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

[warpspeedpetey]

I am not at all saying the Universe has caused itself, what I am saying is that Aquinas’s regress can only go back so far as the moment of the Universe’s creation. Anything before that is outside of time, thus outside of the regress. Regresses depend on series, meaning events happening one after another, at different moments in time I articulated this in my last post.
As to the idea of the Universe’s creation, Quantum Physics does have multiple explanations, the possibility of an infinite universe is always valid, and there are multiple other explanations as well.

yet all those explanations posit a cause before the beginning of time, just as aquinas’

an infinite universe is not possible from a physics standpoint, nor can the universe be eternal by definition.

other than QM and creationism what other explanations are you talking about?

 

[grannymh]

Reply to post 56.

Sorry, I haven’t figured out how to break up posts into those neat boxes so I could reply to individual points. I can do the one big box o.k. but would prefer little ones.

Also, I wish there were a smilie that indicated --Caution, Metaphor Ahead!

Metaphor, simile, parable, symbols and other grammatical terms which refer to comparisons are not necessarily precise nor all encompassing. The cultures which use these “figures of speech” as teaching tools automatically understand their usage. We, however, prefer to use relevant facts as teaching tools. Metaphors, etc., then become an aid or a help to better understanding. And they do work in that context

The chain metaphor for causality is an aid to better understanding. The trick is to figure out what the “understanding” is. Post 56 indicates that the chain can be seen as a single cause like the metaphor of the series of dominoes, one knocking over the rest. But, as the post correctly says, experience shows us that events don’t have a single cause but multiple causes that spread out in a web rather than narrow down to a single chain. This experience has been around since the beginning of evolution. So I am sure Thomas Aquinas observed the same thing.

Where is a smilie for puzzlement which is needed right now? Would these do? or ???

This is a small suggestion to help understand the puzzlement of Aquinas. Since metaphors etc., are not necessarily precise nor all encompassing, one needs to look again at what Aquinas wants us to understand about the world around us. Even in his time, the complexity of the physical/material world could not be narrowed down to a single chain. Causality could be observed on too many levels. Furthermore, relationships or dependencies could be observed. For example humans depended on animals for food, clothing and transportation. Animals depended on rain for water. And so on. Aquinas’ question was how did all this come about considering the evidence before him. His answer was that the universe had a first cause which was God. In other words, there was an intimate connection between God and the universe

My apology to philosophers for using lay words

This connection between God and the universe was necessary, strong, and unbreakable like a chain. The chain could have a variety of links. The key “understanding” is the absolute connection between God and the beginning of the universe. I am not sure time, meaning that which occurs in our universe, is really necessary for this connection to take place. Rather, I would say that time came into existence because the connection between God and the beginning of the universe took place.

One more consideration about metaphors. The same metaphor can be used as an aid to understanding more than one thing.

As kids we would challenge each other as to how long we could make a string of dominoes stand before someone made it fall. I’m not sure exactly how we did it, but we also made complex strings by placing dominoes perpendicular to the string. At that time, all of us could place a domino barely moving a muscle. Believe me, we got very upset when an adult walked into the room, shaking the floor.

In this particular scenario, it took a “cause” other than the dominoes themselves and our bodies to knock down the dominoes and create what looked like a mess. We did not consider the dominos a mess. We looked at all those crazy dominos as a challenge to develop new techniques to keep them standing such as spacing between them, etc. Maybe we should have put a sign on the door notifying adults to keep out – scientists at work.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[masterjedi747]

Point (2) in above quote really interests me. Did you do that in a previous post? Which one? If not, would you outline it in a future post?

Large portions of the argument, at least, have been scattered throughout my recent previous posts – but perhaps I haven’t laid the whole thing out formally. It basically works like this:

1. warpspeedpetey holds to the existence of a deterministic universe. But human free will is not deterministic, and clearly exists, therefore warpspeedpetey holds that the indeterminacy of human actions in a deterministic universe is proof that there must some sort of non-physical (supernatural) cause behind those free-willed human actions. The argument works insofar as it goes, IMO, but has to deal with some uncomfortable philosophical dilemmas, such as how human free-willed actions can actually exist in a deterministic universe (solution: the deterministic laws of matter are “overridden” by the free will of men), and why quantum mechanics generally seems to indicate an indeterministic foundation behind nature (solution: it just looks indeterministic according to our measurements, but it’s really not)
2. I, on the other hand, maintain that the traditional (qualified indeterministic) understanding of nature has not been refuted by modern science, and that it is in fact actually supported by our best modern interpretations of quantum mechanics. And just as in warpspeedpetey’s argument, the existence of this indeterminacy in the universe can be taken as proof that there must some sort of non-physical (supernatural) cause behind those indeterminate actions (not only in human free will, but in nature as a whole). This interpretation eliminates any fundamental conflict between the nature of the universe and the reality of human free will (both are fundamentally open to a “non-physical”/supernatural cause), and, at least in my opinion, fits better with not only our most penetrating scientific investigations of nature, but also our general personal experience of how nature works as a whole. Furthermore, the worst possible objection to this interpretation seems to be someone who would claim that “something can come from nothing, therefore quantum indeterminacy can just happen without any cause”, to which I respond that their premise is absolutely absurd, and cannot logically be maintained by any reasonable person with half an intellect.

And I think that’s pretty much as far as we’ve been able to take it. But in either case, we end up finding some fundamental sort of indeterminacy (either in human free will alone, or perhaps in both that and the rest of nature), from which we can reasonably argue for the possibility (if not necessity) of some indeterminate/“non-physical” cause (ultimately terminating in a being with free will) behind the observed phenomenon.

 

[masterjedi747]

We have, in fact, disproved all of St. Aquinas’s arguments, and the only one still really in use today is the argument from Design.

1. No. We absolutely have not disproved any of Aquinas’ arguments, much less all of them.
2. Aquinas doesn’t even really have an argument from Design – he does have an argument from final cause in nature, but that’s hardly the exact same thing. And it’s hardly “still in use today”, so I very much doubt that the argument you’re thinking of is anything remotely like an accurate representation of Thomas’ argument.

…but what Aquinas doesn’t realize is that before time (before the universe was created) causality was impossible, for time didn’t exist.

Are you kidding? Aquinas most certainly did realize that. Furthermore, it has absolutely nothing to do with any of his arguments, assuming that you actually understand them correctly (which I don’t believe you do).

This regress relies on causality… [but] there was no causality because an ordered series is impossible without time.

You’re necessarily talking about a chain of causality* over a period of time*. Aquinas was not. You can still have an ordered series of simultaneous causes (“without time”) in which the infinite regress of causality necessarily becomes impossible.

The moment of the universe’s creation is when this causality begins…

Temporal causality, yes. Simultaneous causality, no. Just because there is no “before” the universe, it does not follow that the universe itself could have actually had no cause.

Thus, logically, we can show the universe to be the first cause…

The first caused thing, not the first cause…

The universe logically has to be the first cause of this series, because time didn’t exist before the universe…

So the universe caused itself to exist, or it just popped into existence ex nihilo, with no cause in any way? …because both positions are philosophically absurd.

…and the universe just as equally has to be “causeless” (I am using causeless in the same way Aquinas is: in terms of a regress

No, you’re not… for one, Aquinas would never agree that anything that had a beginning could be “causeless”. But for another, you’re misunderstanding the nature of the regress: it doesn’t have to be a regress in* temporal* causes, but only a regress in efficient causes, which can be simultaneous with their effects.

…not necessarily saying that nothing contributed to the Universe’s creation)

…it sure sounds like you are. (?)

…because nothing could have caused it without time.

Simply not true. Simultaneous causes work without any duration of time.

…the teleological argument (argument from design) no longer holds. This is because modern principles of evolution and natural selection eliminate the necessity of invoking God in this situation.

1. You’re clearly not speaking of Thomas’ teleological argument.
2. Evolution and natural selection only eliminate the necessity of invoking God as an immediate cause, without secondary causes, but in no manner completely.

The last argument I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) is the argument that since we have gradations of perfection, there must exist an ultimate perfection…

It was actually the 4th argument, not the 5th, but that’s not terribly important…

…and this is simply ridiculous. There is not an ultimate to every character attribute that exists in our world or in the supernatural- what is the foundation for that belief? Is there an ultimate hairiness? An ultimate lust? An ultimate cuteness? Although I wish there was an ultimate cuteness, that logic simply does not hold together.

The argument behind the 4th way is probably the most difficult and the most unclear – and unfortunately I don’t have time for a much more drawn out discussion of this at the moment. Plus, I left all of my books and notes on this at school, and I’d very much advise that you should sort out the other 4 ways first, and leave this one for last. Suffice it to say, however, that the 4th way does not strictly require that every gradation have a maximum – merely that there be a maximum, at the very least, in regard to truth.

Essentially, a simple task of pressing a button seems to rely on innate brain function … and not conscious decision-making.

There’s a lot to say here, but nothing in the end that would make that experiment particularly surprising. Human beings are certainly free to act upon their basic physical impulses – and usually do, especially in a simple situation where there’s no particular reason to do otherwise. And as you yourself said, this particular experiment has absolutely nothing to say about more complex decisions – so your claim that neuroscience is “well on its way” to disproving free will is already wearing a bit thin.

but this avenue of research is just beginning… let’s see how free will fares in the future, eh?

Sure thing.

EDIT: I haven’t had time to get through my responses to warpspeedpetey yet – and I have to leave soon for a wedding, so it probably won’t happen until at least much later tonight – but I’ll get there eventually, don’t worry.

 

[grannymh]

I too am loving this conversation, though not prepared to stick my neck out too much!!
Any chance of sharing the results of your project?
Gerry

Dear Gerry,

Yes, I just have to figure out how since the project will last all spring.

Thank you for asking,
grannymh

 

[warpspeedpetey]

EDIT: I haven’t had time to get through my responses to warpspeedpetey yet – and I have to leave soon for a wedding, so it probably won’t happen until at least much later tonight – but I’ll get there eventually, don’t worry.

dont take this wrong but im too busy beating up non-theists and geocentrists. assume i know everything you do and keep it short

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Large portions of the argument, at least, have been scattered throughout my recent previous posts – but perhaps I haven’t laid the whole thing out formally. It basically works like this:

1. warpspeedpetey holds to the existence of a deterministic universe. But human free will is not deterministic, and clearly exists, therefore warpspeedpetey holds that the indeterminacy of human actions in a deterministic universe is proof that there must some sort of non-physical (supernatural) cause behind those free-willed human actions. The argument works insofar as it goes, IMO, but has to deal with some uncomfortable philosophical dilemmas, such as how human free-willed actions can actually exist in a deterministic universe (solution: the deterministic laws of matter are “overridden” by the free will of men), and why quantum mechanics generally seems to indicate an indeterministic foundation behind nature (solution: it just looks indeterministic according to our measurements, but it’s really not)
2. I, on the other hand, maintain that the traditional (qualified indeterministic) understanding of nature has not been refuted by modern science, and that it is in fact actually supported by our best modern interpretations of quantum mechanics. And just as in warpspeedpetey’s argument, the existence of this indeterminacy in the universe can be taken as proof that there must some sort of non-physical (supernatural) cause behind those indeterminate actions (not only in human free will, but in nature as a whole). This interpretation eliminates any fundamental conflict between the nature of the universe and the reality of human free will (both are fundamentally open to a “non-physical”/supernatural cause), and, at least in my opinion, fits better with not only our most penetrating scientific investigations of nature, but also our general personal experience of how nature works as a whole. Furthermore, the worst possible objection to this interpretation seems to be someone who would claim that “something can come from nothing, therefore quantum indeterminacy can just happen without any cause”, to which I respond that their premise is absolutely absurd, and cannot logically be maintained by any reasonable person with half an intellect.

And I think that’s pretty much as far as we’ve been able to take it. But in either case, we end up finding some fundamental sort of indeterminacy (either in human free will alone, or perhaps in both that and the rest of nature), from which we can reasonably argue for the possibility (if not necessity) of some indeterminate/“non-physical” cause (ultimately terminating in a being with free will) behind the observed phenomenon.

pretty much a good picture of the arguments, i dont know about the ‘solution’ in my argument, like i said i dont feel the need to define a mechanism by which it works. and in my model there is no physical indeterminancy at all

but let me point out that in your argument, you seem to be assuming a mechanism by which quantum interactions can be ‘nudged’, for lack of a better word, by divine providence, as we see, only physical phenomenon can produce physical effects. you seem to be trying too jump the bridge from the supernatural to the physical. where as i feel no need for a bridge. we are essentially meat puppets housing the soul. free will is not an expression of physical phenomenon, rather it is a supernatural phenomenon…i think

 

[Leela]

Hi Granny,

Reply to post 56.
…
The chain metaphor for causality is an aid to better understanding. The trick is to figure out what the “understanding” is. Post 56 indicates that the chain can be seen as a single cause like the metaphor of the series of dominoes, one knocking over the rest. But, as the post correctly says, experience shows us that events don’t have a single cause but multiple causes that spread out in a web rather than narrow down to a single chain. This experience has been around since the beginning of evolution. So I am sure Thomas Aquinas observed the same thing.

It’s not at all clear to me that Aquinas understood this given that his argument has a number of problems.

Why even look for a single first cause when as we look back in time we see multiple causes for each event where these multiple causes each also have multiple causes in an ever widening web rather than narrowing in on a single cause?

Aquinas posits that everything has a cause. If that is true, then so does God. If there is something that does not have a cause, it may as well be the universe rather than God.

Aquinas says that the chain of causality cannot be infinite, It is not at all clear to me why not.

Finally, even if we accept his argument for a First Cause, there is no reason to think that this first cause has any of the properties traditionally ascribed to God. In fact, evolution teaches us that complexity is the result of simpler life forms rather than higher intelligence. I see no reason to believe that a first cause would have to be a supreme intelligence with omnipotence and perfect goodness.

Best,
Leela

 

[Logos385]

Thank you Leela, you answered much of what I was going to have to before I could get home to do it : ).

However, in response to masterjedi:
1.) I firmly believe we have, as we will discuss.
2.) He does have an argument from design, it is his 5th. The final goal is achieved through design and designed in itself, which is why he argues there must be a “Designer.” Here are the arguments–> mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm
This, however, is not our main point of discussion, so let’s ignore it for now : ).

Onto the unnumbered points. You say that,“You can still have an ordered series of simultaneous causes…” which is an utter fallacy. An ordered series requires causes that are not simultaneous. I’m not discounting the possibility of a simultaneous cause, for that would be ridiculous, but an ordered regress cannot by definition have simultaneous events. Series means (dictionary.com): “A group or a number of related or similar things, events, etc… occurring in sequence.” WIthout time there is no sequence, thus without time there is no series. This is not to say there is no causality, but there is no more ordered regression before time began. By definition this is impossible. At the very least, at the beginning of the regression is the group of all things that occurred before time, all as a single event on the regress, not as a series.

“Aquinas would never agree that anything that had a beginning could be “causeless”.”… What? He postulates God, thus does just this. If you say God is infinite, then we can arbitrarily assign that quality to the Universe as well, eliminating the necessity for God this argument relies upon. My last point on this subject will be that whether we discuss simultaneous or temporal causality, there is no need to postulate God to begin either of these. This simultaneous causality can be explained by the Universe being infinite, QM, the Big Bang, String Theory… etc.

You are correct that I misinterpreted Aquinas’s argument from design, and I apologize: I was mixing it with other arguments that I have heard in the past. However, I see no merit in this argument anyway, for it is extremely pretentious to think that every single natural body has an ultimate goal. How can we ever hope to prove that?

About the 4th (yes, it’s the fourth, my bad) argument: One of the principles–> “Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).” Is ridiculous. And this is the principle this argument is built on. This simply incorrect, a comparison can be made between the same quality on two separate entities without any maximum. The Theory of Relativity uses this, as does everyone in every day life. How fast something is going is in comparison to your own frame of reference, not an ultimate.

I apologize for my former “thin” statement, I was just excited thanks to new experimental avenues : ).

Thanks

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you say God is infinite, then we can arbitrarily assign that quality to the Universe as well, eliminating the necessity for God this argument relies upon.

why can you arbitrarily assign that quality to the universe?, be assured, physics does not hold that view, the universe is not infinite.

My last point on this subject will be that whether we discuss simultaneous or temporal causality, there is no need to postulate God to begin either of these. This simultaneous causality can be explained by the Universe being infinite, QM, the Big Bang, String Theory… etc.

except these all postulate causes from before the initiation of time at the beginning. they are no different in that respect than aquinas’ proof.

not to mention that other than the big bang all these theories are mutually exclusive, and are yet unproven.

so if your going to guess then the best guess should be based on a regression from the current condition of the universe, that regression leads you back to infinite values which are suspiciously like the values we claim for G-d. i cant say that it is G-d, but if it walks, talks and acts like a duck, chances are pretty good its a duck.

thats more than any theory of physics can claim.

 

[Logos385]

I am at a loss as to why the current principles of Physics deny an infinite universe? And if they do, wouldn’t whatever principle that is also deny the infinite energy of God as well?

Yes, they are unproven, but Aquinas’s proof relies on God being necessary to terminate the regress. These theories show that God is not necessary, thus eliminate the necessity this argument relies upon. Thus, refuting the argument. The less speculation necessary, the more like a theory is to be true. All of the natural explanations are thus much more probable, because they don’t need to speculate an entirely new, supernatural realm of which there is no evidence.

If they are “no different” than Aquinas’s event, I have no problem with it, but calling it God would be a fallacy. This is because the word God has a connotation of being all-powerful, all-knowing, compassionate, loving, intelligent, etc, and this postulation is even more speculative than that of a separate, supernatural realm.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I am at a loss as to why the current principles of Physics deny an infinite universe?

there is a finite amount of matter.

And if they do, wouldn’t whatever principle that is also deny the infinite energy of God as well?

no, why should the two concepts be related?

Yes, they are unproven, but Aquinas’s proof relies on God being necessary to terminate the regress.

a sufficient cause is necessary for an effect to occur.

These theories show that God is not necessary, thus eliminate the necessity this argument relies upon. Thus, refuting the argument.

these theories are not proven and are mutually exclusive, they don’t refute anything anymore than simply making the statement “G-d is not necessary”

The less speculation necessary, the more like a theory is to be true. All of the natural explanations are thus much more probable, because they don’t need to speculate an entirely new, supernatural realm of which there is no evidence.

0+0=0 it requires an awful lot of explanation to get around that most natural of phenomenon. in fact the natural explanations you refer to are extremely complicated, requiring tens of thousands of scientists, billions of dollars of equipments and decades of research that still, is little more than conjecture, Occam’s Razor, cuts in our favor.

as to evidence, i would point to free will. you cant explain it as a matter of scientism, it can have no physical explanation, yet it is obvious to all that we possess this effect of the supernatural.

If they are “no different” than Aquinas’s event, I have no problem with it, but calling it God would be a fallacy.

thats why i don’t call it G-d, i say that it is suspiciously G-d like, which according to the duck theory means there is a real good chance it is G-d.

This is because the word God has a connotation of being all-powerful, all-knowing, compassionate, loving, intelligent, etc, and this postulation is even more speculative than that of a separate, supernatural realm

obviously it only speaks to mathematically definable qualities, but i see no reason at all for the universe to exist without sufficient cause, doing so would be much more speculative in my book.

 

[MindOverMatter]

We have, in fact, disproved all of St. Aquinas’s arguments, and the only one still really in use today is the argument from Design…

I guarantee you; each disproof is based on a straw-man of what it means for God to be the cause of time.

The first three deal with an infinite regress, and use God as the terminator of that regress.

No. Each one deals with certain aspects of space, time, and matter; such as motion and sufficient causality. In other words, he identifies physical reality with its dynamism and agrees that, outside of it, there can be no “physics” and thus no physical explanation for why it is in motion or in being. However, he sees no logical reason why we must conclude that reality simply begins and ends with accidental motion; and then he attempts to seek a sufficent explanation for why the Universe is in motion in the first place. What Aquinas is trying to show us, is that a completely immaterial space-less timeless (eternal) being, with an eternal will, is the only sufficient concept that can fully explain the reality of “Physical Events”. Outside that concept; there is no suffient explanation. In otherwords; the Ultimate reality of things, is not physical or an event in time.

Aquinas never attempts to disprove an infinite regression; but rather looks for a sufficient explanation of motion, acidental causality, so on and so forth, and claims that an “uncaused cause” is the only possible and suffcient explanation of motion; in other words, a being that is not in a series of events, but is the cause of events. The ground of time.
The problem with claiming that it is a physical cause, is that anything that is in time is in motion, since time is a measure of motion, and thus, cannot by itself be an “unmoving” mover. Something cannot be in motion without being caused, and neither can it cause its own motion from a state of timelessness, or non motion. It follows that any explanation of motion therefore transcends space and time; and that thing, according to Aquinas, is God.

It cannot be shown, that anything can be the cause of its self unless it is perfect. There is always a reason for why something does something. One can attribute these to laws and then plead ignorance. But ultimately, if one is in the service of philosophy, logic and science for the glory of truth rather then just for the glory and prejudice of naturalism, then we must find a sufficient explanation of those laws. We cannot logically find a cause, unless we attribute them to something that is like a mind or will—a maker of laws.

This regress relies on causality, but what Aquinas doesn’t realize is that before time (before the universe was created) causality was impossible, for time didn’t exist.

Aquinas did understand this quite well. What he also understood was that accidental causality can never be a sufficient explanation for the universe; since in order for there to be accidents there must be beings that precede it that are also accidents. What we end up with is a big chain accidents that has no cause or reason for why it exists. Motion cannot logically or ultimately explain motion. He understood perfectly well that nothing in time can be an ultimate cause, and so time must ultimately be rooted in an unmoving space-less timeless being.

There was no causality because an ordered series is impossible without time.

Yes; but that doesn’t mean that therefore being must be a product of time.
This does not rule out a hierarchical series of beings that follows logically and necessarily from its premise. Being can be eternal; from which time can become eternally manifest. For example; before there can be time, there must first be such a thing as being. Otherwise we must suppose that there is such a thing as a time that transcended existence; which is absurd. Therefore time is subordinate to being and exists because of being, as in, it is caused by being. Now………….me and Aquinas realize that the kind of cause that we’re speaking about cannot possibly exist if we are talking about “physical causality”. Since time is one moment after another. But if we are talking about an eternal being, which transcends space, time, and energy—a being that simply “is”—then we cannot rule out God as a ultimate cause. Such a cause, would not precede time in the causal sense of the universe, but would rather exist hierarchically and simultaneous to the first event and all events. A being with all the attributes the Christian God, with an eternal and perfect will to create and love, is the only possible explanation for motion. God is the only possible explanation for laws. Therefore God is the only possible explanation for personal beings like my-self and Saint Aquinas. God is the reason why there is something rather then nothing.

Why is there motion or time in the first place? = Unmoved mover.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Thus, logically, we can show the universe to be the first cause,

You can certainly say that the universe is the first cause, but that wouldn’t be logical statement.

The universe cannot logically be the cause of its self. Neither is there any sufficient reason to end reasoning, just because its means transcending the reality of sense perception.

At least of the causality we are discussing, eliminating the necessity of God (which is what the first three arguments rely upon). ).

Any physical explanation; can only ever be a shallow explanation; for the only language that science can use, is the language of physical mechanics. In other words, you have to ignore everything we experience as persons, including experience itself. And then you have to ignore logical truths such as “out of nothing, comes nothing” in order to feel comfortable with naturalism. You have to imagine this myth that science will explain everything. This is what it all boils down to in the end; can things do the logically impossible. In other words naturalism has to fall in to tangent of irrationality and unreason in order to feel justified about its position. This tells me that naturalism is simply a prevailing dogma; nothing more. The theist needn’t do any such thing that would dispute that things cannot come out of nothing, and neither does the theist need to explain everything that God is or can do, in order to know that theism provides a better explanation then naturalism.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Sorry for the spelling mistakes and missing words.

I kind of dribbled them out quickly without proof reading.

Peace.

 

[masterjedi747]

I just wanted to add that I think another problem with the First Cause argument is the chain metaphor for causality–as if the universe unfolds like a series of dominoes, one knocking over the rest. Experience shows us that events don’t have a single cause but multiple causes that spread out in a web rather than narrow down to a single chain.

That’s true – and that’s not incompatible with anything Aquinas says… or Aristotle, for that matter. Follow each and every single thread/path of causes back, and the exact same argument will apply to every single one of them.

since nothing is uncaused, then those changes must have a cause.

They do… we definitely don’t disagree on that. And if it’s an indeterminate effect, then, at least to whatever degree it is indeterminate, it requires an indeterminate cause.

ok, for arguments sake lets say there are five equally probable outcomes. the first interaction yields outcome 5, the second to outcome 2, the third outcome 4, etc. each interaction leads you away from the original state. changing the probabilities of the next outcome. it may be slower, but you still reach a point where all matter disintegrates if you have any more than 1 possible outcome for any particular interaction.

I don’t think that’s a good example at all. For one thing, I’m trying to emphasize the fact that all outcomes are not equally probable. Some are far far far more improbable than others. Second of all, I don’t understand why you would say “each interaction leads you away from the original state” – the fluctuating qualities of the particle don’t change its nature (the particular outcome towards which it tends).

A much better analogy (and remember it’s an analogy, please, because I know it’s not perfect) would be something like a fixed deck of cards – all Diamonds, for simplicity, but with an incredibly huge number of cards in the deck – of which 94% are Aces of Diamonds, 4% are Kings of Diamonds, 1% are Queens of Diamonds, and the remaining 1% is spread out across the rest of the suit in a roughly similar rapidly diminishing ratio. And then you set it up so that something ridiculous like 100,000 cards per second will be drawn, and each one instantly re-shuffled back into the whole deck before the next card is drawn. Then watch a list of the outcomes being generated in slow motion. You know that the process is tending towards a particular outcome (the Ace of Diamonds), but the particular outcome of any one card draw is unpredictable – though statistically likely to end up being an Ace of Diamonds, it’s not absolutely certain that it has to be an Ace of Diamonds any particular time.

…[so] if you insert any true randomness into the system then matter simply couldn’t exist as we see it.

it should be very obvious, mostly matter simply disintegrating for no apparent reason.

See above. It’s not absolute randomness – as I said, if it were, I would agree with you. Consistency can be maintained because the nature of the particle is tending towards a particular outcome.

there is some question as to how well mathematics map to phenomenon, but that is a problem with our understanding of the universe and our ability to manipulate logical constructs as opposed to some quirks in reality where certain phenomenon fall under entirely different logic systems,** at least thats my opinion**.

…well, I think we definitely agree about that.

if we wish to be taken seriously as Catholics we do, the average joes that we hope convert dont respect willful ignorance in the face of scientific observation, i refer you to galileo.

Fully aware of that. And I could caution you against the same (though I doubt it’s necessary), since you’re more or less definitely in the minority opinion on this issue, as far as the scientific community is concerned. Last I checked, anyway.

…for me it is by this supernatural influence that we are able to escape deterministic phenomenon, which goes back to my point that free will proves the existence of the supernatural. there is no physical mechanism for this. it is entirely supernatural in nature.

I’m not disagreeing with that at all. But I am arguing for the possibility that human free will might not be the only source of indeterminacy in nature.

 

[masterjedi747]

pretty much a good picture of the arguments, i dont know about the ‘solution’ in my argument, like i said i dont feel the need to define a mechanism by which it works.** and in my model there is no physical indeterminancy at all**

That can’t possibly be right… even in your model, there will have to be physical indeterminacy observed in some manner, however small it might be, in the human brain. Please, tell me, if I’m really just missing something completely – how you could possibly hold otherwise?

You agree that we can actually act upon our free will, right? And that the physical actions informed by our nervous system are in turn directed by the brain? And your brain is composed of physical particles, which follow the (assumed determinate) laws of physics? …you agree with those, right? So now, if I threaten you with a sword, and you actually have the choice to either stand or turn and run, how can you possibly have the freedom to physically carry out the end you wish, if your brain is not capable of cooperating with your free will on some level?

If there is absolutely no cooperation, then your brain would end up determining the solution it wants, and your body would be forced to comply with the solution your brain has chosen, regardless of whether or not it that’s what your will chooses to do. So at least some of the time (and probably not too infrequently), we would have to have the experience of freely choosing something contrary to what our body proceeds to carry out. And yet this clearly doesn’t happen – so you definitely need to account for it in some manner. How else other than granting some sort of physical indeterminacy to the brain, caused by free will?

as we see, only physical phenomenon can produce physical effects.

…but you agree that we see physical phenomenon being produced by the non-physical cause of free will, at least in men, rather frequently?

you seem to be trying to jump the bridge from the supernatural to the physical.

In regard to your scenario, yeah, that’s exactly what I am doing. I’m seeing it as that you have to, if you’re going to put physical determinism together with free will.

we are essentially meat puppets housing the soul.

Uh… I’m just going to pretend you didn’t say that, and move on…
For one, it’s a completely different topic that doesn’t belong in this thread – there’s far too much to cover already, without that – but furthermore, just FYI, that sounds dangerously close to contradicting Church doctrine. So I think we should just move on for now, and move that discussion to a separate appropriate thread, if necessary.

free will is not an expression of physical phenomenon, rather it is a supernatural phenomenon…

But the supernatural phenomenon somehow has to be expressed physically… because we experience that happening in ourselves all the time, right?

 

[masterjedi747]

Aquinas posits that everything has a cause. If that is true, then so does God.

Nope – he posits that every change (motion) has a cause. God would only require a cause if He ever changed in any way – which He doesn’t; or rather, can’t.

If there is something that does not have a cause, it may as well be the universe rather than God.

Not true. For one, because Thomas argues elsewhere that God must be perfectly simple (not composed of parts in any way), and the universe is clearly not such a being.

Aquinas says that the chain of causality cannot be infinite, It is not at all clear to me why not.

I was trying to touch upon this earlier. It’s important.

If you’re dealing with a temporal chain of causality, then no, it’s not clear that the chain cannot be infinite. Thomas himself admits as much in Part 1, Article 46 of the Summa – there is no real philosophical problem with the idea that the universe could have been created without a beginning, in which case you could have a temporal chain of causes extending backwards indefinitely. Thomas simply says that this is contrary to divinely revealed truth – that the universe was created ex nihilo is an article of faith, not a philosophical absolute.

The only chain of causality that cannot be infinite is the chain of simultaneous causes – for instance, a ball being rolled by a block being pushed by a train being propelled by wheels being turned by gears being pushed by steam being heated by fire (itself being produced by, etc). You can’t go back forever, in this case, because we need a first cause in order to have the final effect. There might be any particular number of intermediate causes between the first cause and last effect, but you still need to have a first. Because if you remove the first (by making the chain infinite, there is no first), you remove anything driving the whole chain, and then nothing in the chain could ever move at all. And remember, this is because we’re dealing with simultaneous causes – whereas temporal causes have no such necessary limitation.

Finally, even if we accept his argument for a First Cause, there is no reason to think that this first cause has any of the properties traditionally ascribed to God. … I see no reason to believe that a first cause would have to be a supreme intelligence with omnipotence and perfect goodness.

Don’t worry about that yet – because you’re right, simply proving the existence a first efficient cause, in itself, doesn’t make clear anything else about the nature of that being. Which is why Thomas spends Questions 3 through 26 (and that’s a LOT, let me tell you) addressing all of those concerns and their objections.

 

[delaacecruz]

when christ founded his church in Mat. 16:18, did christ
intended that his church will have an official name?
Is He founded called the church of christ? rome 16:16
or church of god 1 cor 1-2?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That’s true – and that’s not incompatible with anything Aquinas says… or Aristotle, for that matter. Follow each and every single thread/path of causes back, and the exact same argument will apply to every single one of them.

thats the exact opposite of any decision tree i have seen, all causes trace back to one, no matter how complicated the environment

A much better analogy (and remember it’s an analogy, please, because I know it’s not perfect) would be something like a fixed deck of cards – all Diamonds, for simplicity, but with an incredibly huge number of cards in the deck – of which 94% are Aces of Diamonds, 4% are Kings of Diamonds, 1% are Queens of Diamonds, and the remaining 1% is spread out across the rest of the suit in a roughly similar rapidly diminishing ratio.
See above. It’s not absolute randomness – as I said, if it were, I would agree with you. Consistency can be maintained because the nature of the particle is tending towards a particular outcome.

the problem here is that there is no equal probability of out come at all, though you have randomly assigned a few possibilities, 94% of the time it comes up AD, that is essentially determinism, with just enough other possibilities to use the word ‘probability’
thing is that in QM there is a much wider plane of probability, i refer you to the slit experiment.

this is determinism in all but name, and doesnt reflect QM indeterminism.

Fully aware of that. And I could caution you against the same (though I doubt it’s necessary), since you’re more or less definitely in the minority opinion on this issue, as far as the scientific community is concerned. Last I checked, anyway.

if there was any evidence in the macro world of indeterminancy, i would be more concerned. but you have to remember that all the theory you are counting on is just conjecture, and mutually exclusive conjecture at that. guesses

I’m not disagreeing with that at all. But I am arguing for the possibility that human free will might not be the only source of indeterminacy in nature.

all you need is proof of that, im saying there doesnt seem to be any.