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

[warpspeedpetey]

1. “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.

ive tried to formulate a proof of the supernatural based on lucretian ‘swerve’ for this reason, free will is a non physical effect that cannot be contributed to physical phenomenon…you see where i am going with that, im sure.

i think the biggest problem i have with this is the obvious determinism on the macro-scale.

it would seem to me that macro determinism, reflects quantum determinism. in that the average of all the particle interactions involved in any event is always deterministic on that macro scale.

if it weren’t we should see very strange effects happening with no observable cause, yet we don’t. if there is no determinism on the quantum level that shouldn’t be the case.

lastly i would think it very strange if the ‘average of particle interactions’ was a determining factor in determinism where would the thresh hold be? what mechanism is responsible for an event to behave in a nondeterministic manner?, and why isnt it ever tripped in our observation?

aaaaaaaaaarrrrggghhhh! i need more data!

1. 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

good idea, but im not sure i really understand thomistic proofs implications, yes i see the logic, but there seems to be something deeper there.

1. “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)

same complaint here as in #3, but then again to me probability simply means a lack of complete information concerning an event. i dont think that probability excludes determinism. but i dont know everything:shrug:

1. “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.

ok, cause is as good as a word as mechanism, or maybe a ‘reason’

good progress though. merry Christmas. bed for me too before santa catches me up, with half his cookies stuck in my mouth

 

[masterjedi747]

i think the biggest problem i have with this is the obvious determinism on the macro-scale.

I think I’d argue that it’s not obvious – and that there is only apparent determinism on the macro-scale.

it would seem to me that macro determinism, reflects quantum determinism.

Reverse! Quantum indeterminacy is reflected in “macro” indeterminacy.

But at any rate, we seem to agree that the so-called micro and macro “worlds” are not able to be in conflict. Whatever one of them is, the other will necessarily have to be the same (either by logical consequence, or as a necessary assumption).

in that the average of all the particle interactions involved in any event is always deterministic on that macro scale.

That’s the thing – because we’re dealing with an average, it’s only going to be roughly “deterministic”.

This is probably a terrible example, but it might help: take a million quarters, and flip them all at the same time. Assuming the probability for both sides is equal (no uneven weight distribution, etc.) of course the average is always going to turn out 50/50. But that doesn’t mean you’re always going to get half a million heads and half a million tails each time – it might be more or less. But you can’t know ahead of time what exactly the final outcome for any particular event will be (not to mention the particular outcome of any one individual quarter) – all you know is that it’s going to average out on the whole.

…to me probability simply means a lack of complete information concerning an event. i dont think that probability excludes determinism.

Then you’re really only talking about apparent probability – it’s just an illusion due to our perspective, and not a reflection of any deeper reality behind nature.

If you’ll allow me a slight digression, I think this is probably a good a point out how the whole indeterminate/probabilistic understanding of nature is actually in very strong harmony with the traditional Aristotelian/Thomistic view of nature – whereas Newtonian determinacy is starkly opposed to it. For example, with the (slightly flawed) example I already used above, Aristotle and Thomas would have no problem at all saying that it is simply in the nature of the quarter to tend towards a 50/50 average, even though we cannot actually predict any one specific outcome ahead of time (because it’s a future contingency). In a deterministic Newtonian universe, however, so-called “indeterminacy” and “probability” are ultimately nothing more than illusions – absolutely every particle always has a known/determinate position and velocity, such that if you actually knew enough about the universe, you could always calculate what the future would be at any given point in time. And maybe that initially sounds appealing (it sure sounds like what you were saying too), but you have to realize that it ultimately destroys natural philosophy by reducing the universe into a giant mathematical pool table, and throws all sorts of nasty wrenches into the ideas of human free will and Divine Providence in the universe. With the Aristotelian/Thomistic view, however, we get a truly dynamic universe in which the future is not yet determined, and where human free will and Divine Providence don’t have the slightest problem fitting in. And, thankfully, that’s the sort of universe that modern physics seems to indicate that we live in – the impending threat of determinism was simply an illusion, and we can gladly return to the respected traditions of the greatest philosophers. Makes me happy, at any rate.

good idea, but im not sure i really understand thomistic proofs implications, yes i see the logic, but there seems to be something deeper there.

Would you perhaps like to examine one of them in particular? I am more comfortable with 1, 2, and 5, but I did write a paper on 3, and I could probably manage 4 if I really had to…

 

[masterjedi747]

if it weren’t we should see very strange effects happening with no observable cause, yet we don’t. if there is no determinism on the quantum level that shouldn’t be the case.

I think things like that do happen sometimes – but it’s difficult, because they’re often either somewhat rare or simply not surprising. Why did that particular person win the lottery? Why did that freak accident happen, and why were those people there to be caught in it at exactly the wrong time? Why was that particular person born with that incredibly rare disease?

The same sort of questions continue down just the same through the rest of the physical world: Why did that sperm happen to successfully fertilize that egg, and not another? Why did that photon happen to pass through the mirror this time, and not any of the others?

And none of this is to say that any of these things could happen without a cause – they don’t, and they can’t, because that’s absurd. But the fact of the matter is this: if this is truly the sort of universe that we live in – a universe that is not fundamentally governed by deterministic material causes (as traditional philosophies once held and modern physics now seems forced to uphold) – then there’s a huge philosophical gap being left unaccounted for.

And so now you have three options: (1) you can try to push your way back to the mostly-reasonable-but-still-fundamentally-flawed position of the Newtonian atheists, by maintaining that modern physics is wrong, and that everything really does reduce to an eternal universe governed by materially deterministic laws; (2) you can take up the position of the modern atheist, desperately maintaining the impossible position that “something can come from nothing, because look, there it is happening in quantum mechanics”; or (3) you can fall back upon the philosophical tradition of Thomas Aquinas, in which the material universe alone cannot be all that exists, and in which God’s Divine Providence is ultimately in control of constantly maintaining and directing everything in creation (quantum particles most certainly included), even if we don’t fully understand why everything happens the way that it does.

 

[grannymh]

But the fact of the matter is this: if this is truly the sort of universe that we live in – a universe that is not fundamentally governed by deterministic material causes (as traditional philosophies once held and modern physics now seems forced to uphold) – then there’s a huge philosophical gap being left unaccounted for.

And so now you have three options: (1) you can try to push your way back to the mostly-reasonable-but-still-fundamentally-flawed position of the Newtonian atheists, by maintaining that modern physics is wrong, and that everything really does reduce to an eternal universe governed by materially deterministic laws; (2) you can take up the position of the modern atheist, desperately maintaining the impossible position that “something can come from nothing, because look, there it is happening in quantum mechanics”; or (3) you can fall back upon the philosophical tradition of Thomas Aquinas, in which the material universe alone cannot be all that exists, and in which God’s Divine Providence is ultimately in control of constantly maintaining and directing everything in creation (quantum particles most certainly included), even if we don’t fully understand why everything happens the way that it does.

Re: post 23

Dear masterjedi747,

Could the idea of “a huge philosophical gap being left unaccounted for” be what I am observing when I say that the relationship between faith and science is broken? However, I’m not sure if faith is quite the right word to express spiritual, i.e., the non-physical part of human beings.

To me, the relationship between faith/spiritual/transcendent and the physical/material universe is obvious because being human includes both. Thomistic philosophy should be compatible with
quantum particles. This does not mean that they operate in the same manner. Rather it is a both/and relationship which makes for harmony.

Blessings for 2009
grannymh

 

[JDaniel]

Re: post 23

Dear masterjedi747,

Could the idea of “a huge philosophical gap being left unaccounted for” be what I am observing when I say that the relationship between faith and science is broken? However, I’m not sure if faith is quite the right word to express spiritual, i.e., the non-physical part of human beings.

To me, the relationship between faith/spiritual/transcendent and the physical/material universe is obvious because being human includes both. Thomistic philosophy should be compatible with
quantum particles. This does not mean that they operate in the same manner. Rather it is a both/and relationship which makes for harmony.

Blessings for 2009
grannymh

grannymh:

Not to take anything away from our learned, young philosopher, I believe what he is saying is that, for many, many years, men/women have either been materialists or theists - notwithstanding a number of other (nonsensical) cosmologies. Think about this: it was either God, supernature, and nature OR it was matter and nature - PERIOD.

Now, with the physical sciences supporting a more than likely merging of “matter” and “God” into a classically theist cosmology, there exists a huge gap of related philosophy of the actual relationship between the two that has heretofore not been considered. It has always been: (a) there is a God and a supernature; or (b) there is no god and no supernature, but, only matter and nature.

You can no doubt appreciate the ramifications of combining of these two divergent views of the world and the universe - especially from the abject non-theist POV. Now, they will have to conjure up new and bizarre cosmologies, in order to support their ailing cosmology - some of which have already been witnessed in these forums - or, begin a process of postulating things about the relationship so as to see where they lead.

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
jd

 

[masterjedi747]

Could the idea of “a huge philosophical gap being left unaccounted for” be what I am observing when I say that the relationship between faith and science is broken? However, I’m not sure if faith is quite the right word to express spiritual, i.e., the non-physical part of human beings.

…maybe. Although I’m not exactly sure if I understand your position.

When I mentioned the “gap left unaccounted for”, I was more just referring to the sort of philosophical/metaphysical concerns that natural science is inherently capable of addressing.

Such as, to use the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin as an easy example: what caused the Big Bang? People end up grouping into roughly these three sorts of positions: (1) the material universe itself is really eternal, and the Big Bang that we know was simply the most recent “bang”, when in fact the universe is just endlessly cycling through “bangs” and “crunches”; (2) there really was absolutely nothing that caused the Big Bang, and the universe really did just pop into existence out of nothing; furthermore, subatomic particles are constantly popping into existence out of nothing anyway, so “something from nothing” obviously can’t be impossible, because it happens; (3) the universe truly did have a definite beginning, but cannot have “popped” into existence without a cause, and thus it ultimately does require a creator that is eternal.

And these three groupings of positions are in many ways almost exactly the same as those that develop in regard to the indeterminate/unpredictable (and hence apparently “uncaused”) events that occur in quantum mechanics.

And truth be told, it is a bit more complicated than I’m making it here – I’m skipping over some things that aren’t terribly relevant to the main point – but that’s the kind of “gap” I was referring to. The questions that are beyond the scope of the natural sciences, but that everyone knows still need to be answered, or at least accounted for.

To me, the relationship between faith/spiritual/transcendent and the physical/material universe is obvious because being human includes both.

Ultimately, yes, but you also have to crawl through the crowds of people who sit there and just deny the spiritual aspect of man (and the rest of spiritual creation: angels, demons)… it’s not easy. But you’re right; in the end, once we know that creation includes both the material and the spiritual, it becomes pretty darn obvious that they aren’t actually opposed to one another.

…for many, many years, men/women have either been materialists or theists… Think about this: it was either God, supernature, and nature OR it was matter and nature - PERIOD.
…
It has always been: (a) there is a God and a supernature; or (b) there is no god and no supernature, but, only matter and nature.

I’m not really sure how accurate that is – Aristotle and Aquinas, at the very least, had no problems putting both the natural/material and the supernatural/God into the same universe – but at least since the Scientific Revolution, it’s definitely true that there was been a very real “break” forced between God and matter/nature, intentionally or not. When people hastily threw out the Aristotelian/Thomistic view of nature, they ended up putting God and nature in separate “boxes”, as it were, as if natural things could exist perfectly (and be understood perfectly) simply by themselves. The deists, for example, viewed the universe as something that God created and kicked into motion, but is no longer directly involved in. Atheists figured that the material universe alone was sufficient, and that God was just an unnecessary assumption put in for things that we didn’t yet understand. And each position worked to a certain degree, insofar as there was something true about what each side was claiming. But then, when modern science ended up discovering that nature was not wholly explainable in itself – that it doesn’t follow perfect deterministic laws, and is often entirely unpredictable – then that’s when people got confused all over again, since there was now a real “gap” that needed to be accounted for in nature… (cue the aforementioned 3 options: deny the gap, accept the gap, or maybe (just maybe) eliminate the gap by returning to an understanding of the natural world in which God necessarily plays an intimate role in guiding nature).

I feel kind of bad for rambling on like this, but hopefully it’s at least somewhat helpful.

Now, with the physical sciences supporting a more than likely merging of “matter” and “God” into a classically theist cosmology, there exists a huge gap of related philosophy of the actual relationship between the two that has heretofore not been considered.

Basically, yes – although, as I said before, I don’t think it’s so much that “the gap between the two had never before been considered”, but rather “the gap between the two didn’t traditionally exist, but was a problem artificially created by an incorrect division between God and nature”… if that makes sense.

You can no doubt appreciate the ramifications of combining of these two divergent views of the world and the universe - especially from the abject non-theist POV. Now, they will have to conjure up new and bizarre cosmologies, in order to support their ailing cosmology - some of which have already been witnessed in these forums - or, begin a process of postulating things about the relationship so as to see where they lead.

That’s pretty much it.

 

[MindOverMatter]

the universe really did just pop into existence out of nothing; furthermore, subatomic particles are constantly popping into existence out of nothing anyway, so “something from nothing” obviously can’t be impossible, because it happens; (3) the universe truly did have a definite beginning, but cannot have “popped” into existence without a cause, and thus it ultimately does require a creator that is eternal.

Truth is metaphysically contingent on necessary being. When one claims a certain truth, they are describing a fact about existing reality. Therefore, to say that something came out of nothing, is not making a true claim about something, for the ground of such a truth is nothing. Truth does not exist in nothing; it exists only in a pre-existing reality of something. Therefore anything that comes into existence is caused by something that already exists. In other words, one cannot say that something came out of nothing, because truth is never nothing; it is always something. Other wise you are saying that its “true” of nothing that something should come from nothing; but there is nothing **actually **or causally “true” about nothing. Here in lies the contradiction. What does it mean to say that its “true” that something came out of nothing? In reality one is not talking about anything meaningfull.

There is no logical a-prior or a-posterior reason to hold to such position unless one either has an irrational doubt of logical truths, or holds to a “naturalistic metaphysics”. The fact that some people hold true to such idea, says nothing about scientific discovery, and only goes to show how desperately irrational naturalism truly is. You cannot believe in it with out running head first into logical contradictions. It is metaphysically impossible for somebody to “know”, through any method whatsoever, that something came out of nothing; for nothing is not a state that can be observed or measured; and therefore any claim otherwise is a lie.

If one holds true to reason, one cannot conclude the absurdity of something from nothing, without first destroying the fundamental ground of all knowledge; including Science itself. Some Scientists make great Scientists; but they make poor philosophers. The most that any honest person can say is that they cannot “determine” or absolutely “measure”, with the tools of science, the absolute cause of events at the quantum level. That is not the same as saying that something can come out of nothing. Such a statement is a metaphysical observation; not a scientific one. In fact a scientist was on a program that was made in honor of Stephen Hawkins, talking about quantum events, and he was very careful with his words when he said that “things appear to come in and out of being”. Appearances can be deceptive.

So far as one is dedicated to reason rather then naturalism, it is still rational to hold true to the ancient logical dictums, that nothing is not something, in order that a thing can pop out of it. There may very well be no classical or “physical reason” for the events that are occurring; but this does not undermine the principle of causality as a metaphysical and logical fact; thus neither does it touch the “five ways” by Saint Thomas.

 

[grannymh]

…maybe. Although I’m not exactly sure if I understand your position.

…

When I mentioned the “gap left unaccounted for”, I was more
I don’t think it’s so much that “the gap between the two had never before been considered”, but rather “the gap between the two didn’t traditionally exist, but was a problem artificially created by an incorrect division between God and nature”… if that makes sense.

That’s pretty much it.

Dear masterjedi747,

Don’t stop now. Between you and other posters I’m learning quite a bit on how to define my position. I love it when someone says that they are not sure they understand my position and then continue the discussion. Thus, your paragraph above makes sense.

This thread is important to the reality of the Holy Eucharist. This is how I see it. The Holy Eucharist depends on the divinity of Jesus Christ. The divinity of Jesus Christ depends on the existence of God.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[JDaniel]

…maybe. Although I’m not exactly sure if I understand your position.

When I mentioned the “gap left unaccounted for”, I was more just referring to the sort of philosophical/metaphysical concerns that natural science is inherently capable of addressing.

Such as, to use the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin as an easy example: what caused the Big Bang? People end up grouping into roughly these three sorts of positions: (1) the material universe itself is really eternal, and the Big Bang that we know was simply the most recent “bang”, when in fact the universe is just endlessly cycling through “bangs” and “crunches”; (2) there really was absolutely nothing that caused the Big Bang, and the universe really did just pop into existence out of nothing; furthermore, subatomic particles are constantly popping into existence out of nothing anyway, so “something from nothing” obviously can’t be impossible, because it happens; (3) the universe truly did have a definite beginning, but cannot have “popped” into existence without a cause, and thus it ultimately does require a creator that is eternal.

And these three groupings of positions are in many ways almost exactly the same as those that develop in regard to the indeterminate/unpredictable (and hence apparently “uncaused”) events that occur in quantum mechanics.

And truth be told, it is a bit more complicated than I’m making it here – I’m skipping over some things that aren’t terribly relevant to the main point – but that’s the kind of “gap” I was referring to. The questions that are beyond the scope of the natural sciences, but that everyone knows still need to be answered, or at least accounted for.

Ultimately, yes, but you also have to crawl through the crowds of people who sit there and just deny the spiritual aspect of man (and the rest of spiritual creation: angels, demons)… it’s not easy. But you’re right; in the end, once we know that creation includes both the material and the spiritual, it becomes pretty darn obvious that they aren’t actually opposed to one another.

I’m not really sure how accurate that is – Aristotle and Aquinas, at the very least, had no problems putting both the natural/material and the supernatural/God into the same universe – but at least since the Scientific Revolution, it’s definitely true that there was been a very real “break” forced between God and matter/nature, intentionally or not. When people hastily threw out the Aristotelian/Thomistic view of nature, they ended up putting God and nature in separate “boxes”, as it were, as if natural things could exist perfectly (and be understood perfectly) simply by themselves. The deists, for example, viewed the universe as something that God created and kicked into motion, but is no longer directly involved in. Atheists figured that the material universe alone was sufficient, and that God was just an unnecessary assumption put in for things that we didn’t yet understand. And each position worked to a certain degree, insofar as there was something true about what each side was claiming. But then, when modern science ended up discovering that nature was not wholly explainable in itself – that it doesn’t follow perfect deterministic laws, and is often entirely unpredictable – then that’s when people got confused all over again, since there was now a real “gap” that needed to be accounted for in nature… (cue the aforementioned 3 options: deny the gap, accept the gap, or maybe (just maybe) eliminate the gap by returning to an understanding of the natural world in which God necessarily plays an intimate role in guiding nature).

I feel kind of bad for rambling on like this, but hopefully it’s at least somewhat helpful.

Basically, yes – although, as I said before, I don’t think it’s so much that “the gap between the two had never before been considered”, but rather “the gap between the two didn’t traditionally exist, but was a problem artificially created by an incorrect division between God and nature”… if that makes sense.

That’s pretty much it.

Agreed. I was hoping you’d return and say more - and, you did!.

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
jd

 

[masterjedi747]

There is no logical aprior a posterior reason to hold to your position unless one either has an irrational doubt of logical truths, or holds to a “naturalistic metaphysics”.

I’m… confused.
You sound like you’re disagreeing with me, but I don’t exactly see where or why? Are you perhaps reading the first half that you quoted of my post as my position? Because it’s not…

It is metaphysically impossible for somebody to “know”, through any method whatsoever, that something came out of nothing…

Alright…

If one holds true to reason, one cannot conclude the absurdity of something from nothing, without first destroying the fundamental ground of all knowledge; including Science itself.

Again, this sounds like you’re disagreeing with me, but this time I have no idea why… are you actually saying that I cannot hold the position that “something cannot come from nothing” without “first destroying the fundamental ground of all knowledge”?

The most that any honest person can say is that they cannot “determine” or absolutely “measure”, with the tools of science, the absolute cause of events at the quantum level. That is not the same as saying that something can come out of nothing. Such a statement is a metaphysical observation; not a scientific one.

Yes…

So far as one is dedicated to reason rather then naturalism, it is still rational to hold true to the ancient logical dictums, that nothing is not something, in order that a thing can pop out of it.

It is rational to maintain that “a thing can pop out of nothing, because it is not something”? (…possible source of my confusion: please clarify your phrase “in order that”, and how it connects the two ideas.)

There may very well be no classical or “physical reason” for the events that are occurring; but this does not undermine the principle of causality as a metaphysical and logical fact; thus neither does it touch the “five ways” by Saint Thomas.

That we’re in definitely in complete agreement on.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I’m… confused.
You sound like you’re disagreeing with me, but I don’t exactly see where or why? Are you perhaps reading the first half that you quoted of my post as my position? Because it’s not…

Sorry. I was attacking the arguemnt that something can come from nothing; i did not neccesarilly mean to say that this was your position. Im sorry. Im just sick and tired of reading that Quantum events disprove causality or proves that the world came out of nothing. People are so desperate to dis-believe that they keep repeating the same line of junk. The problem is, that when people come to these forums with little understanding of logic and quantum physics, they are easily decieved, and so was i once. This is not fare for those with weak faiths. You was unfortunatly caught in the line of fire. Sorry.

Godbless and peace be with you.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

a most cogent and reasonable response, though i disagree on some points that i will pursue in the following, allow me to commend your admirable treatment of the subject.

first let me dispense with my specific criticisms

1. apparent determinism.

i don’t understand what difference there is between apparent determinism and actual determinism. if the ‘apparent’ functions in absolutely every respect as the ‘actual’ then one would be hard pressed to find a logical reason to divide the two into separate camps. though i agree that it is non-sensical to expect the micro and macro world to disagree. one is the reflection of the other, so to speak.

1. the quarters analogy

how about this. take one giant quarter and divide it into a million identical quarters laid out in a parking lot. flip them all once. absolutely any distribution is possible, but lets say that all landed tails up, but when you drive off, you look in the rear view mirror and notice that there is now one giant quarter flipped heads up

it doesn’t matter what the quantum distribution is, the outcome on the macro scale is always the same, determinism works on the macro. no matter what individual particle interaction events show one by one, on the macro they all equal one event, they all seem to fall on one distributive plane.

now if we apply the previously agreed unity of micro and macro determinism, it becomes clear that if the macro is deterministic, so must the quantum be also

that leads me back to the conclusion that quantum events are deterministic, even if the exact mechanism is unknown.

1. determinism attacking free will

i understand the desire to deny determinism in the protection of free will and divine providence, but that same support of indeterminism is used by atheists to deny the existnse of G-d and to deny the creation.

if the universe is deterministic it assaults free will, which is an obvious quality of man, if the universe is quantumly indeterministic it assaults the very idea of G-d or a Creation.

in the end no matter which system one follows an attack on our faith is inevitable.

but how about this.

free will is proof of the supernatural!

the fact that we have free will or a facsimile as thorough and accurate as to be free will means that the supernatural exists. because physical effects cannot create non-physical phenomenon.

one could only expect that non-physical effects can only be demonstrated from a non-physical source (supernatural) in the same way that physical effects are the result of physical causes.

the more i think about it the more i am coming to believe that this is a completely deterministic universe whose sole identifiable non-physical effect, accepted by most of humanity is free will, as such it may be the only acceptable proof of the supernatural.

that said arguments against this proof seem to revolve around the validity of free will, but my position is that if one has a perfect copy, acting in absolutely every way as the actual free will, then it is indistinguishable in any way from free will and is therefore free will in practice.

now i may have made a mistake here as i have imbibed quite a bit of Christmas tequila and i am wearing my bib overalls with no shirt or socks, in my double wide trailer. this is quite likely my best redneck moment. i hope this make sense inn the morning cheers, and merry christmas:whacky:

 

[JDaniel]

Truth is metaphysically contingent on necessary being. When one claims a certain truth, they are describing a fact about existing reality. Therefore, to say that something came out of nothing, is not making a true claim about something, for the ground of such a truth is nothing. Truth does not exist in nothing; it exists only in a pre-existing reality of something. Therefore anything that comes into existence is caused by something that already exists. In other words, one cannot say that something came out of nothing, because truth is never nothing; it is always something. Other wise you are saying that its “true” of nothing that something should come from nothing; but there is nothing **actually **or causally “true” about nothing. Here in lies the contradiction. What does it mean to say that its “true” that something came out of nothing? In reality one is not talking about anything meaningful.

I believe he was referring to virtual particles. I know you know what they are. But, there are those that do misstate the phenomenon. They say that these particles pop into existence from nothing. That is a misleading way of describing what they do, partly due to language weak-nesses, partly due to what they appear to do, and, partly due to the bias of the scientist(s).

The important thing is that the claims made for virtual particles are all postulates. If in fact these particles are matter-from-nothing, then the sheer numbers of them at any second would be significant enough to alter the conservation of matter law, in my opinion. So, either they are (1) not real, or (2), they are energy transforming into matter momentarily then returning to their original energy state, or (3), the equilibrium is repelling them back into non-existence. Non-existence does not necessarily mean nothingness.

I must confess that I have not spent much time studying these particles during the last year or so, but, I doubt there’s been much change in the postulations.

Merry Christmas and
God bless,
jd

 

[masterjedi747]

1. apparent determinism.

i don’t understand what difference there is between apparent determinism and actual determinism. if the ‘apparent’ functions in absolutely every respect as the ‘actual’ then one would be hard pressed to find a logical reason to divide the two into separate camps. though i agree that it is non-sensical to expect the micro and macro world to disagree. one is the reflection of the other, so to speak.

The “apparent” doesn’t function in absolutely every respect as the “actual” – if functions* for the most part* as the “actual”. But that is a very important distinction, so I’m glad you gave me the chance to point that out now.

1. the quarters analogy

how about this. take one giant quarter and divide it into a million identical quarters laid out in a parking lot. flip them all once. absolutely any distribution is possible, but lets say that all landed tails up, but when you drive off, you look in the rear view mirror and notice that there is now one giant quarter flipped heads up

I’m afraid I don’t entirely grasp the significance of your analogy…

it doesn’t matter what the quantum distribution is, the outcome on the macro scale is always the same, determinism works on the macro. no matter what individual particle interaction events show one by one, on the macro they all equal one event, they all seem to fall on one distributive plane.

The bold portion above is, I think, the root of where I disagree with what you’re saying. It very much matters what the quantum distribution is – although the approximately 50/50 average in general might remain constant, the particular variations at any given moment are going to have different effects at that moment. An 80/20 distribution now will affect things slightly differently than a 40/60 distribution will later.

Plus, there’s always the possibility for these “random” quantum effects to have much larger effects in the “macro” world – basically through a process very much like the so-called “butterfly effect”, except in the “micro” world. A single quantum event under the right conditions can easily be magnified to have much more significant consequences in our scale of reality. If you’ll pardon me, I’d just like to throw out this quote from Ken Miller (actually from the book listed below in my signature – in fact, he devotes a rather significant portion of one chapter addressing this very same topic in greater length) because it probably says most of what I would, but in about half the length:* “The indeterminate nature of quantum events would allow a clever and subtle God to influence events in ways that are profound, but scientifically undetectable to us. Those events could include the appearance of mutations, the activation of individual neurons in the brain, and even the survival of individual cells and organisms affected by the chance processes of radioactive decay.”* So even though indeterminate quantum events will, in the long run, average out into something that appears very similar to a determinate law, that doesn’t change the fact that we’re really dealing with a collection of individual occurrences, any one of which could potentially have effects that become magnified in much more significant ways. The quantum indeterminacy of the “micro” world is not something that is so cleanly cut off from the “macro” world.

that leads me back to the conclusion that quantum events are deterministic, even if the exact mechanism is unknown.

More on this below – but there’s two considerations I’d like to point out here.

First is the fact that our everyday personal experience of the world does not seem to indicate an obviously deterministic order in the universe – we see that a great many things happen simply for the most part, and not necessarily always. Now granted, this fact in itself doesn’t demonstrate that the universe couldn’t be deterministic – however, assuming that God didn’t construct the universe in such a way that it would deceive even our most universal experience of reality, it does seem to be something of an indication.

Second is the Aristotelian position that nature acts for an end (which, as it so happens, ends up being the key in St. Thomas’ fifth argument for the existence of God) – animals consistently “aim” at producing offspring like themselves, seeds consistently “aim” at producing a certain plant, and chemicals combined together consistently “aim” at producing a particular compound. And these things often happen not always, but for the most part. Even though nature is, in general, acting towards a specific (you might even say “determinate”) end, it doesn’t always “hit the mark”, so to speak, perfectly – sometimes there are mutations and mistakes for other reasons. However, we see that it does succeed at least for the most part, and that alone is enough to indicate that natural things are, in general, acting towards a particular end determined by their internal nature. >> And I bring this is up, because it really does fit together quite nicely with the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics, in which we are ultimately told that things act for the most part in a particular way, and not according to the strict determinate necessity of cold mathematical laws (such as Newton would have assumed). Nature is only approximately mathematical, and not absolutely so – there is a very real similarity between the two, but they are also fundamentally different: mathematics always follows strict absolute necessity, while nature is more dynamic, and proceeds according to necessity only insofar as it is generally aimed at producing a determinate end.

 

[masterjedi747]

1. determinism attacking free will

i understand the desire to deny determinism in the protection of free will and divine providence, but that same support of indeterminism is used by atheists to deny the existence of G-d and to deny the creation.

Right… but isn’t the argument that the atheist uses to support that doomed to failure? How can they possibly argue use indeterminacy as an argument against the existence of God, unless they already somehow maintain that “something can come from nothing”? What else besides free will, when you really get down to it, do you think could possibly be the primary cause of a truly indeterminate event?

if the universe is deterministic it assaults free will, which is an obvious quality of man, if the universe is quantumly indeterministic it assaults the very idea of G-d or a Creation.

in the end no matter which system one follows an attack on our faith is inevitable.

I disagree – the existence of an indeterminate nature cannot truly be used to attack our faith. If anything, I would argue that the existence of an indeterminate material world it is implicitly fatal to the position of the atheist. And many of them know that – that’s precisely why you’ll start running into people who support desperate cosmological theories in which “there are really an infinite number of parallel universes existing all around us, one for each and every possible outcome to every event that ever could have happened, each universe equally real from its own point of view, etc…” – and they seriously consider absurd things like this, all in an attempt to create another sort of deterministic universe, in which they can be content that the indeterminacy of free will all around them is really just an illusion. Because it scares them.

but how about this.

free will is proof of the supernatural!

You know, it’s funny how much we seem to be (more or less) on the same page in regards to this particular point…

the more i think about it the more i am coming to believe that this is a completely deterministic universe whose sole identifiable non-physical effect, accepted by most of humanity is free will, as such it may be the only acceptable proof of the supernatural.

The only real problem I have with this is that we’re once again setting up a fundamental “break” or “chasm” between the natural (or determinate) and supernatural (or indeterminate) aspects of creation. This really is just another attempt to reconcile the Christian faith with the inherent problems of deterministic Newtonian universe – and the cost is that all Divine Providence and all free-will human actions (if they really can exist at all in such a universe) must be constantly violating the supposedly “determinate” laws of the universe. It really is a very messy situation with no satisfying solution, especially when contrasted with the Aristotelian/Thomistic view, in which there is no real difficulty in harmonizing the natural and supernatural elements of creation, because they were never inherently opposed to begin with.

And that, in large part, is why I’m such a big fan of the fact that modern science has, through its investigation of nature, found itself being forced to reject the “perfect” deterministic/mathematical universe of Newton. It also reminds me of a great quote (I know it was at least used in Ken Miller’s book, but I don’t know if it was originally his or not) in which the scientists are described as slowly climbing their way to the top of a great mountain, only to find the philosophers and theologians already sitting at the top, waiting for them – it just such a great image, and I really do suspect that there’s a great deal of truth behind that analogy.

 

[ASD]

Normal macro-causality is fundamentally refuted by quantum phenomena.

Really? So do you step out of the way of approaching trucks? I assume the answer is yes. But, why do you?

It is in this way that quantum mechanics undermines Thomist proofs for God’s existence.

Oh. Well, if that’s all, then I’m going back to bed.

ASD​

Traditioanl Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[grannymh]

People are so desperate to dis-believe .

Re: Post 31

Dear MindOverMatter and others who have responded to my questions and ideas…

The above quote is the motivation for my being on this forum. What is happening on the forums is happening elsewhere.

I will be doing the writing for a parish project to evangelize Catholics about the Holy Eucharist. Transubstantiation will be key. Thus, I will have to address the issue of modern science replacing Thomistic proofs in lay terms. I learned that fact on the internet.

My intention is to present both an accurate picture of science and a better understanding of substance and accidents which is founded on the existence of a personal God being provable.

Initial writing will be a one-sided page in the parish bulletin. It will be part of our “Facts of Faith” series. I have done a few of these over the years usually keeping the opening on the light side, e.g., I titled one Does Purgatory Have a Zip Code? My latest was Eucharistic Miracles - - - "Priceless"

Your involvement is needed. Actually, the above is only the beginning of an "Eucharistic " project which will include inviting our town, the outlying towns, and deanery to a weekend open house at our church. Now you really know how much I need these discussions!

Blessings,
grannymh

P.S. I appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut from non-theists – actually have gotten some good basic ideas from them. The trick is how to present both the Catholic truths and the scientific truths.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The “apparent” doesn’t function in absolutely every respect as the “actual” – if functions* for the most part* as the “actual”. But that is a very important distinction, so I’m glad you gave me the chance to point that out now.

i am in the unfortunate position of arguing against the erstwhile miller, but i haven’t read him myself, so i can only respond to what you post, but allow me to answer.

how does it differ? what specific examples of such behavior are there? i cant think of even one non-deterministic event ever being observed on the macro scale.

The bold portion above is, I think, the root of where I disagree with what you’re saying. It very much matters what the quantum distribution is – although the approximately 50/50 average in general might remain constant, the particular variations at any given moment are going to have different effects at that moment. An 80/20 distribution now will affect things slightly differently than a 40/60 distribution will later.

this is what my analogy is meant to address. consider the chair that you sit in. all the particles are constantly in motion, interacting with one another on the quantum level, no matter the outcome of those interactions, no matter their distribution at any point in time on the quantum level, they are, from moment to moment your chair.

if the distribution of those interactions was at any moment 99/1, 80/20, 60/40, 50/50, etc. then we should observe that the chair would differ in some manner, by 1%, 20%, 40%, 50%. but we dont observe these effects in nature. your chair never turns to ashes beneath you, nor does any part of it. such an effect has never been observed.

if quantum activity were indeterminate in nature, than that should be reflected in the macro, yet there is no evidence of this.

the only conclusion that i can draw is that the universe is entirely deterministic in nature.

“The indeterminate nature of quantum events would allow a clever and subtle God to influence events in ways that are profound, but scientifically undetectable to us. Those events could include the appearance of mutations, the activation of individual neurons in the brain, and even the survival of individual cells and organisms affected by the chance processes of radioactive decay.” So even though indeterminate quantum events will, in the long run, average out into something that appears very similar to a determinate law, that doesn’t change the fact that we’re really dealing with a collection of individual occurrences, any one of which could potentially have effects that become magnified in much more significant ways. The quantum indeterminacy of the “micro” world is not something that is so cleanly cut off from the “macro” world.

unfortunately none of the things listed above are quantum events.

DNA mutation involves many particles, well above the quantum thresh hold, as is neural activation, and radiations effect on entire organisms, it takes many billions of radioactive collisions, to significantly alter activity at the organism level, etc

if there are examples of a quantum butterfly effect i would be happy to see them. but i can think of any.

First is the fact that our everyday personal experience of the world does not seem to indicate an obviously deterministic order in the universe – we see that a great many things happen simply for the most part, and not necessarily always.

what are these things that happen that cant be deterministically explained? evidence, evidence

Right… but isn’t the argument that the atheist uses to support that doomed to failure? How can they possibly argue use indeterminacy as an argument against the existence of God, unless they already somehow maintain that “something can come from nothing”? What else besides free will, when you really get down to it, do you think could possibly be the primary cause of a truly indeterminate event?

thats just it, if quantum activity is non determinate then the existence of that singularity is also indeterminate, or non-causal. it could literally just pop into existence from nothing.

now you and i know that is foolishness, but we already have faith and the people who take science seriously, almost everyone, can be misled by this sort of thing.

in fact when it comes down to it they have no evidence that the singularity or monobloc even existed, but that doesn’t stop them.

i completely agree with you that the wild gyrations of this very messy topic are an increasingly desperate attempt to avoid the most easily supported conclusion, our universe is a creation, created by an independent actor. that scares them.

yet as the worlds view is a form of scientism we have to understand that it is important to our credibility that we offer evidence for our interpretations.

for me free will proves the imposition of the supernatural on a deterministic world, there is no need to link the two through some concrete and understandable process. i have proof of both

1. free will, proof of the supernatural
2. physically observed universe, proof of itself

why do we need a link between the two that allows for a physical mechanism for free will?

our faith is the grand unification theory of the natural, and the supernatural.

 

[grannymh]

Please…

I’ve been reading different threads and “substance” is being used in different ways.

Would you mind giving the real Thomistic deffinition of substance and form with some examples? And the deffinitions of other possible words generally used with substance and the “proofs”? Thank you.

Blessings for 2009
grannymh

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Please…

I’ve been reading different threads and “substance” is being used in different ways.

Would you mind giving the real Thomistic deffinition of substance and form with some examples? And the deffinitions of other possible words generally used with substance and the “proofs”? Thank you.

Blessings for 2009
grannymh

i think the person with the best grasp of Thomistic philosophy would be MindoverMatter, why don’t you send him a message? he has the best understanding of that topic among the people i see here often, if he cannot or will not help i think the apologists may be your next best bet, good luck