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

[masterjedi747]

Well, I’m definitely a bit “behind the curve” now, as they say… seeing as how this thread apparently just grew about 16 posts in the last 4 hours. …at any rate, though, I’d definitely like to get out my responses to these 3 last posts, and then odds are I’ll be taking more of a back seat in the conversation from this point on (as other priorities shift ahead in preparation for my return to school)… but we’ll see how it goes.

Once again, a naturalistic origin IS POSSIBLE.

Still waiting on this one… (?)

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.

Nope, it’s not. Especially not if the quantity of matter and energy in the universe are both finite… and even more so if you hold anything remotely close to the Big Bang theory, since there’s no possible way you could reach an infinite universe through any rate expansion.

But if you want solid philosophical reasons why an infinite universe is impossible, you might want to check out Question 7 (Articles 3 and 4) of the Summa.

Our current understanding says that a cause must either be accidental … or be something outside of the universe that is not accidental.

The possibility you speak of … says that the beginning must have been something outside of the universe that is not accidental.

I… have absolutely no idea what you mean by “accidental” cause here. …aside from the fact that it’s not the Aristotelian/Thomistic use of the word.

Your solution? Simply say, with conviction: It was God!

Absolutely!

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.

Form, not amount… pure act, not energy… and otherwise, pretty much yeah.

To stop the search for the real explanation, and postulate a random explanation without any evidence is absurd and against every available scientific principle.

It’s not a “random” explanation – it’s a fact that cannot be otherwise. And we’re not stopping the search for real scientific explanation – we’re simply saying that scientific investigation of the natural world has an inherent limit beyond which it cannot reach, and that metaphysics is one of the things that necessarily lies beyond those boundaries.

…I will never subscribe to a supernatural view without evidence, because there has never been any showing a hint of a supernatural world.

Well, we’re obviously in disagreement on that particular point…

And I doubt there will be. If there is, I will be happy to join you.

And we’ll be happy to have you join us! :bounce:

Hoping you’ll see that natural explanations are valid, even if unproven, and that your attacks on them do not hold up scientifically

If I was actually attacking them scientifically, rather than on philosophical grounds, this might be a very different story.

For now, I’m just trying to get you to understand that, even though the Bible says so, all Atheists are not “fools.” : ).

Depends on how you define “fool”, I suppose.
Stupid and unintelligent? Absolutely not. Lacking true knowledge and wisdom? Well… you can get back to me on that one in 75 years or so.

 

[masterjedi747]

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

Not if the outcome of each event is incapable of being predicted with absolute certainty…

there are almost an **infinite **number of equally possible interactions… that is nothing like your analogy

There might be some general areas within which the outcome is equally possible, sure, but those areas are very specific and limited, with diminishing probability for finding the electron outside of those specific areas at any given 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.

You’re right, it doesn’t – assuming that our lack of foreknowledge regarding the outcome of the event is due solely to our lack of knowledge regarding the current state of the system.

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

…“almost infinite”, huh? Have fun explaining that one. hehe [/playful humor]

first, your using QM to prove QM.

I was actually using QM to illustrate how the outcome of these indeterminate events would look incredibly similar (but not perfectly identical) to the outcome that determinate events would produce. The electron is not perfectly likely to be just anywhere around the nucleus… rather, it tends towards a very specific distribution pattern in each energy state.

there is no evidence of indeterminancy…

determinacy has lots of evidence, every particle motion ever observed.

Every particle motion ever observed? …you don’t think that’s just a little bit of an exaggeration? What about all of the observations and experiments that apparently convinced most modern scientists to largely reject absolute determinism? You really think so many people would walk away from a highly successful and intelligible theory, in favor of a controversial and perhaps necessarily incomplete theory, if the observations could just as easily be reconciled with the former as the latter? Maybe you do… but I don’t.

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

They disagree, yes, but not on everything…

For example, out of the 13 main interpretations:
4 out of 11 reject real waveform
3 out of 12 reject unique history
3 out of 11 are deterministic
1 out of 12 support hidden variables

…if everything had been near a 50/50 split, then you might have a stronger case. But a level of agreement that high is not simply insignificant.

why would they prefer a deterministic universe, that would strengthen Thomistic argument

No, it definitely doesn’t. Determinism is historically opposed to Aristotle, and thus Thomas as well. Maybe you can accept determinism and still save certain portions of Thomas’ work, but as a whole it does not pull through intact. The 5th way, for instance, pretty much gets forced out the window – and thus, by extension, any arguments that Thomas based upon the 5th way.

QM is the first thing most atheists, new to the forums bring up.

Probably because they find it more mysterious, and thus harder for their opponents to argue against. But the thing is, if they really knew what was best for their position, they wouldn’t touch indeterminacy with a 10 foot pole. “Something can come from nothing” is a far more absurd position to maintain than “everything happens by absolute necessity”.

determinism is their enemy from a causality stand point.

If they really think that, then they’re just plain wrong. The more intelligent atheists are the ones that try their best to re-interpret QM as being compatible with determinism.

if everything is deterministic, then how could they avoid first cause?

Well, they can’t ever avoid it, really – but, to answer your question, they would make the universe eternal. Then they can avoid the absurdity of something coming from nothing, and at the same time maintain that everything happens by absolute necessity. It’s a good deal more respectable than defending the “something can come from nothing” claim.

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.

And at least an equally strong case could be made from an indeterministic world. Your point?

 

[masterjedi747]

i dont either, i simply know that the jump is made. the mechanism becomes unimportant

i know it happens, just not how.

I don’t want you to tell me the exact mechanism. I just want you to admit that, if free will is truly existing in a deterministic universe, then determinism has to be “broken” somewhere along the line – I don’t care where. I just want you to see that “the jump happens, I don’t know how” is identical to “determinism is broken by free will, I don’t know how”. Breaking determinism is what happens (it has to be) – the mechanism by which this happens is unimportant right now.

we know the supernatural can affect and effect the physical … but the manner in which it is done is still a mystery.

Fine, but same point as above. If physical nature is deterministic, then any real supernatural interaction with the physical world must at least temporarily “break”/“override” determinism – again, I don’t care how.

i agree it seems that it should operate that way, but there is no evidence it does…

We don’t need evidence for this if it’s just a logical necessity.

like “indeterminate causes”, something happened without sufficient reason

Indeterminate causes don’t cause without sufficient reason – they cause without absolute necessity. Example: You are given a choice between vanilla and chocolate, and (I’m going out on a limb here ) you pick chocolate, because you like it better. There is sufficient cause for your choosing chocolate – even though, at the same time, it was not absolutely necessary for you to choose chocolate.

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

As said above, an indeterminate cause would simply mean that result is not absolutely necessary – not that there is insufficient cause for the thing happening the way that it did.

 

[JDaniel]

To the first part of your response: I will certainly admit that nothing we know of that is physical can cause itself, but the conclusion that must be made is agnosticism about the Universe’s creation, not a conclusion of the supernatural. This is the same situation as there used to be with Intelligent Design: Nothing, logically in any way, was known that could be designed without a designer. Thus, this persuaded people to theism quite efficiently- if we look designed, and nothing we know of can be designed without having a designer, then there must have been a designer. However, this thinking, as we no know, was incorrect. It was blown out of the water with Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection. Thus, we must evaluate the reasoning of the individuals who formed the false conclusion that there was unquestionably designer. Since no natural explanation was known, or even to them logically possible, they jumped to the supernatural explanation and called it good. Yet, this explanation had no evidence, despite the theory being sound. Finally, another, natural theory came to be and was supported by mounds and mountains of evidence, revolutionizing the thinking of the modern world.

The correct stance of the IDers in the past should have been agnosticism as to the possibility of a designer, for there was no evidence for such a supernatural intelligence. Although the theory held and seemed unquestionably correct, it turned out to be wrong.

My apologies for butting into your conversation with warpspeed. Remember, most Catholics are not ID purveyors. Our idea of design is very different from the Protestant concept of Intelligent Design. I am not going to admit that Protestants don’t have strength in their concepts, just that St. Thomas’ use of “design” was from the macro-POV that all things without intelligence tended to act towards their good and rightful end.

I know that IDers seem have a proponderance of apologetic evidence for their position. I have not taken the time to ponder much of it. But, that is not our stance.

In any event, coupled with current (and past) science, our philosophies are extremely well suited to explain the existence of the universe from its creator, whom we call God. The “logic” is more than sufficient, but, then, add to it, current (most commonly held) science and, viola! This “evidence” may well have more people working on it to refute it than those working to make good science.

To apply this to our situation, I honestly can’t show you anything natural that is uncaused, or can cause itself, and I can’t give you a perfect natural explanation, yet I see no reason to conclude the supernatural rather than enact agnosticism, for we very well could have revolutionary ideas to come. The supernatural remains unproved because we don’t have the evidence for it, yet the natural realm is proved because we are within it. Thus, since we have one realm proved and one not, it is safe to assume that occurrences remain in the proved realm are true, while those in the supernatural are speculation at best. I remain agnostic about the origin of the universe, and believe it to be unlikely that there is a supernatural cause (for there is no evidence), and think that there is a possibility of our naturalistic understanding to be revolutionized, and patiently await for that day. If it is not however, the correct position is agnosticism about the Universe’s origins, not an unproved, supernatural conclusion.

But, we do have the evidence for it. That’s the point. The logic itself (fully grasped) points clearly to something that is outside of the natural realm as the only possible causative agent. If it cannot be naturally caused, or caused ex nihilo, there are no other choices. This is hard to accept. It was hard for me to accept. It is like something that must be accepted but not from a frontal, positive confronting of it, but, from what the thing is not.

Happy New Year and
God Bless,
jd

 

[masterjedi747]

One more thing–> Dawkins on Aquinas’s proofs.

youtube.com/watch?v=SrtlyZPYmRE

I’m not saying he’s right or agreeing with him, just adding it to the discussion.

After listening to only the first 90 seconds of that (the rest required no more than skimming), I am absolutely certain that Dawkins does not actually understand the logic behind Thomas’ arguments* in the slightest*. :nope: …I would actually be quite surprised if he’s actually seen an copy or translation of the Summa in his life. I mean, the fact that he actually had the nerve to write down and say such incredibly ignorant things with such confidence… amazes me. And I know I probably shouldn’t be this surprised, but… I am. “Wow” just doesn’t quite cut it…

 

[JDaniel]

I forgot to address the “atheists must be fools” proof you had.

I guess I’ll just say this: truth isn’t decided by majority. Understanding can be changed with evidence. The entire world used to believe in Polytheism, how does that equal truth? Answer- it does not.

Truth is not decided by majority.

Actually, I am sure you meant that “a great portion, even a majority, of the world once believed in poly-theism.” Not the “entire” world, right?

Happy New year and
God Bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

One more thing–> Dawkins on Aquinas’s proofs.

youtube.com/watch?v=SrtlyZPYmRE

I’m not saying he’s right or agreeing with him, just adding it to the discussion.

Yes, Dawkins clearly does not understand Aquinas’ “proofs”. He has missed the premises of all three of the first three proofs. St. Thomas carefully defines motion, efficient causality and necessity directly from our actual human experience with nature. Once you understand the terms and the premises, the conclusions naturally follow.

For example, to understand that the first premise of his proof from causality clearly defines what it is to be an intermediate cause, or an end cause, and that neither can be the causes of themselves and that both must be caused by a prior, existing causative agent, one understands why there cannot be an infinite regress. All that can come from a speculation that there could be an infinite regress is that spinning circle of same efficient cause → same effect → same efficient cause → same effect, etc. But, nothing new; no new things; no new effects.

Plus, we experience causes which terminate in effects that cause nothing further. So, if per accidens causes are all intermediate causes, as in fact they are, and the causal chain was broken, all things would cease to exist.

Happy New Year and
God Bless,
jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

there are only 2 states known

1. physical
2. non-physical (supernatural)
   …
   if it cant be physical, it must be non-physical.(this is entirely separate from religion)
   quote]

Dear Warpspeedpetey,

I don’t really like dropping into the middle of an interesting discussion but my curious question keeps nagging me. You refer to the non-physical (supernatural) and I agree that obviously this is entirely separate from religion.

When I observe the make-up of human beings, I find two states which are physical and non-physical or spiritual (which is entirely separate from religion). Am I saying the same thing you are, only using the term spiritual instead of supernatural?

Blessings for 2009,
grannymh

when you quote erase, the quote marks next to the poster ID with its number in order to make a separate box

thats complicated, you probably mean soul, in the technical sense that logos and i are using, it simply means (non-physical)
that sounds similar, but a soul or spirit associated with the body has religious significance, which is fine if your audience is all Catholics, but when dealing with non-theists, it ishelpful to separate the two

you are always welcome to join the conversation, it is not private.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

After listening to only the first 90 seconds of that (the rest required no more than skimming), I am absolutely certain that Dawkins does not actually understand the logic behind Thomas’ arguments* in the slightest*. :nope: …I would actually be quite surprised if he’s actually seen an copy or translation of the Summa in his life. I mean, the fact that he actually had the nerve to write down and say such incredibly ignorant things with such confidence… amazes me. And I know I probably shouldn’t be this surprised, but… I am. “Wow” just doesn’t quite cut it…

i listened, and sadly enough people take that seriously. he is trying to make it about regression, when it is really about what causes are logically possible. no wonder so many are misled, i would love to debate that guy.

 

[Logos385]

Wow, I have just received quite a few responses, and sadly cannot address them all. What I will do, is make a few statements with question marks at the end, and you guys can comment on the validity of these.

I will concede that there was what we might consider a “non-physical” cause of the Universe. This would mean that there is some cause that we cannot be familiar with, outside of the perception of all of our senses, correct?

This non-physical cause would, by necessity, have to be outside at least the 3/4 dimensions we are aware of, correct?

This non-physical cause would need some form of infinite properties that are automatically barred from natural causes, correct?

This non-physical cause would be a necessity due to the logical processes Aquinas uses, and thank you all very, very much for persistently taking me through that. I have had far too many arguments come to my ears that claim to be of Aquinas’s nature, yet are not and are extremely flawed, thus I had an innate predisposition to attempt to refute them, I apologize for my initial irrationality.

However, now that I have correctly accepted the non-physical beginning, my question is this: Why is it considered, “divine,” why is it worshipped, and why do so many of you call it “God?” The word God in contemporary America is tied to the notion of YWHW specifically, yet this non-physical… thing, could be any number of things. EDIT: Rather than calling it "super"natural, I think it is more accurate to call it, “Unnatural.” Unnatural can speak to something in greater dimensions or something to that effect. In essence, what I mean to say is that Aquinas’s proof simply proves a non-physical cause for the universe, not a deity, and am wondering how that jump is made.

This is not to say I am changing my Atheist perspective, in so much as whether or not there is a non-physical cause, the word, “God” in my mind is synonymous with many qualities I do not agree with and cannot be proven: such as intelligence, love, etc. Although I may agree with the non-physical cause, I don’t agree with the concept of religion. Also, I think, since this cause affected the natural universe SO greatly, we should be able to at least see some kind of after-effect through the universe (beside its existence, of course : P) that helps us more greatly understand the universe itself. I also hope that eventually, through something that eludes my imagination, we will be able to evaluate the nature of such a cause scientifically. But those hopes are slightly fanciful : ).

In summation, I would agree with Aquinas’s first 3 proofs dealing with the regress in so much as there must have been a cause non-physical (meaning out of our 3-4 dimensional perception) and out of our understanding of the universe as we see it. However, I would disagree with the thought that this leads to religion or the commonly held concept of “God.”

That post was much longer than I thought it was going to be, my bad : ).

Thanks for all of your (name removed by moderator)ut, thanks for your patience, but most of all thanks for the civility. It’s a welcome change of pace from most of the religious discussions I have had. Hope to see you guys here after I do a little more information-gathering and searching. Thanks again!

 

[Logos385]

Hold on guys, I might have something new to add to the discussion… I will be back later with something to add I think, and it might negate my former statement… sorry if I excited you guys. Hah.

EDIT: Alright, after being purely in contact with you guys about this and not consulting anything else, as to try and fully understand your belief, I researched again. What do you guys think of these paragraphs?

"Now, a quantum physicist will disagree with the classical physicist regarding the Big Bang theory. Essentially, quantum physics allows for the creation of something from nothing (via the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle). Also, there is no notion of cause and effect in the equations of quantum physics (unlike classical physics)! The only thing the equations tell you is that if you start out with a system in a particular state, what the probability of it ending up in some final state is. At the quantum level, there is just a series of natural phenomena that exists and occur is some sequence. The idea of cause and effect is simply an illusion. (This is similar to Kant’s ideas.) If quantum mechanics is true, then Aquinas’s argument breaks down. To be fair, Aquinas was unfamiliar with quantum physics when he made his argument. However, to extend Aquinas’ argument further, he might say that it is God who caused the laws of quantum physics to operate in a certain way in order to produce the known universe. This (modified) argument depends on the specificity of the laws of physics to require a Law Giver.

However, further scientific theories question even this necessity. According to some physicists, there exist an infinite number of laws of physics. Each set of laws gives rise to its own universe. The fact that we exist in our universe only describes the universe we are in. As such, Aquinas’ argument breaks down again, because specificity of the laws of physics is not required."

 

[JDaniel]

Wow, I have just received quite a few responses, and sadly cannot address them all. What I will do, is make a few statements with question marks at the end, and you guys can comment on the validity of these.

I will concede that there was what we might consider a “non-physical” cause of the Universe. This would mean that there is some cause that we cannot be familiar with, through the use of all of our senses, correct?

Well, as you will no doubt notice, I made some changes to your first question. Do these changes more accurately represent what you wanted to ask?

Regarding the word, cannot, I think that its use forms a postulate that cannot yet be said (no pun intended), with such limited information. We may not be able to ingest Him through our senses, but, we may well be able to know Him, with a bit more information.

This non-physical cause would, by necessity, have to be outside at least the 3/4 dimensions we are aware of, correct?

In a sense, yes. But, if this non-physical cause is infinite (un-numbered, un-timed, etc.) then it does not displace matter, in fact, it must permeate it.

This non-physical cause would need some form of infinite properties that are automatically barred from natural causes, correct?

Yes.

This non-physical cause would be a necessity due to the logical processes Aquinas uses,

Well, not “due to” the logical processes Aquinas uses. Necessary being is a necessary determinate of existence. Without a necessary something, there would be more than an extraordinarily high probability that nothing would currently exist.

. . . and thank you all very, very much for persistently taking me through that. I have had far too many arguments come to my ears that claim to be of Aquinas’s nature, yet are not and are extremely flawed, thus I had an innate predisposition to attempt to refute them, I apologize for my initial irrationality.

It is our duty to be of service. No apologies are necessary. You exhibited civility and gentlemanliness shortly after encountering us and thus gained our respect.

continued . . .

 

[grannymh]

when you quote erase, the quote marks next to the poster ID with its number in order to make a separate box

thats complicated, you probably mean soul, in the technical sense that logos and i are using, it simply means (non-physical)
that sounds similar, but a soul or spirit associated with the body has religious significance, which is fine if your audience is all Catholics, but when dealing with non-theists, it ishelpful to separate the two

you are always welcome to join the conversation, it is not private.

Dear warpspeedpetey,

I’m too tired to deal with the quote thing again. But before I’m out totally, thank you for your previous suggestion which I haven’t quite got the hang of —

When I try to describe the human being as physical and non-physical, non-physical reminds me of a void or something less than physical. To me the non-physical part is music, thinking, decision making, creativity, ability to choose, etc. but not necessarily connected with religion. It is the non-physical part that distinguishes us from animals and insects. Somewhere I did an example of this showing how human music involves a lot more than insects at night. It is the non-physical part that is able to search beyond the physical world. But because I associate supernatural with a transcendent being, it is hard for me to use it as a description of the non-physical part of the human person.

There’s this constant thought in the back of my mind that if the human person is both material and _____ then the human person is evidence that the supernatural does exist. And so on.

Maybe body and soul is the pair I am looking for since soul’s first dictionary meaning does not refer to religion. Or maybe I need to change my mindset against non-physical. Thomas Aquinas looked at nature and the world around him to find evidence of God. I keep wondering if we should be looking at ourselves as evidence of God. (My history of philosophy class started with Descartes.)

Blessings for 2009,
grannymh

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Not if the outcome of each event is incapable of being predicted with absolute certainty…

a woman is either pregnant, or she is not, a man is dead or he is not, an interaction is determinant or it is not.

There might be some general areas within which the outcome is equally possible, sure, but those areas are very specific and limited, with diminishing probability for finding the electron outside of those specific areas at any given time.

the fact that there are any of equal probability extinguishes the idea that quantum indeterminism may not be reflected on the macroscale

…“almost infinite”, huh? Have fun explaining that one. hehe [/playful humor]

in the sense of an ideal, ‘smallest possible particle’ and the collection of them in the huge numbers nessacarry to be a macro object

p
Every particle motion ever observed? …you don’t think that’s just a little bit of an exaggeration? What about all of the observations and experiments that apparently convinced most modern scientists to largely reject absolute determinism? You really think so many people would walk away from a highly successful and intelligible theory, in favor of a controversial and perhaps necessarily incomplete theory, if the observations could just as easily be reconciled with the former as the latter? Maybe you do… but I don’t.

many different schools of thought there, all mutually exclusive, to explain the same phenomenon. they arent all even close to the same page, while reading the same book

They disagree, yes, but not on everything…
For example, out of the 13 main interpretations:
4 out of 11 reject real waveform
3 out of 12 reject unique history
3 out of 11 are deterministic
1 out of 12 support hidden variables

…if everything had been near a 50/50 split, then you might have a stronger case. But a level of agreement that high is not simply insignificant.

thats misleading, they have many more differences then the ones you list, heck, 5 of them have observer relationships, which are completely non-sensical.

No, it definitely doesn’t. Determinism is historically opposed to Aristotle, and thus Thomas as well. Maybe you can accept determinism and still save certain portions of Thomas’ work, but as a whole it does not pull through intact. The 5th way, for instance, pretty much gets forced out the window – and thus, by extension, any arguments that Thomas based upon the 5th way.

let me be very clear here, if indeterminism becomes the norm, then thomistic proofs are destroyed, because on the quantum level something can come from nothing. why do you think there is such a push for it in the atheistic community?

Probably because they find it more mysterious, and thus harder for their opponents to argue against. But the thing is, if they really knew what was best for their position, they wouldn’t touch indeterminacy with a 10 foot pole. “Something can come from nothing” is a far more absurd position to maintain than “everything happens by absolute necessity”.

you better spend some time on the atheism forums. that is not how they see it.

If they really think that, then they’re just plain wrong. The more intelligent atheists are the ones that try their best to re-interpret QM as being compatible with determinism.

it doesnt matter how dumb your enemy is, stupid people kill to.

Well, they can’t ever avoid it, really – but, to answer your question, they would make the universe eternal. Then they can avoid the absurdity of something coming from nothing, and at the same time maintain that everything happens by absolute necessity. It’s a good deal more respectable than defending the “something can come from nothing” claim.

they already tried that, but modern physics killed it, now they want indeterminancy in prder to allow the planck size singularity to ‘come from nothing’ no matter how absurd that is their argument

And at least an equally strong case could be made from an indeterministic world. Your point?

point being that indeterminism gives a reason for a planck similarity and free will. exactly why would they need a G-d?

 

[JDaniel]

However, now that I have correctly accepted the non-physical beginning, my question is this: Why is it considered, “divine,” why is it worshipped, and why do so many of you call it “God?” The word God in contemporary America is tied to the notion of YWHW specifically, yet this non-physical… thing, could be any number of things.

From a logical perspective it cannot be “any number of things”. It can be called any number of names - names that have no naturally definable properties. This really concentrates it down to one “thing”, when this is fully understood.

EDIT: Rather than calling it "super"natural, I think it is more accurate to call it, “Unnatural.” Unnatural can speak to something in greater dimensions or something to that effect.

It could be said to be “unnatural” in the older sense of that word, but, perhaps not in its current and most common (movie-time) sense.

In essence, what I mean to say is that Aquinas’s proof simply proves a non-physical cause for the universe, not a deity, and am wondering how that jump is made.

We make the so-called “jump” to creator-God from summing up all that we know about Him. In addition to all of that, we have revelation.

When we consider what we know of Him from Aquinas, Anslem, St. Augustine, and others, we have a good grasp of His being. Not a perfect grasp, mind you, but, a pretty good one. Then, we add revelation and we get an even better grasp. But, since this “grasp” is not the same as “full knowledge” of Him, we add a bit of Faith.

One has to contemplate the “probability” of some natural cause creating all of this that we see, hear, taste, smell, touch and know, and ending up with at least one planet with all of the precise combination of pre-requisites and requisites for life, and then, to make matters worse, form an intellectual being that flourishes on its surface. From nothing? From chance? From chaos? From strings? From a gathering of atoms? Does it not seem more probable that an “intelligent”, unnatural being is far more likely than some scientistically conjured-up, mundanely material, energy force-thing did it?

This is not to say I am changing my Atheist perspective, in so much as whether or not there is a non-physical cause, the word, “God” in my mind is synonymous with many qualities I do not agree with and cannot be proven: such as intelligence, love, etc. Although I may agree with the non-physical cause, I don’t agree with the concept of religion.

You are now touching on what are known as God’s attributes. This is often the raizon d’etre of an atheistic preference. I cannot answer you successfully here. This is theology and metaphysics. Each of these is a huge study unto themselves. Perhaps someone on this thread can offer a good metaphysics book for your edification. The book I used was, Being and God, by Klubertanz and Holloway. It may still be in print.

Also, I think, since this cause affected the natural universe SO greatly, we should be able to at least see some kind of after-effect through the universe (beside its existence, of course : P) that helps us more greatly understand the universe itself.

What you have asked for may, in fact, already be present. As you suggested, we just have to find, or see, it.

I also hope that eventually, through something that eludes my imagination, we will be able to evaluate the nature of such a cause scientifically. But those hopes are slightly fanciful : ).

Possibly not. God seems to be continuously revealing Himself to us. In any event, as an intelligent being, (I think!) I know that I know that He exists and that He exhibits and exposes all of the attributes He has shown to us through revelation. I know these things; I have faith that all of what I have learned and know is not mere illusion.

In summation, I would agree with Aquinas’s first 3 proofs dealing with the regress in so much as there must have been a cause non-physical (meaning out of our 3-4 dimensional perception) and out of our understanding of the universe as we see it. However, I would disagree with the thought that this leads to religion or the commonly held concept of “God.”

This is OK for now. Please don’t stop studying this subject.

That post was much longer than I thought it was going to be, my bad : ).

Thanks for all of your (name removed by moderator)ut, thanks for your patience, but most of all thanks for the civility. It’s a welcome change of pace from most of the religious discussions I have had. Hope to see you guys here after I do a little more information-gathering and searching. Thanks again!

As they say at The Outback, “No Worries Mate!”

Happy New Year and
God Bless,
jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t want you to tell me the exact mechanism. I just want you to admit that,

oh, now i get it, you feel that i am avoiding saying you are right.
the problem is that i dont think you are. dont take that wrong. but we are seeing the problem differently

if free will is truly existing in a deterministic universe, then determinism has to be “broken” somewhere along the line – I don’t care where.

i dont think it has to be, i just think you are tied to the idea of it. i think a supernatural imposition of free will, via the soul, or spirit is entirely possible, in the same manner other miracles happened throughout scripture and that is the manner of creation, these are all examples supernatural imposition with no logical mechanism.

I just want you to see that “the jump happens, I don’t know how” is identical to “determinism is broken by free will, I don’t know how”. Breaking determinism is what happens (it has to be) – the mechanism by which this happens is unimportant right now.

i dont see them as the same thing at all, one has dependent physical interaction the other is essentially supernatural imposition.

im not saying its impossible, that there is no physical interaction, i am saying that it is not necessary, there are examples otherwise

Fine, but same point as above. If physical nature is deterministic, then any real supernatural interaction with the physical world must at least temporarily “break”/“override” determinism – again, I don’t care how.

break and override are 2 different things, break implies an interaction that i am coming to think is less likely, override is close3r to where i feel my thoughts are headed

We don’t need evidence for this if it’s just a logical necessity.

problem is that its not a logical necessity, it just appears as one, all manner of miracles were performed without that necessity

Indeterminate causes don’t cause without sufficient reason – they cause without absolute necessity. Example: You are given a choice between vanilla and chocolate, and (I’m going out on a limb here ) you pick chocolate, because you like it better. There is sufficient cause for your choosing chocolate – even though, at the same time, it was not absolutely necessary for you to choose chocolate.

unfortunately physical effects need such a cause, and yes i would have picked chocolate

As said above, an indeterminate cause would simply mean that result is not absolutely necessary – not that there is insufficient cause for the thing happening the way that it did.

and thats our basic difference, i dont see that in the macro world, so for me it follows it does not truly exist on the quantum

that said, we are pushing into areas that i have not yet considered and have not spent any real time formulating arguments for. its one the thing to tell me you think i am wrong(i may well be) but i wonder if you have anything other than that to offer? what do you have to say that i cant read on a wiki?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Dear warpspeedpetey,

I’m too tired to deal with the quote thing again. But before I’m out totally, thank you for your previous suggestion which I haven’t quite got the hang of —

When I try to describe the human being as physical and non-physical, non-physical reminds me of a void or something less than physical. To me the non-physical part is music, thinking, decision making, creativity, ability to choose, etc. but not necessarily connected with religion. It is the non-physical part that distinguishes us from animals and insects. Somewhere I did an example of this showing how human music involves a lot more than insects at night. It is the non-physical part that is able to search beyond the physical world. But because I associate supernatural with a transcendent being, it is hard for me to use it as a description of the non-physical part of the human person.

There’s this constant thought in the back of my mind that if the human person is both material and _____ then the human person is evidence that the supernatural does exist. And so on.

Maybe body and soul is the pair I am looking for since soul’s first dictionary meaning does not refer to religion. Or maybe I need to change my mindset against non-physical. Thomas Aquinas looked at nature and the world around him to find evidence of God. I keep wondering if we should be looking at ourselves as evidence of God. (My history of philosophy class started with Descartes.)

Blessings for 2009,
grannymh

the older i get and the more credit hours i collect the less i know, and the more i am aware no one else does either.

we have limits to what we understand, even what we can understand. i know completely brilliant fools, and average joes whose wisdom shines like a torch on a dark night.

if the audience that you are speaking to is composed of other Catholics then use whatever terminology you wish.

i only use it in non-religious terms because my audience is not religious

at the root of it i have little respect for Reason alone, it is only a toy, a made up language to interact with people who hold it as the only respectable method of communication.

yet for me Faith is the language i wish we all spoke, in the face of G-d, what fool utters Reason? dont we laugh at the ravings of lunatics? does the bark of a dog mean anything to you?

no, and i think it may matter as little to G-d, i understand when a dog puts his paw on my knee, wags his tail and i like to think that such a simple language of love and faith in ones master is what G-d understands too

so, remember that the words are useless in
the greater scheme of things, G-d changes hearts, not words:heart:

 

[Logos385]

I take no issue with all that you said JDaniel, except for this paragraph:
“One has to contemplate the “probability” of some natural cause creating all of this that we see, hear, taste, smell, touch and know, and ending up with at least one planet with all of the precise combination of pre-requisites and requisites for life, and then, to make matters worse, form an intellectual being that flourishes on its surface. From nothing? From chance? From chaos? From strings? From a gathering of atoms? Does it not seem more probable that an “intelligent”, unnatural being is far more likely than some scientistically conjured-up, mundanely material, energy force-thing did it?”

I will focus on the bolded portion. I’ve conceded that it wasn’t from nothing already. From chance? Maybe. There is a certain degree of chance in all we do, and thus I think it is amazing when things turn out for what we believe to be the better- for it could’ve gone another way, but did not, thus we should rejoice. From chaos? I don’t think infinite energy or unnatural or supernatural stuff or whatever it was (yes, changing the name doesn’t change the qualities, simply the implications) would be chaotic per se. Thus, the origin would be order or at least neutrality. From strings/gathering of atoms? Strings- maybe, I will try to learn as much as possible about string theory soon and its implications, as of yet I don’t know nearly enough to discuss it. Gathering of atoms- sure: we know that there was a point of singularity, which would have had to be a gathering of atoms in at least some sense of that phrase.

As to the bit about chance: I hope you aren’t referring to evolution, for natural selection and chance are two very different things. As to the likelihood of intelligence and non-intelligence (if we can call it “intelligence” accurately) in this… thing, I believe it would have to be extremely simple. I think non-intelligence to be simpler than intelligence, thus I would in fact say it was more probably that… what did you call it? A “conjured-up, mundanely material, energy force-thing” was the origin.

Have a wonderful new year! To everyone on this thread, especially those who have kept the conversation going with me through such a tedious process. Thanks! : ).

 

[masterjedi747]

the fact that there are any of equal probability extinguishes the idea that quantum indeterminism may not be reflected on the macroscale

Only if those equally probable outcomes must always have significantly different results.

they have many more differences then the ones you list, heck, 5 of them have observer relationships, which are completely non-sensical

Great. Agreed. So now rule out those 5, and you have 8 left.

…if indeterminism becomes the norm, then thomistic proofs are destroyed, because on the quantum level something can come from nothing. why do you think there is such a push for it in the atheistic community?

First of all, determinism damages the 5th way severely. Secondly, if indeterminism becomes the norm, the Thomistic proofs cannot be damaged in the slightest. “Something can come from nothing on the quantum level” is never ever ever a valid option – are you really worried about that? The closest we could possibly say is that this seems to be what happens, even though we know that it can’t be.

you better spend some time on the atheism forums. that is not how they see it.

Because they’re fools…

they already tried that, but modern physics killed it, now they want indeterminancy in prder to allow the planck size singularity to ‘come from nothing’ no matter how absurd that is their argument

Modern physics has stopped them from trying to make the universe infinite, yes – but not eternal. At least not necessarily. Just this part year, there was an entire issue of Scientific American covering new “evidence” that could support the “Big Bounce” theory, etc… – and unlike an infinite universe, an eternal universe isn’t stricktly speaking impossible from a philosophical standpoint.

point being that indeterminism gives a reason for a planck similarity and free will. exactly why would they need a G-d?

They would need a God for the exact same reasons that Thomas gives – there must be a first mover, a first efficient cause, a necessary being, etc. (and everything that follows from those things) – whether they realize it or not.

 

[masterjedi747]

oh, now i get it, you feel that i am avoiding saying you are right.

Well, yes. But it’s because I don’t see how this can be a matter of preference or opinion on which we can disagree. It’s similar to how I would feel if I was arguing against someone who said that “something can come from nothing, because it obviously happens, even if we don’t understand exactly how”.

the problem is… we are seeing the problem differently

I guess so…

i dont think it has to be … i think a supernatural imposition of free will, via the soul, or spirit is entirely possible, in the same manner other miracles happened throughout scripture

I think “supernatural imposition of free will, via the soul, or spirit” is definitely correct. But I think such an imposition, if you actually want it to be communicated to the body in a deterministic universe, must violate that determinism somehow. Because if it didn’t, every aspect of our bodies would operate according to absolute necessity, and free will wouldn’t have an ability to influence anything in men, period.

[miracles happened throughout scripture…] these are all examples supernatural imposition with no logical mechanism.

all manner of miracles were performed without that necessity

Maybe this is the heart of the disagreement. Because again, I think it must be that miracles, when they happen, temporarily violate the laws of a deterministic universe. Because if the “miracle” was produced by purely physical determinate causes, and not by any higher supernatural cause replacing that determinism, it wouldn’t be a miracle in the first place – it wouldn’t be amazing or incapable of being explained by science in the slightest.

i dont see them as the same thing at all, one has dependent physical interaction the other is essentially supernatural imposition.

…and the other is essentially supernatural imposition upon what? The physical world, in some manner. So then if you assume that the physical world is deterministic, any supernatural imposition upon that world must necessarily violate determinism somehow. Isn’t that how your whole proof for the supernatural in a deterministic universe works, anyway? You need determinism violated somewhere, otherwise there’s no real argument for anything supernatural happening in the first place, since it can all be accounted for by purely determinate physical causes.

unfortunately physical effects need such a cause…

Physical effects could be produced by a supernatural cause… it doesn’t necessarily have to be a physical cause. (?)