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

[MindOverMatter]

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

Everything that “begins” to exist needs a cause. It is reasonable therefore to suppose that there is an ultimate cause that is an uncaused cause because of its nature as a being. This is what we Christians call God. Given that the universe began to exist; there is no reason to suppose that the universe is an uncaused cause.

If a being is space-less, timeless, and without physical dimension; then it is unreasonable to apply the same rule of causality as one would apply to a physical being. A Supernatural being cannot arise by an accidental series of evolutionary coincidences because it is not itself a physically inert evolving being in time. God is timeless, and therefore it is meaningless to look for accidental causes for God. The only way a supernatural being can be caused, is by being the produce of another creative-will. And if we are talking about God being caused, then we are not talking about an uncaused cause. We are not talking about God. So, to even raise the question is to misunderstand what one means by an uncaused cause. A physical being is different, because it is inert, and therefore cannot move itself, or bring itself in to being and thus it is reasonable to ask what caused it. Ultimately this means transcending the nature of the effect.

To sum up more clearly; you could say that God has a cause; but such a God would not really be God. Also, when we ask what caused God, we cannot speak of accidental natural causes because God is space-less, timeless and without any physical dimensions. Therefore one can only speak of a personal-will of some kind, and although it might be true that there is a hierarchy of supernatural wills, it would seem un-reasonable to think that there was a un-ending series of supernatural wills. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that ultimately we would eventually come to a necessary first cause that explains its own being and all other beings.

Now one only needs to show that physical causes are insufficient at ultimately explaining themselves by there own nature. God on the other hand, does not need to be fully understood, and we cannot expect God to be fully comprehensible. All we need to know is that in order for the universe to be explained, we must posit a transcendent necessary being which exists by its own nature, and has eternally willed things into existence. In other words, God is Existence, and exists by Gods nature of existing, and causes by its nature of being personal. God is the only being that can legitimately be a called a necessary being.

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

There’s no such thing as an infinite number. It is a meaningless concept. There is no a-prior justification for positing an actual infinite series of events made up of additional numbers, because then that series would have an actual number, which is a contradiction; because an infinite series transcends any descriptive numbers. Therefore it is a fallacy to speak of an actual infinite that is made up of additional numbers. Additional Numbers are discriptive and are therefore finite and only potentailly infinite.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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?

nope, not none, no proof any where.

because i dont think the brain does anything more than support the physical reactions, we are just meat puppets for the soul

all real decisions of will are made by supernatural effect we call free will, imagine a computer running a program, for lack of a better analogy, it carries out maintenance functions with no director, but when put to use a program controls the circuitry, sending immaterial bits hither and yon that cause effects.

not a good analogy, but the gist is that i may not know the exact mechanism, but the soul controls the mind, or something to that effect. the mechanism is in fact unimportant as there would seem to be no other proof of nondeterminism in nature.

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

sure, i think, maybe?

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.

except there is no evidence of this indeterminism. its an imaginary bridge.

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.

please tell me what doctrine that violates? its just an expression to indicate the lack of clarity we reach because we dont have a mechanism for jumping the bridge from non-physical to physical, even in your model that bridge is jumped somewhere, you just jump it at the quantum level, i dont try to jump it i just recognize that we got to the other side somehow.

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

thats just it, i dont know, or think the mechanism is important, i just know it happens.

that may well be a limit on human understanding. that jump, no matter the level you care to make it is not something we understand, it is counter intuitive, but it shows up on our radar.

to review

you - the jump occurs on the quantum level through indeterminancy

me - the jump occurs, the mechanism is unknown, but it cant be QM theories that are nowhere near proven.

this is a very old argument, like i said check out lucretius.

 

[Logos385]

To warpseedpeety: How does a finite amount of matter prove a finite universe?? I’m at a loss.

As to you repeatedly saying that the Universe must have an efficient cause, yes (if it is not infinite, which it could be), but I’ve named a few. These may be mutually exclusive and unproven, but have more evidence than the God Hypothesis by leaps and bounds. Even if they didn’t, once more, the existence of these arguments eliminate the necessity for supernatural causation, which is what Aquinas needs for his argument to hold.

I actually wasn’t speaking of Occam’s razor, but even if I was, the addition of the supernatural immediately makes the God Hypothesis much more complicated than any of the naturalistic explanations. The natural universe is just simpler than the supernatural, purely because much, much less speculation is needed. And as I have said before, the “sufficient causes” can be naturalistic ones. They may not be proven, but they are certainly possibilities.

About free will- we still aren’t sure whether we have it, and why on Earth isn’t it just a product of the human brain? A natural manifestation of organic electrical signals? I see no reason why free will needs a supernatural source- decisions are made through rational processes and through the mind, which is a manifestation of the natural world and brain.

 

[Logos385]

In response to MindOverMatter:

Aquinas’s understanding is an early one, and under the scientific knowledge of his day, his position was probably the only reasonable one. And I commend him greatly for that. But now, with Quantum physics, the possibility of the Omniverse/Multiverse, the Big Bang, etc, the initial cause, the, “Unmoved mover” is not by definition required to be supernatural. Something can still be natural and outside time, just since we have evolved to be able to see “Middle Earth” as many are referring to it, and evolved to be able to analyze our universe, all of our human minds will be simply unable to imagine such a thing. This is because we are conditioned otherwise. But the modern scientific explanations (which Aquinas, granted, did not have available) show us that an eternal being without cause but with an eternal will is in fact not the only explanation and is not the most likely.

Current science does not postulate simple, “Accidental causality,” if you think this read up on QM, The Big Bang, String Theory, etc. And laws are descriptions of how nature works, made by humans. They are always true because we have always observed them to be true. They are descriptions of a process in motion, they are not laws binding beings. This is the difference. When a law has a possibility of being broken it must have a creator, however, when a law has no possibility of being broken, then no creator is necessary. Due partly to a side-application of the Anthropic principle, the laws are the laws… because they are the laws. It’s just how things work. It is impossible for things to be another way, because they are the way they are. The laws exist because that is how the natural world works, not because something (a mind) had to create them.

I agree that we can’t completely eliminate God as a possibility as of yet, for initial causality at least. Yet, St. Aquinas’s arguments rely on the necessity of God being the only possible explanation. Otherwise, they fall through. As I have named multiple times, naturalistic explanations are also possible, making God not a necessary termination of the regress, thus not necessary, thus not proven.

“Neither is there any sufficient reason to end reasoning”
-I agree, why do you do so by invoking an eternal deity?

“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.”

• No. You really need to read up on current scientific postulation about the origin of the Universe, you clearly do not understand these naturalistic explanations. They are perfectly logical, perfectly possible, and eliminate the necessity of a creator being. Please read about them, it will help you greatly for your appreciation of science, the natural world, and us Atheists.

Read up on these before replying to me again, otherwise this conversation shall become worthless.

Thanks for the very in-depth response(s). : ).

 

[masterjedi747]

Here are the arguments–> mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm

Don’t use those summaries… they capture the brevity of the arguments with about 80% of the actual logic, plus the sentences themselves are frequently misleading. Please argue from an actual translation of the Summa, such as this, even if the arguments don’t seem any more convincing.

You say that,“You can still have an ordered series of simultaneous causes…” which is an utter fallacy.

Nice try…

An ordered series requires causes that are not simultaneous.

Nope. If I’m pushing the box that’s pushing the tray that’s pushing the ball, then we have an ordered series of simultaneous causes (and effects).

an ordered regress cannot by definition have simultaneous events.

Again, nice try…

Series means (dictionary.com): “A group or a number of related or similar things, events, etc… occurring in sequence.”

1. Try quoting the whole definition next time…
   “a group or a number of related or similar things, events, etc., **arranged **or occurring in temporal, spatial, or other order or succession; sequence”
2. That doesn’t affect what I’m saying at all.

Without time there is no sequence… thus … no series.

Uh… where did that particular premise come from?

there is no more ordered regression before time began. By definition this is impossible.

As I said, no temporal regression before time begins. But you can still have “regression” to an (eternal) efficient cause that existed simultaneously its effect.

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.

…you lost me on the phrase “before time”. (?)

“Aquinas would never agree that anything that had a beginning could be “causeless”.”… What? He postulates God, thus does just this.

Read what I wrote again. God doesn’t fall under the category of things that had a beginning.

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.

…did you mean to say infinite or eternal? Still, make the universe both or either, it actually doesn’t eliminate the necessity of reaching a God who created it. Although that definitely won’t be clear to you yet, so I’ll let that go for now and push this instead: if you just assign all of these qualities to the universe, then you’re just slowly turning “the universe” into “God” – but you’re not removing the necessity of His existence.

…However, I see no merit in this argument [the 5th way] 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?

It’s just something taken from observation – and “ultimate goal” is hardly an accurate translation. But that particular part of the argument, which Aquinas actually takes from Aristotle, is simply that we see natural things acting towards a particular end: a certain kind of seed naturally grows into a certain kind of tree, certain animals naturally attempt to produce offspring like themselves, and certain chemicals naturally react in a certain way to produce a certain compound. Hence, we see that natural things act for a particular end.

 

[masterjedi747]

About the 4th 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.

1. That’s definitely not a very good translation of the argument. Because what you are saying is also true – there is no necessary thing existing with the maximum possible degree of height, or area – and Aquinas wouldn’t disagree; he’s definitely not that stupid. Instead, there’s some sort of distinction that has to be made between two different types of gradations – one of which requires the maximum that Thomas speaks of, and one of which does not. Unfortunately, that’s about as much as I can remember right now.
2. As I said before, I’m not exactly comfortable discussing this argument right now – I left all of my books and notes at school, and I’d very much like to reference them (and probably talk with some other people) before I actually stand here and explain/defend every last detail of the argument. Worst case, if you still really want to talk about it, you’ll at least have to give me a day or two to get in contact with a few people.
3. There might be good reason to hold that the particular example which Thomas uses (that of fire) is a bad example, based on his incorrect understanding of the nature of fire. But even if that turns out to be the case, which I think it might, it’s not actually going to damage the real force behind the argument in any way – it would just be a bad example for modern readers, who no longer have the same understanding of fire that Aquinas did.
4. As I also said before, the key step of Thomas’ argument has to do simply with the fact that there must be a maximum in regard to truth (a “most” or “complete” true) – none of the other qualities mentioned really matter – from which alone he argues to the existence of a “most” or “complete” being, which causes the being of all other things. And again, unfortunately, I know that some of these steps rely directly upon conclusions of lengthy arguments taken straight from Aristotle’s Metaphisics, so it’s not at all surprising if you read the argument and feel like huge steps are being left out. So I do think it’s definitely the hardest of the 5 ways – but I do have severe doubts as to claim that “the argument doesn’t work”, much less “it’s clear that the argument doesn’t work”.

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

Wait, where did a decision tree come from? I thought Leela was simply having difficulty with the fact that some things out in the world have multiple physical causes – you have two parents, for instance. Or you have food and sunlight and exercise all contributing to your health – the food on your plate having been caused not only by the farmer, but the weather, and the parent plant/animal which gave rise to it. I thought she had a valid concern. (?) A decision tree just seems like the exact opposite sort of situation. But if I’m still misunderstanding, can you give an example?

The rest of my responses shall have to wait until morning…

 

[MindOverMatter]

Read up on these before replying to me again, otherwise this conversation shall become worthless.

Thanks for the very in-depth response(s). : ).

Why something rather then nothing?

If we are not talking about the relationship between time and eternity, then we are talking about the hierarchy of being. The only thing that can be called a necessary being is pure-existence or rather pure being; for existence has no parts and exists purely by its nature of existing. Dimensions, time, energy, space, laws, multi-verses, all of these are secondary products that could not exist unless there was first such a thing as an eternal being. Existence is not a product of dimension; and thus does not exist merely because a thing has any particular dimension; for that would be absurd. If any dimension happened to be a neccesary being in the true sense of the word, then that would mean, in a hierarchical sense, that such dimensions would transcend existence, which is impossible, for that is the same as saying that existence is the property of dimensions. But nothing can exist out side of existence or be the cause of existence other then existence. For that reason alone, it is not reasonable to claim that physical dimension and “existence” is one and the same being in nature or hierarchy. In other words existence, hierarchically speaking, transcends all dimensions and is ultimately, and simultaneously, the cause of them. And if existence is the first principle, then it is necessarily non-physical by its immediate nature.

I’m about logic; not hypothetical scientific speculations that cannot even be measured empirically.
A few people on this forum play the tactic of huffing and puffing, claiming that there are in fact scientific explanations that remove the need for God without even bothering to site sources or demonstrate why this is so. Sadly you are now one of them.
The so called theories you talk about are hypothesis that cannot be proven, because they cannot be measured.
So before you send everybody on a wild goose chase, I would like to see why those theories, if they are true, would undermine a need for God? Am I correct that you and scientists are supposedly making the claim that physical reality can exist outside a series of events in time? In order for that to be true you would have to invent somekind of necessary being that was physical. I think that it is illogical to speak of a blind natural cause as being both unmoved and moving. But before you go into that i would like you to take some things into consideration…

And if so….?

It seems to me that you are saying that there is a neccesary being that is physical in nature. Am I correct? The problem with this line of thinking is that it cannot be demonstrated logically or scientifically. Ultimately it is just baseless speculation that cannot possibly be shown to be true by any a-prior or a-posteriori argument and neither can it be empirically proven by science either. Therefore it is simply a matter of faith for the naturalist. This is precisely where the “God hypothesis” is a better explanation; for it follows from the contingency of motion or physical being that God exists or rather that one must transcend space and time in order to explain physical reality. Until you can show why one should suppose that any physical dimension is a neccesary being by nature, then, there is no logical reason to think that Aquinas’s arguments are disproved. As for scientific explanations that challenge the concept of causality or motion, these are merely possibilities which have not been proven to any efficient degree. The theist is fully aware that there are many possibilities that could be true. However not all possibilities are good explanations of the reality in which we exist. Based on what has been proven by science, Aquinas has not been relegated to the past yet. All you have given me is threats about how science has all these theories that cannot be proven.

The reality is that you accept these scientific hypotheses by faith, because they support your desire for a naturalistic account of reality. And if this is what you want then fine. But I have to say that this is to me kind of odd. Why would anybody want to have faith in the idea that the world is a pointless accident unless they thought that they had something to gain from that belief which has nothing to do with reason or science?
Positing an infinite regress of something or reducing reality to a lifeless dimension of some kind, seems to me to be an attempt to avoid God as an explanation.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

To warpseedpeety: How does a finite amount of matter prove a finite universe?? I’m at a loss.

because an infinite universe would have an infinite amount of matter, an infinite universe would have no starting point, which we can see, check cosmic microwave back ground.

As to you repeatedly saying that the Universe must have an efficient cause, yes (if it is not infinite, which it could be), but I’ve named a few. These may be mutually exclusive and unproven, but have more evidence than the God Hypothesis by leaps and bounds.

now im at a loss as to what evidence you are referring to. i said sufficient cause. the first problem is only 4% of the mass in the universe is identified, thats what the search for ‘dark matter’ is about. something is insufficient to cause itself, much less only 4% of that thing.

what you are calling evidence is nothing more than theory, theories that even if right, dont satisfy the logical requirements of ‘first cause’, they would just throw us back into infinite regression.

those theories are also specifically made to argue against a created universe, they start with a pre-determined goal, hardly an objective methodology

so the idea that you can draw evidence from them is still about the same you can draw from a fairy tale, none.

Even if they didn’t, once more, the existence of these arguments eliminate the necessity for supernatural causation, which is what Aquinas needs for his argument to hold.

since they are only conjecture, that is no better than simply declaring “we dont need G-d” because i am color blind i might say “blue is green” and be offering substantively the same amount of evidence. thats just a declaration, nothing more

I actually wasn’t speaking of Occam’s razor, but even if I was, the addition of the supernatural immediately makes the God Hypothesis much more complicated than any of the naturalistic explanations. The natural universe is just simpler than the supernatural, purely because much, much less speculation is needed.

thats just it, Aquinas’ arguments take little, every one of the QM theories takes, as i said, tens of thousands of people, billions of dollars and math only a couple people in the world can understand, Aquinas is simple and elegant, as the truth should be, these other theories are huge, complicated, awkward, mutually exclusive, and still, with all that, they are unproven.

And as I have said before, the “sufficient causes” can be naturalistic ones. They may not be proven, but they are certainly possibilities.

actually, since nothing can cause itself, by definition, naturalistic ones are insufficient, thats Aquinas’ point as i understand it, but thats more MOM, im more about the metaphysics.

About free will- we still aren’t sure whether we have it,

if it is a fake that it is a perfect copy, a perfect copy of something is that thing. i need a lot more evidence before i could seriously doubt free will.

and why on Earth isn’t it just a product of the human brain? A natural manifestation of organic electrical signals? I see no reason why free will needs a supernatural source- decisions are made through rational processes and through the mind, which is a manifestation of the natural world and brain.

actually, your brain is subject to the same physics of any other matter in the universe. subject to the same macro determinism as any object. the whole point of our current argument is how to explain the method by which free will operates. if there is no supernatural, then you would have no free will. the universe would be completely deterministic, relentlessly following the laws of particle interactions. thats why.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The reality is that you accept these scientific hypotheses by faith, because they support your desire for a naturalistic account of reality. And if this is what you want then fine. But I have to say that this is to me kind of odd. Why would anybody want to have faith in the idea that the world is a pointless accident unless they thought that they had something to gain from that belief which has nothing to do with reason or science?
Positing an infinite regress of something or reducing reality to a lifeless dimension of some kind, seems to me to be an attempt to avoid God as an explanation.

 

[masterjedi747]

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’

As I’ve been saying… …the two aren’t quite as different, in practice, as you seem to be pushing for. “Essentially determinism” isn’t actually determinism, especially once you factor in the whole Newtonian chaos Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions / “quantum butterfly effect” ] principle, which I posted some info on several posts ago.

thing is that in QM there is a much wider plane of probability

Not really… I mean, yes, it will certainly differ in complexity from the card-drawing example, but it’s pretty darn close.

this is determinism in all but name…

…it’s not determinism, because any particular outcome cannot be known/calculated ahead of time with absolute certainty ahead of time. And it’s still not “absolute” indeterminacy, because the particle is tending towards a particular end. And this is precisely where the Aristotelian/Thomistic position fit in – neither absolute determinism or absolute randomness, but rather naturally tending towards an end. Hence the 5th way.

…and doesnt reflect QM indeterminism

…oh, I think it does. For instance, check out the probability density diagram (for hydrogen atom electron orbitals) at the top of this page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function – here you can see very particular patterns that the electron is tending to maintain (the white areas) at any given moment, with diminishing probability (towards purple) of actually finding the electron outside of those particular areas.

…but you have to remember that all the theory you are counting on is just conjecture … guesses

Not more so than any other scientific theory… your proposed deterministic model included. It’s always going to have come down to us making our best guess (however certain that might be) based on the available evidence. Philosophical concerns regarding the consequences of any particular theory can also carry a limited amount of weight.

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

Granted, we’re not going to resolve this just by sitting here and talking about it – but I’m still disagreeing, primarily via appeal to the authority of the general scientific community, including many intelligent atheists, who would have vastly preferred to argue their case under a deterministic model of reality, but have found themselves being forced to reject it based on what I can only assume is incredibly strong (if not overwhelming) evidence. The only pure conjecture theories of QM today, as far as I understand it, are the ones that attempt to make QM deterministic again by assuming the existence of non-local hidden variables, despite the fact that there’s absolutely no evidence for such as of yet.

 

[masterjedi747]

because i dont think the brain does anything more than support the physical reactions

OK… and what’s driving those physical reactions? If the physical reactions are purely deterministic as well, I’m still not seeing how you can allow for any translation from spiritual cause to actual physical effect.

…the soul controls the mind, or something to that effect

…the mind being the physical aspect? All I’ve been trying to say is that, if you combine free will + physical determinism, you *at least *have to allow for the physical determinism to be “violated” in regard to free-willed human actions. Right? – I can’t tell if you’re actually disagreeing with this, or not. Sometimes it definitely sounds like you’re not, but then other times you respond to what I say and sounding like you are disagreeing. So I’m rather confused about what your position actually is right now.

we dont have a mechanism for jumping the bridge from non-physical to physical, even in your model that bridge is jumped somewhere, you just jump it at the quantum level. i don’t try to jump [the bridge from non-physical to physical] i just recognize that we got to the other side somehow.

In other words, you’re just saying that we know the bridge got jumped somewhere, but specifically where doesn’t really matter? OK. – But I was just saying this: since we know that the bridge got crossed somewhere, then, wherever that is, you’re going to have to find some physical effect being produced by a non-deterministic cause (namely: free will), correct? That’s all I’ve been trying to say. At least in regards to free-willed human actions, physical determinism will have to be “broken” somewhere along the chain – that is, wherever the bridge got jumped – if men are actually going to have the ability to act upon their free-will decisions. (Right? I’m pretty sure that we should both agree on this… but let me know.)

there is no evidence of this indeterminism. its an imaginary bridge.

Whereas I would say that determinism is an imaginary cage… :whacky: oh well. We’re pretty much going in circles here, and I don’t think we can really make much more progress by just talking about it. But as far as I can tell, to sum up the whole thing, neither system is necessarily opposed to the faith, so it’s just going to boil down to what the actual observations support (which we obviously disagree on) and/or the particular philosophical difficulties involved.

we are just meat puppets for the soul
…
please tell me what doctrine that violates?

It very much depends on exactly what you mean by that phrase. To me, “meat puppet for the soul” just sounded dangerously close to the whole “I am simply a soul riding inside a body, like the sailor of a ship” position, which is contrary to defined Church doctrine. You are an ensouled body (both together), and not simply one accidentally joined to the other. Your soul doesn’t exist wholly as you when separated from the body. Another way to illustrate the distinction, as St. Thomas does, is this: until after the resurrection of the body, it is technically incorrect to say that St. Peter is in heaven – rather, we say that his soul is in heaven. (This is off topic, though, so we should probably move it elsewhere if it’s going to require a separate discussion.)

*365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one must consider the soul to be the “form” of the body [defined as an article of faith at the Council of Vienne]: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature. *

you - the jump occurs on the quantum level through indeterminancy

Or, at least, that’s one option open on the table. I wouldn’t go ruling out any other options that might turn up, unless they really aren’t reasonable.

this is a very old argument, like i said check out lucretius.

I have read him… but the similarities here are limited. Although the “swerve”, on the surface, certainly has some similarities to the modern notion of indeterminacy, the cause of the “swerve” (if any) is unclear, since Lucretius’ notion of the soul is corporeal, and he doesn’t believe in the gods. I might be remembering incorrectly, but I’m pretty sure the “swerve” is ultimately just his appeal to “something happening without a cause” (something coming from nothing) – which, while it might match some modern atheistic understandings, I think is a fundamentally flawed and incomplete account of indeterminacy – you need to have a cause.

 

[masterjedi747]

As to you repeatedly saying that the Universe must have an efficient cause, yes (if it is not infinite…

Even if it were infinite/eternal, actually. The universe would still require a Creator in either case, because it is not a perfectly simple being, as the unmoved mover must be.

About free will- we still aren’t sure whether we have it…

I’m terribly sorry to hear that… uses free will to pat Logos385 on the back

But now, with Quantum physics, the possibility of the Omniverse/Multiverse, the Big Bang, etc, the initial cause, the, “Unmoved mover” is not by definition required to be supernatural.

Uh… yes, it is. You might want to take a closer look through some of the questions in the Summa after the 5 ways.

…the modern scientific explanations (which Aquinas, granted, did not have available) show us that an eternal being without cause but with an eternal will is in fact not the only explanation and is not the most likely.

Modern scientific explanations have changed nothing in regard to Thomas’ proofs. If you think they have, then you don’t really understand St. Thomas’ argument.

When a law has a possibility of being broken it must have a creator, however, when a law has no possibility of being broken, then no creator is necessary.

Not true. Something can be both necessary and caused. Mathematics might necessarily work a certain way, but that doesn’t mean that there is no cause at all behind mathematical necessity.

…naturalistic explanations are also possible, making God not a necessary termination of the regress, thus not necessary, thus not proven.

Nope, not at all.

You really need to read up on current scientific postulation about the origin of the Universe, you clearly do not understand these naturalistic explanations. They are perfectly logical, perfectly possible, and eliminate the necessity of a creator being. Please read about them, it will help you greatly for your appreciation of science, the natural world, and us Atheists

I’ve read quite a bit, and I’ve never seen anything like that.
Care to point us in any particular direction?
steals warpspeedpetey’s genius use of the popcorn smiley

Until you can show why one should suppose that any physical dimension is a neccesary being by nature, then, there is no logical reason to think that Aquinas’s arguments are disproved.

And you never can show that, since it is impossible for God to be physical (composed of matter and form) – the unmoved mover must have no potency; must be perfectly simple.

Based on what has been proven by science, Aquinas has not been relegated to the past yet.

Nope, not by a long shot. If you actually understand the arguments.

 

[Logos385]

Alright, I believe this response is to warspeedpety, masterjedi and mindovermatter (sorry if I confused any users).

I am going to make a general statement that does not respond to any of your messages directly, but simply refines what I have been saying, for I have been spouting my views incorrectly.

My initial goal here was not to disprove Aquinas’s arguments in the sense to show that God does not exist, my only goal was to show that God is not the only explanation. I cannot disprove, nor could I ever hope to, that God is one of the possibilities for creation. I think we can all agree on that. All I am saying is that there are naturalistic explanations that hold equal weight.

Most of you on these forums choose to subscribe to the supernatural explanations, for you take issue with some or all of the naturalistic ones, or believe the supernatural to be helpful to you in some way.

I choose to subscribe to the naturalistic explanations, for that is, I think, where the evidence leads, and I think is more helpful to myself.

These explanations I subscribe to, as you have rightly pointed out are not proven by any stretch of the imagination. Yet, whether science can explain the phenomenon of origin currently or whether it cannot, I see no reason to terminate the naturalistic search by invoking the supernatural. I realize you all believe this to be the answer, and that is fine, all of the comments I have been making are simply to acknowledge the fact that your explanation is one possibility, and modern scientific explanations are another. Simply that Aquinas’s first three proofs made a case for the possibility of an eternal, transcendent being, yet did not unequivocally prove such a deity.

One video that addresses this indirectly is youtube.com/watch?v=H3H37HUnBv8, in which Dawkins discusses the innate “Weirdness” of modern science, and touches on the origins discussion pulling in Quantum Theory as well as the Multiverse perspective.

With the above said, I do not see much reason to continue our particular discussion, especially since each posting seems to get increasingly long : ).

I wish you all the best, and hope to see you on this Forum in the future : ).

PS. Props to MasterJedi’s “pat on the back” comment, it was hilarious : ).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

All I am saying is that there are naturalistic explanations that hold equal weight.

problem is that they dont hold an equal weight, they are not possible. nothing can cause itself. at some point it is unavoidably necessary to have a first cause. the theories that you have espoused are only possibilities in the same way that one may pick random words from the dictionary and call those possibilities for the creation. i dont mean that rudely, i mean that in the sense that they have no possibility, they are fallacies that sound good but dont hold up to examination.

Most of you on these forums choose to subscribe to the supernatural explanations, for you take issue with some or all of the naturalistic ones, or believe the supernatural to be helpful to you in some way.

the implication would seem to be that we choose beliefs on the basis of desire as to opposed rationalism, we are all educated rational people who have rational, logical reasons to hold our views

I choose to subscribe to the naturalistic explanations, for that is, I think, where the evidence leads, and I think is more helpful to myself.

i am curious as to what benefit you feel you derive from an existence with no intrinsic purpose. to simply be for no more reason than a rock. how does that benefit you?

These explanations I subscribe to, as you have rightly pointed out are not proven by any stretch of the imagination. Yet, whether science can explain the phenomenon of origin currently or whether it cannot, I see no reason to terminate the naturalistic search by invoking the supernatural.

thats the basic problem, all physical effects, even the QM, require a cause, no matter how you frame the causality, nothing can cause itself. a physical explanation is not possible. its not even a matter of opinion, because it is a logical impossibility. it doesnt matter when causality is terminated because it cannot be terminated by a physical process. leaving only supernatural possibilities.

I realize you all believe this to be the answer, and that is fine, all of the comments I have been making are simply to acknowledge the fact that your explanation is one possibility, and modern scientific explanations are another.

as shown above, they are not possible, no physical effect can cause itself, no physical effect can be a regressive terminate of causality.

Simply that Aquinas’s first three proofs made a case for the possibility of an eternal, transcendent being, yet did not unequivocally prove such a deity.

your right that particular set of arguments does not prove a Judeo/Christian G-d, they do prove that a non-physical (supernatural) terminus is the only possible regressive end of causality. there are no other options unloess you actually beleive that “something, can come from nothing”. there are entirely different arguments that prove Christianity in comparison to all other Faiths.

One video that addresses this indirectly is youtube.com/watch?v=H3H37HUnBv8, in which Dawkins discusses the innate “Weirdness” of modern science, and touches on the origins discussion pulling in Quantum Theory as well as the Multiverse perspective.

frankly dawkins suggests aliens seeded the earth with life, thats laughable prima facia. and the multiverse concept has little credibility among the physics community, but still, that argument to requires an impossible regressive terminus to causality.

With the above said, I do not see much reason to continue our particular discussion, especially since each posting seems to get increasingly long : ).

yes they are too long

yet there is so much more to discuss, these arent really matters of choice of belief, some things are possible and some are not.

possible = supernatural creation

impossible = something coming from nothing.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As I’ve been saying… …the two aren’t quite as different, in practice, as you seem to be pushing for. “Essentially determinism” isn’t actually determinism, especially once you factor in the whole Newtonian chaos Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions / “quantum butterfly effect” ] principle, which I posted some info on several posts ago.

i am saying your analogy was determinism in all but name.

Not really… I mean, yes, it will certainly differ in complexity from the card-drawing example, but it’s pretty darn close.

there are almost an infinite number of equally possible interactions, the only ones excluded are where the two particles would be in the exact same space at the exact same time. that is nothing like your analogy

…it’s not determinism, because any particular outcome cannot be known/calculated ahead of time with absolute certainty ahead of time

one has no foreknowledge of the position of the balls before the break, that doesn’t mean that they are not determinable simply because one doesn’t know enough about the event to do the calculations before hand.

And it’s still not “absolute” indeterminacy, because the particle is tending towards a particular end. And this is precisely where the Aristotelian/Thomistic position fit in – neither absolute determinism or absolute randomness, but rather naturally tending towards an end. Hence the 5th way.

back to the idea of a huge number of equally possible interactions.
for simplicity we have been playing with just a few possibilities, they are actually almost infinite

…oh, I think it does. For instance, check out the probability density diagram (for hydrogen atom electron orbitals) at the top of this page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function – here you can see very particular patterns that the electron is tending to maintain (the white areas) at any given moment, with diminishing probability (towards purple) of actually finding the electron outside of those particular areas.

3 problems here,
first, your using QM to prove QM.
second, the hydrogen atom has a specific location, QM says it cant be predicted, not that it doesnt have one.
third that hydrogen atom actually consists of many subatomic particles, we are talking about idealized “smallest possible particles”

Not more so than any other scientific theory

you mean ones with proof, many scientific theories have proof, evidence, etc.

… your proposed deterministic model included.

i actually dont rely on guesses, the guess is indeterminancy, determincy has lots of evidence, every particle motion ever observed.

Philosophical concerns regarding the consequences of any particular theory can also carry a limited amount of weight.

true dat

Granted, we’re not going to resolve this just by sitting here and talking about it – but I’m still disagreeing, primarily via appeal to the authority of the general scientific community,

problem is they all disagree with each other, thats the reason for different schools of interpretation

including many intelligent atheists, who would have vastly preferred to argue their case under a deterministic model of reality, but have found themselves being forced to reject it based on what I can only assume is incredibly strong (if not overwhelming) evidence.

why would they prefer a deterministic universe, that would strengthen Thomistic argument, QM is the first thing most atheists, new to the forums bring up. determinism is their enemy from a causality stand point. if everything is deterministic, then how could they avoid first cause? it may cause problems with standard theories of free will, but i think a strong argument for the supernatural can be made from a deterministic world, with free will.

The only pure conjecture theories of QM today, as far as I understand it, are the ones that attempt to make QM deterministic again by assuming the existence of non-local hidden variables, despite the fact that there’s absolutely no evidence for such as of yet.

they are all mutually exclusive and they are all based on a “physics of the gaps” style argument, same as a “G-d of the gaps” argument, not wrong by necessity but definitely weaker in the face of changing evidence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

OK… and what’s driving those physical reactions?

state of the art two wheel, four hamster drive?

If the physical reactions are purely deterministic as well, I’m still not seeing how you can allow for any translation from spiritual cause to actual physical effect.

i dont either, i simply know that the jump is made. the mechanism becomes unimportant, it would be very nice, so others would agree with it, but i dont yet have a formulated response. maybe the mind operates separately and “overrides” as you said, the determinate interactions. but i dont know yet, i see the evidence, but not the how, as yet.

So I’m rather confused about what your position actually is right now.

on this point, so am i

there is no evidence of indeterminancy but there is evidence of free will. we know the supernatural can affect and effect the physical, from the creation of the universe, but the manner in which it is done is still, a mystery. what physical interactions did Christ cause to raise lazarus? what supernatural interactions did he cause that drove the evil spirits into the pigs?

2 different effects concerning different substances, so we know it can be done from both the, obvious to all creation, and the acceptable to us, church approved miracles. i know it happens, just not how.

At least in regards to free-willed human actions, physical determinism will have to be “broken” somewhere along the chain – that is, wherever the bridge got jumped – if men are actually going to have the ability to act upon their free-will decisions. (Right? I’m pretty sure that we should both agree on this… but let me know.)

i agree it seems that it should operate that way, but there is no evidence it does, but we do have evidence that the supernatural and physical interact, just not the mechanism.

It very much depends on exactly what you mean by that phrase. To me, “meat puppet for the soul” just sounded dangerously close to the whole “I am simply a soul riding inside a body, like the sailor of a ship” position, which is contrary to defined Church doctrine. You are an ensouled body (both together), and not simply one accidentally joined to the other. Your soul doesn’t exist wholly as you when separated from the body. Another way to illustrate the distinction, as St. Thomas does, is this: until after the resurrection of the body, it is technically incorrect to say that St. Peter is in heaven – rather, we say that his soul is in heaven. (This is off topic, though, so we should probably move it elsewhere if it’s going to require a separate discussion.)

i didnt know that, but in my defense let me point out that i in no way consider the union accidental, if that makes any difference.

Or, at least, that’s one option open on the table. I wouldn’t go ruling out any other options that might turn up, unless they really aren’t reasonable.

I have read him… but the similarities here are limited. Although the “swerve”, on the surface, certainly has some similarities to the modern notion of indeterminacy, the cause of the “swerve” (if any) is unclear, since Lucretius’ notion of the soul is corporeal, and he doesn’t believe in the gods. I might be remembering incorrectly, but I’m pretty sure the “swerve” is ultimately just his appeal to “something happening without a cause” (something coming from nothing) – which, while it might match some modern atheistic understandings, I think is a fundamentally flawed and incomplete account of indeterminacy – you need to have a cause.

like “indeterminate causes”, something happened without sufficient reason

im starting to think the idea of an indeterminate cause is an oxymoron at least when Aquinas’ first cause is applied to the idea

 

[Logos385]

Once again, a naturalistic origin IS POSSIBLE.

Possibility 1: The Universe is infinite. Whether or not we have a finite amount of matter, this is still a possibility. Whether or not there is a finite amount of energy, this is a possibility. These things simply show that the laws of thermodynamics hold true. Don’t true and use the argument of the laws of entropy, for we are not sure that the Universe is a closed system, and if you hold free will as a certainty, decision-making can alter the conclusion of the laws of entropy.

Possibility 2: The Universe is not infinite. Our current understanding says that a cause must either be accidental (Quantum Fluctuation: youtube.com/watch?v=uzEhC9iAbeE or String/M Theory: tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php, etc) or be something outside of the universe that is not accidental.

The possibility you speak of inaccurately discounts the first possibility and the first 2 of within the second set, and says that the beginning must have been something outside of the universe that is not accidental. Your solution? Simply say, with conviction: It was God! An infinite amount of timeless energy must have been loving, intelligent, a being, supernatural, benevolent, just and gracious enough to give us an imperfect book from his perfect self.

To stop the search for the real explanation, and postulate a random explanation without any evidence is absurd and against every available scientific principle. If you would like to search for the evidence, go ahead, but I will never subscribe to a supernatural view without evidence, because there has never been any showing a hint of a supernatural world. And I doubt there will be. If there is, I will be happy to join you.

Until then, I happily sit here, typing to you. Hoping you’ll see that natural explanations are valid, even if unproven, and that your attacks on them do not hold up scientifically- if you have trouble with these explanations, go to your local university and ask around. They can explain it much, much better than me or youtube ever will. For now, I’m just trying to get you to understand that, even though the Bible says so, all Atheists are not “fools.” : ).

 

[Logos385]

Sorry, my links are to the wrong things- I’ll repost with the correct ones in the morning. Sorry about that! : ).

 

[JDaniel]

Once again, a naturalistic origin IS POSSIBLE.

Possibility 1: The Universe is infinite. Whether or not we have a finite amount of matter, this is still a possibility. Whether or not there is a finite amount of energy, this is a possibility. These things simply show that the laws of thermodynamics hold true. Don’t true and use the argument of the laws of entropy, for we are not sure that the Universe is a closed system, and if you hold free will as a certainty, decision-making can alter the conclusion of the laws of entropy.

An infinite universe is impossible. To know this takes a full and complete understanding of quantum mechanics and mathematics. In the realm of the quantum, all that can exist is that which is potentially infinite, but, not actually infinite.

That which is actually infinite is numberless. The universe is numbered. In fact, there are scientists who believe a super computer will be built that will (approximately) calculate the number of particles within it.

The universe can ONLY be transfinite: a number unmercifully large yet to which one more particle can be added, and then another, and then another. But, since we have a law, that says energy, and thus, matter, can neither be created nor destroyed, we are a universe that is trapped in finitude by virtue of its own laws.

Happy New Year and
God bless,
jd

 

[Logos385]

Link for String/M Theory (Last one was a mistake): youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAagw6iug&feature=related

To JDaniel: I will go research that, thank you. I did not necessarily mean to say that the Universe itself is infinite, but that the overarching term of existence is. Our universe, due to its ever-expanding nature, is of course not infinite, for it regresses to the point of singularity. However, the “strings” of String Theory could be infinite and constant, and my current understanding of QM leads me to believe that the Quantum Field (I know this is a terrible name for it, but I don’t know what else to call it) could be infinite, but I will certainly research what you said and possibly reform my understanding. Thanks! : ).