad of artistic spins and modern science). As the article’s indicate, they are “proofs” only insofar as their presuppositions can and have been witnessed by people, and honest concensus was (and continues to be) achieved.

In that sense, they carry the same weight as: “tomorrow morning, the sun will come up.” We can introduce physics, and measure what’s taking place, we can introduce conjecture and consider what it would be like if the phenomenon didn’t occur, we can measure the speed of what happens, and, we can burrow down to the level of obtaining the mechanisms involved in maintaining the rotation of this planet. But, after evaluation, honest people will agree with the proposition. Thus, the proposition was nothing more than an a posteriori apprehension and verification of what we already knew would happen.

So, while it is remotely possible that all that we encounter is illusion, we have faith that it is not.

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
JD

 

[grannymh]

This is an excellent thread. I love the question and the replies. Would any of you who provided such clear answers please comment on this article that appeared in This Rock Magazine a couple of years ago. It has to do with what Aquinas meant by the word “proof”.

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0601uan.asp

Thanks and Merry Christmas

If you google Mary Helen Klinge-Drucker you will find my Letter to the Editor with the title “Angels and Pinheads” regarding this article. You have to scroll down forever. Please note: It was the editor and not me who wrote that title.

 

[hecd2]

I think not. Quantum physics studies “motion” on a more specific level, seeking to understand the mechanisms it has derived from postulating and testing what happens, and how. St. Thomas (Aristotle and others) studied motion from a more general perspective.

Both “sciences” are valid ways to look at the subject, and, neither disputes the other, in my opinion. Quantum physics studies, for example, the “track” of an object in motion by understanding what happens at each point on that track, and what forces are present, as the object moves.

It does no such thing - indeed, one of the key findings of quantum physics is that you cannot test the location or momentum of a particle without fundamentally affecting it. In, say, a Young’s double slit experiment, there is no way of telling whether an individual photon detected at the image plane passed through one or other or both slits (and if we detect photons in the plane of the slits, we can determine which slit they passed through, but we have no way of determining where they would have ended up in the image plane).

The whole point about quantum mechanics is that it radically undermines deterministic causality. Even if we know everything there is to know about the microstate, we still cannot predict the trajectory of a particle, or a tunnelling event such as radioactive decay. Normal macro-causality is fundamentally refuted by quantum phenomena. It is in this way that quantum mechanics undermines Thomist proofs for God’s existence.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It does no such thing - indeed, one of the key findings of quantum physics is that you cannot test the location or momentum of a particle without fundamentally affecting it. In, say, a Young’s double slit experiment, there is no way of telling whether an individual photon detected at the image plane passed through one or other or both slits (and if we detect photons in the plane of the slits, we can determine which slit they passed through, but we have no way of determining where they would have ended up in the image plane).

The whole point about quantum mechanics is that it radically undermines deterministic causality. Even if we know everything there is to know about the microstate, we still cannot predict the trajectory of a particle, or a tunnelling event such as radioactive decay.

one may not measure both momentum and position, accurately. a gain in one is the loss in the the other, speaking in terms of information. that doesn’t tell you what the basic state of a system is, actually only what you might see if you measured. that doesnt kill actual determinism it alters the amount of certainty you can have about an observed particle… i think:hypno:

Normal macro-causality is fundamentally refuted by quantum phenomena.

this is the real problem, no matter how one may look at quantum uncertainty at the particle level, macro-causality is not refuted by that quantum uncertainty.

the average of all particle interactions that create what we may call a chair, from moment to moment still create that chair. there is no moment that the chair ceases to be anything but that chair, on the macroscale because of those particle interactions.

it does not matter that i cannot measure simultaneously the the position and momentum of any particular particle, because as an average that collection of particles will be my chair until some other force acts on it sufficiently to make it not my chair anymore.

if quantum uncertainty did undermine macro causality then chemical processes, electronics, and biology wouldnt work correctly.

 

[grannymh]

this is the real problem, no matter how one may look at quantum uncertainty at the particle level, macro-causality is not refuted by that quantum uncertainty. .

Dear warpspeedpetey,

Does what you and the other posters say about quantum such and such and so on…
have any relation to basic metaphysics?

Blessings for 2009
grannymh

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Dear warpspeedpetey,

Does what you and the other posters say about quantum such and such and so on…
have any relation to basic metaphysics?

Blessings for 2009
grannymh

yes, they are ontologically related. that dont mean much though, there are 5 or 6 interpretations of quantum mechanics, and metaphysics has as many, so don’t buy certainty in the nature of their relationship, it just doesnt exist, at least not as far as i can see. we build one block at a time and it is a slow process, and im sure you can find an argument somewhere that denies they have any relationship at all.

but if the question is do they destroy thomistic proofs? no, but it will be fun to argue

 

[Diddi]

If you google Mary Helen Klinge-Drucker you will find my Letter to the Editor with the title “Angels and Pinheads” regarding this article. You have to scroll down forever. Please note: It was the editor and not me who wrote that title.

Hi grannymh,

Here’s a quote from ‘Angels and Pinheads’ that you wrote to This Rock Magazine. catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0603ltrs.asp

This is actually from the above link to This Rock Magazine. “Apparently, “proving God” is still important. That being the case, I hope readers realize that whether there are five or 500 ways, there will never be the all-perfect rational proof. What is essential is that the soul is touched with the power to say yes. It’s not always our elegant brains that convert. Sometimes belief in God comes from a loving smile or a kind touch of the hand. Or in my case, knowing that someone loved God so much that he expended huge effort writing about his existence. My soul knew that this author knew God. And I figured that someday I could really get to know God personally and lots more about his Son and his Church, because I, too, knew God existed.”

You rock, Granny! I entered college as a protestant Christian, chose a biology major, really got into evolutionary theory and watched most of my Christian classmates act every way but Christian. Then one day I sat down with a borrowed novel, a page turner action filled book (I will not reveal the title of), and when I put it down realized I was agnostic. The book subtly asked all the right questions and made the right points to do that to me. By the time I finished my masters degree, I was atheist. A few years later, I couldn’t stand how empty my life was as an atheist, got down on my knees, told God I thought I was praying to the air but gave myself to Christ anyway. I guess that was good enough for God because the “proofs” came fast. You are right, there are no perfect logical proofs. God personalizes his proofs and he does have a sense of humor.

Well, I’m afraid I will not be posting for awhile because I’m behind on my work, but I had to thank you for your reply.

Thanks, Merry Christmas and God Bless.

 

[hecd2]

Does what you and the other posters say about quantum such and such and so on…
have any relation to basic metaphysics?

Because of the fundamental radical counter-intuitiveness of quantum mechanics, it does have relevance to metaphysics. In particular it bears on Aquinas’s proofs and, in particular, the a posteriori premises of the First Way (First Mover), the Second Way (First Cause) and the Third Way (Necessary Being).

Anyone who thinks that the counter-intuitive findings of quantum mechanics can be summed up by referring to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as merely a measurement limitation really has no idea about QM.

It’s beyond this post to describe some of the experiments that confirm QM’s prediction of the violation of Bell’s inequality, experiments that fundamentally undermine locality and what we think of as normal causality. Let’s look instead at an experiment that’s easy to do - a photon counting two arm interferometer like a Twyman-Green set up for a null fringe. We can count photons in either arm of the interferometer, but after the final recombining beamsplitter, we find no photons in our image plane. If we change the path length of one arm by half a wavelength, then all the photons are found after the final recombining beamsplitter in the image plane. So the photons that we measure traversing path 1 “know” that they should appear at the output, even though we have done nothing to path 1 and adjusted only path 2. Things that we do in path 2, fundamentally affect path 1, instantaneously, and vice versa, even though there is no classical causal connection between them.

If we consider quantum tunnelling, where a particle can tunnel through a potential barrier that is completely impassable classically, not only does the fact that the tunnelling occurs at all violate normal causality, but the fact that the event is fundamentally random - it is not caused, and it is not contingent.

It is wrong to claim that these effects are irrelevant in the macro-world. As I have pointed out, quantum information theory (very different from classical information theory) is relevant today, in quantum encryption and quantum communication. Quantum computing will be developed in the next decade or two. Larger and larger objects are undergoing quantum entanglement, and of course not just the transistor but ultimately all chemistry depends on quantum effects.

From a metaphysical point of view, it’s not good enough to say that the a posteriori premises of the Thomistic proofs are valid macroscopically: The fact is that causality and mover arguments break down in the quantum world, which Aquinas couldn’t see, but which we can clearly see. Not all events are directly caused, and this non-causality and non-locality is increasingly observed in the macro-world, breaking through the macro-filter of statistical mechanics.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[MindOverMatter]

So the photons that we measure traversing path 1 “know” that they should appear at the output, even though we have done nothing to path 1 and adjusted only path 2. Things that we do in path 2, fundamentally affect path 1, instantaneously, and vice versa, even though there is no classical causal connection between them.

But there is a causal connection, in so far as these events are happening at some point in existence even though we cannot predict that point, am i correct? Also, it is also true that quantum events occur in a vacumm of energy; yes?

If we consider quantum tunnelling, where a particle can tunnel through a potential barrier that is completely impassable classically, not only does the fact that the tunnelling occurs at all violate normal causality, but the fact that the event is fundamentally random - it is not caused, and it is not contingent.

How does fundementally random lead to “not caused”? In other words, how do you know its not caused? And in what sense do you say its not caused?

From a metaphysical point of view, it’s not good enough to say that the a posteriori premises of the Thomistic proofs are valid macroscopically: The fact is that causality and mover arguments break down in the quantum world, which Aquinas couldn’t see, but which we can clearly see. Not all events are directly caused, and this non-causality and non-locality is increasingly observed in the macro-world, breaking through the macro-filter of statistical mechanics.

Indirect or direct; If something is caused, it is because something has cuased it. If something exist, it is because something is making it exist. If something is in motion, random ot not, somthing has put it in motion. I don’t see how quantum physics is breaking that down?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Because of the fundamental radical counter-intuitiveness of quantum mechanics, it does have relevance to metaphysics. In particular it bears on Aquinas’s proofs and, in particular, the a posteriori premises of the First Way (First Mover), the Second Way (First Cause) and the Third Way (Necessary Being).

Anyone who thinks that the counter-intuitive findings of quantum mechanics can be summed up by referring to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as merely a measurement limitation really has no idea about QM.

nobody said that is a measurement limitation, and frankly nobody, even the experts, really understand anything about QM, i would be shocked if you did.

It’s beyond this post to describe some of the experiments that confirm QM’s prediction of the violation of Bell’s inequality, experiments that fundamentally undermine locality and what we think of as normal causality.

it doesn’t undermine causality, look at the most basic entagled pairs, a change in the state of one particle, changes the state of the other particle. we know the change will occur, we simply dont know the mechanism yet. thats why its spooky action at a distance…its spooky. there is a cause and an effect.

Let’s look instead at an experiment that’s easy to do - a photon counting two arm interferometer like a Twyman-Green set up for a null fringe. We can count photons in either arm of the interferometer, but after the final recombining beamsplitter, we find no photons in our image plane. If we change the path length of one arm by half a wavelength, then all the photons are found after the final recombining beamsplitter in the image plane. So the photons that we measure traversing path 1 “know” that they should appear at the output, even though we have done nothing to path 1 and adjusted only path 2. Things that we do in path 2, fundamentally affect path 1, instantaneously, and vice versa, even though there is no classical causal connection between them.

not knowing the mechanism is not the same as there being no mechanism for that interaction, but since that experiment can be repeated obtaining the same results, we again know there is a cause and an effect, even if it looks funny.

If we consider quantum tunnelling, where a particle can tunnel through a potential barrier that is completely impassable classically, not only does the fact that the tunnelling occurs at all violate normal causality, but the fact that the event is fundamentally random - it is not caused, and it is not contingent.

no it isn’t random, its statistical in nature, a certain number of particles are going to get over the energy hill out of any collection of particles, given the right circumstances, we dont understand the exact process, and it is deterministic in nature or one could never use a scanning tunneling microscope.

It is wrong to claim that these effects are irrelevant in the macro-world. As I have pointed out, quantum information theory (very different from classical information theory) is relevant today, in quantum encryption and quantum communication. Quantum computing will be developed in the next decade or two. Larger and larger objects are undergoing quantum entanglement, and of course not just the transistor but ultimately all chemistry depends on quantum effects.

the first part of your statement here

• “It is wrong to claim that these effects are irrelevant in the macro-world.”*

and the last part of your statement

" Larger and larger objects are undergoing quantum entanglement, and of course not just the transistor but ultimately all chemistry depends on quantum effects."

seem to contradict each other, if those effects were random and non determinant than chemistry and electronics would not offer repeatable results, but as they do the average of all those particle interactions always create the same products, from the same amount and quality of reactants, chemically speaking, which means they are deterministic in nature. we just dont know the mechanism involved.

and as to the larger objects, what are they up to now 8 calcium atoms or 6 beryllium? holla back when they can entangle a peach

From a metaphysical point of view, it’s not good enough to say that the a posteriori premises of the Thomistic proofs are valid macroscopically: The fact is that causality and mover arguments break down in the quantum world,

except those arguments concern the whole of reality, they are about the macroscopic, which is just the average of all particle interactions. they dont describe the activity of individual particles

which Aquinas couldn’t see, but which we can clearly see. Not all events are directly caused, and this non-causality and non-locality is increasingly observed in the macro-world, breaking through the macro-filter of statistical mechanics.

exactly how is this observed in the macro scale? i assume the classical ‘macro’ laws are still functioning, so i would be interested in an example ‘‘breaks through the macro-filter of statistical mechanics.’’

 

[masterjedi747]

Some of the comments made this thread are already giving me a headache, but I really don’t have the time to respond to each and every thing that’s bothering me point by point. So I’ll condense what I want to say into a list, and leave it at that for now.

1. “Modern science doesn’t touch on the Thomistic proofs, since they are metaphysical proofs.” = There are difficulties, but that’s ultimately correct.
2. “The belief that causality has been disproved by quantum physics is a myth.” = Correct. Something can never come from nothing. Such an idea is completely absurd. Everything that happens must have a cause, even if we don’t know what that cause is.
3. “Heisenberg, Bohr, and the Copenhagen school made a colossal error … quantum particles have specific locations and speeds even if we are unable to accurately measure both simultaneously.” = Incorrect. Quantum “particles” (and I mean “particles”) do not follow the laws of deterministic Newtonian physics. And it’s a good thing that they don’t, too – a “clockwork” universe might sound appealing to the imagination, but it ultimately destroys natural philosophy. It’s a very good thing that Newton’s deterministic universe was shattered at a fundamental level – the result is, philosophically speaking, a much more beautiful and dynamic view of the universe.
4. If you have a question regarding one of St. Thomas’ proofs, please find a copy of it from an English translation of the Summa (Question 2, Article 3), read it, post it (they’re all pretty short), and then ask your question. It disturbs me to see people just spouting off statements about Thomas’ proofs when they often clearly don’t understand exactly what Thomas was saying. It would be much better if we had a common text to work from, especially when it’s obvious that not everyone has actually read St. Thomas’ own words.

EDIT: Here you go: newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

1. “The fact is that causality and mover arguments break down in the quantum world, which Aquinas couldn’t see, but which we can clearly see.” = (1) No, they really don’t – and they can’t… but (2) the “quantum world” is nowhere near as “clearly seen” as you seem to indicate.
2. “since that experiment can be repeated obtaining the same results, we again know there is a cause and an effect, even if it looks funny.” = Correct. Although it’s enough simply say that there will always be a cause for any effect. Something cannot come from nothing, ever.
3. “no it isn’t random, its statistical in nature …and it is deterministic in nature” = Confused. It is both random (that is, unpredictable, not uncaused) and probabilistic (statistical, because unpredictable) in nature. It is not deterministic in nature. (see also #3 above)
4. “not knowing the mechanism is not the same as there being no mechanism for that interaction … we simply don’t know the mechanism yet” = The first sentence is true. The second half is confusing. There doesn’t always have to be a “mechanism” (unless by “mechanism” you mean to say “cause”) – a simple particle might simply act according to the nature that God gave it, without any internal so-called “mechanistic” process driving it.

Alright, that’s enough for now, I’m going to bed. Merry Christmas to all!