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

[masterjedi747]

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.
…
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.

What about the term “spiritual”?
As in: angels are pure spirits, humans have a spiritual soul.

Maybe body and soul is the pair I am looking for…

That works too, though it only applies to humans (which might be what you want) – and it’s a little tough once you factor in the fact that plants/animals have souls (the internal principle of life in living things), but only men have spiritual souls that rise above the physical/material.

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.)

Although I’m certainly no fan of Descartes (his mathematics is spectacular; his philosophy, on the other hand, has some huge problems) – I definitely think we should be able to look at both. But I think it’s fair to note that Thomas’ conclusions have the advantage of being able to function just the same, even if God had never created men in the universe.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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

thats the point of being equally probable

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 dont seem to understand that is exactly what they are saying with the indeterminism. wwe may know its bull, but they dont. remember, atheism is irrational. check atheists forums, youtube

Because they’re fools…

still leads many astray.

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.

actually it is, check the metaphysical definition of the word ‘eternal’

further a cyclical universe is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics

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.

not if quantum indeterminacy allows something to come from nothing, which is what they claim it does, and yes before you repeat yourself, i know its bull, but they dont.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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. .

and yet it has been a point of contention among many for thousands of years.

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

.

definitely seems that way, yet what if the mechanism is purely an overlay of the supernatural over the deterministic world? or something to that effect, we see that the supernatural effects the physical, we know it happens. maybe it is solely a matter of perceptions? i dont claim to know, i do claim that indeterminacy can be falsified by macro events.

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.

and yet they were, and still nobody knows why, but you cant limit G-d to act through indeterminacy, remember nothing is impossible for Him

…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.

i understand, and yet we see it but not the mechanism, QM cant be the mechanism. indeterminancy has no evidence on the macro scale. where it must to be true.

 

[Leela]

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.

Hi JD, all,

I think the above comments strike at the heart of the issue. Both sides are going to always beg the question. As JD says, Dawkins has missed the premises. The key unspoken premise for these “proofs” to be convincing is that you have to already believe in God to understand the terms in the expected way and find these proofs convincing.

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

G-d cant be limited to acting through indeterminacy. you may like to put Him in that box because it make the situation easier to understand.

 

[1holycatholic]

Hi Granny,

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

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

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

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

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

Best,
Leela

You do not understand Aquinas’ argument from causality. You are misrepresenting it (either deliberately or ignorantly) by copying and pasting John Allen Paulos’ uncritical regurgitation of Bertrand Russells’ uncritical regurgitation of David Hume’s straw-man attack on causality.
St. Thomas Aquinas - Five Ways (from the Summa Theologica):

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

In summary the argument is as follows:
W. Norris Clarke - The One and the Many:

Every being that lacks the sufficient reason for its own existence must have an adequate efficient cause.

Which isn’t the same as the simplistic straw-man you are presenting. Specifically:
W. Norris Clarke - The One and the Many:

Here the broader Principle of Sufficient Reason turns into the more precisely focused Principle of Causality. It works thus:

• *]Every being must have a sufficient reason (i.e. the adequate grounding of its intelligibility) for its own real existence), either (1) in itself, or (2) in another. Otherwise it would be totally unintelligible, which is radically meaningless, not acceptable as an explanation for our real world.
  *]But if (1), then its existence is self-sufficient or self-explanatory, and no further questions need to be asked. If (2), then it must have sufficient reason in another, something else in the order of real being. This sufficient reason in another is called its efficient cause, i.e., that which is responsible by its action for the real existence of another (either in whole or in part). Since such a cause must be “outside” the being whose existence it explains, it is called the extrinsic cause of the latter.

• 
  If you want to refute Aquinas you need to understand Aquinas and not just cut and paste an incoherent straw-man from an atheist polemic du jour.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You do not understand Aquinas’ argument from causality. You are misrepresenting it (either deliberately or ignorantly) by copying and pasting John Allen Paulos’ uncritical regurgitation of Bertrand Russells’ uncritical regurgitation of David Hume’s straw-man attack on causality.

In summary the argument is as follows:

Which isn’t the same as the simplistic straw-man you are presenting. Specifically:

If you want to refute Aquinas you need to understand Aquinas and not just cut and paste an incoherent straw-man from an atheist polemic du jour.

thats the modus operandi of some posters, they plagiarize repeatedly, thats strike three.

 

[Logos385]

To 1holycatholic: I don’t think any berating is necessary… a calm demeanor will be much more helpful in getting your point across. If Leela doesn’t understand the arguments, help her to understand, don’t demean her in an attempt to assert your logical superiority : ).

Anywho, on to my post (still to 1holycatholic)… I take issue with part of the quote of the summa you provided. It states, “Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.”

The part dealing with infinity strikes me as simply fallacious. Saying that if the Universe was eternal we would have no Universe is a false statement, for even if there was no “first” cause, there can still be us here right now. Think of it in terms of a number line- there is no first number and there is no last number, yet the number 2009 is there, right? The numbers leading up to it are as well. Yet the entire system is of an infinite nature… so I don’t see how an infinite Universe is impossible in this way.
I of course realize that classical physicists would point to the Big Bang/Point of singularity as the Universe’s beginning, but the infinity can apply to a sort of Omniverse/Multiverse or something to that effect anyway.

Finally, about the 2nd argument of Aquinas… Even if there is a first cause… there are some possibilities. String Theory (which is FAR from perfect, I realize, and is under great scrutiny at this moment in time) could provide some form of an explanation… involving a non-physical (which the first cause would need to be as Aquinas correctly postulates) but natural cause. Also QM could provide some form of an explanation (although this field is strange, mysterious, weird and also far from perfect). Below I have pasted a paragraph dealing with QM and Aquinas from something I found.

“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.”

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, and nice to hear from you again Leela… I was feeling kind of lonely : P.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

To 1holycatholic: I don’t think any berating is necessary… a calm demeanor will be much more helpful in getting your point across. If Leela doesn’t understand the arguments, help her to understand, don’t demean her in an attempt to assert your logical superiority : ).

he is right, plagiarism is extremely bad form and is even worse when done repeatedly. in any intellectual endeavor it is usually grounds for expulsion, and here it is grounds to place that person on your ignore list. make no mistake, it is theft.

Anywho, on to my post (still to 1holycatholic)… I take issue with part of the quote of the summa you provided. It states, "Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause.

put in plain english if there is no first cause, no other causes could follow

But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false.

following from the previous quote, an infinite series of causes would eliminate a first cause, with no first cause none of the following causes is possible. why because nothing physical can cause itself

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."

the fact that we see any cause and effect, shows that there must have been a first cause.

for even if there was no “first” cause, there can still be us here right now.

how so? no matter how far back the chain went, something physical would have to cause itself for you to be here, we have already agreed that no physical thing can cause itself, so in fact if there were no first cause we could not be here.

at least not without something physical causing itself.

Think of it in terms of a number line- there is no first number and there is no last number, yet the number 2009 is there, right? The numbers leading up to it are as well.

numbers do not ‘cause’ each other. it may be 2009, yet as concepts we know that it is a different year to the chinese, the mayans, etc

Yet the entire system is of an infinite nature… so I don’t see how an infinite Universe is impossible in this way.

because physical things cannot cause themselves, and numbers are concepts, not physical things, its an inaccurate analogy for that reason

that said, there is nothing physically existent that is infinite.

I of course realize that classical physicists would point to the Big Bang/Point of singularity as the Universe’s beginning, but the infinity can apply to a sort of Omniverse/Multiverse or something to that effect anyway.

cyclic universes are not possible without violating the second law of thermodynamics.

the QM multiverse has as much evidence as a fairy tale and still needs a first cause.

Finally, about the 2nd argument of Aquinas… Even if there is a first cause… there are some possibilities. String Theory (which is FAR from perfect, I realize, and is under great scrutiny at this moment in time) could provide some form of an explanation… involving a non-physical (which the first cause would need to be as Aquinas correctly postulates) but natural cause.

natural cause as in physical?(thats its usual meaning)

because the meaning of supernatural that we have been using simply means ‘non-physical’

lets make it even easier and use the terms physical and non-physical.

you seem to be implying a third state, QM doesnt imply that a third state exists.

that said string theory has been dead a while now, they are currently on m-theory

Also QM could provide some form of an explanation (although this field is strange, mysterious, weird and also far from perfect). Below I have pasted a paragraph dealing with QM and Aquinas from something I found.

"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).

i dont know who you are quoting here, but the uncertainty principle has to do with the inversion of knowing certain pairs of parameters of a particle. check the wiki.

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.

they dont exclude cause and effect, only a taic system with no change could avoid cause and effect

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.)

“some sequence” sounds an awful lot like cause and effect

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."

whoever you are quoting doesnt seem to understand what QM is and is not.

no form of QM can avoid basic cause and effect, though some claim that, there is always a huge hole in the theory i.e.virtual particles and the lack of corresponding antimatter.

 

[1holycatholic]

To 1holycatholic: I don’t think any berating is necessary… a calm demeanor will be much more helpful in getting your point across. If Leela doesn’t understand the arguments, help her to understand, don’t demean her in an attempt to assert your logical superiority : ).

Anywho, on to my post (still to 1holycatholic)… I take issue with part of the quote of the summa you provided. It states, “Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.”

The part dealing with infinity strikes me as simply fallacious. Saying that if the Universe was eternal we would have no Universe is a false statement, for even if there was no “first” cause, there can still be us here right now. Think of it in terms of a number line- there is no first number and there is no last number, yet the number 2009 is there, right? The numbers leading up to it are as well. Yet the entire system is of an infinite nature… so I don’t see how an infinite Universe is impossible in this way.
I of course realize that classical physicists would point to the Big Bang/Point of singularity as the Universe’s beginning, but the infinity can apply to a sort of Omniverse/Multiverse or something to that effect anyway.

Finally, about the 2nd argument of Aquinas… Even if there is a first cause… there are some possibilities. String Theory (which is FAR from perfect, I realize, and is under great scrutiny at this moment in time) could provide some form of an explanation… involving a non-physical (which the first cause would need to be as Aquinas correctly postulates) but natural cause. Also QM could provide some form of an explanation (although this field is strange, mysterious, weird and also far from perfect). Below I have pasted a paragraph dealing with QM and Aquinas from something I found.

“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.”

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, and nice to hear from you again Leela… I was feeling kind of lonely : P.

Do you feel that it is acceptable to resort to intellectual dishonesty and theft in order to defend atheism?

If “the idea of cause and effect is simply an illusion” then the scientific method completely collapses. I’m always surprised when atheists use this argument since it undermines scientism.

Where exactly in Aquinas’ argument is time mentioned?

Are you claiming that past time can be infinite?

Jon Koh’s paper that you cite makes some novel claims. Please explain this excerpt:
“Essentially, quantum physics allows for the creation of something from nothing (via the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle).”
:ehh:

 

[Logos385]

Thank you again Warpspeedpetey : ).

I didn’t realize she was plagerizing… what was she copying?

I see your point with the analogy of the number line, I will definitely have to rethink that one, thanks : ).

About the QM stuff: I had no idea on its validity, and that’s why I brought it here. I just wanted to know what you guys thought.

Back to the Cyclic Theory, however, I’m not sure how to tackle the first cause argument as of yet, but the most recent version of the Cyclic model I have seen says that matter, energy, space and time have always been there, and since energy causes motion in matter, that would seemingly lead to motion always being there as well.

As to it violating the law of entropy, the current theory (at least that of Steinhardt and Turok) doesn’t seem to. In their own words, "No. The second law of thermodynamics says that the total entropy or randomness in the universe always increases. This is true for the new Cyclic Theory. A thorough discussion of this in Chapter 8 of our book, including its relation to Isaac Asimov’s famous short story, The Last Question (which is also the title of our Chapter).

There is actually a common misunderstanding regarding this issue. The problem with the oscillatory models of the 1920’s was not the entropy, but the entropy density – that is, not the total amount of randomness but, rather, how concentrate it is. In the oscillatory models of the 1920s, the entropy created during one expansion phase draws together during the periods of contraction and adds to the concentration of entropy at the beginning of the next cycle. If the concentration increases from cycle to cycle, then each cycle ends up being longer than the one before (going forward in time) or the cycles get progressively shorter (extrapolating backward in time). In fact, they converge to zero duration after a short time. So, when the concentration was considered, it became clear that these models failed to give an eternally cycling universe.

In the new cyclic model, the entropy created during one cycle is diluted during the period of accelerated expansion, but is never drawn together again (i.e., it remains dilute) during the contraction period. The total entropy of the universe as a whole increases steadily from bounce to bounce, as demanded by the second law of thermodynamics. However, the entropy from the previous cycle is spread to regions beyond the horizon during the period of dark energy domination and never seen again. So, as far as any local observer is concerned, the entropy density is driven to zero before each bang and the universe appears to begin afresh after each bang."

I, once again, realize this is unproven, however there are experiments being done in the next few years that can at least indirectly test for aspects of the current theories available.

Very quickly: The supernatural/natural… I would rather not say non-physical/physical for those, for not all natural things are physical (Time, Emotions, Thoughts, etc.).

EDIT: To 1holycaltholic, I am not saying I can explain any of that, or subscribe to it in any form. I simply was wondering what people here (specifically warpspeed in fact) thought of it. That is all. And is Leela copying something? If so, what is she copying? I was simply unaware, that’s all.

 

[1holycatholic]

Thank you again Warpspeedpetey : ).

I didn’t realize she was plagerizing… what was she copying?
[chop]
EDIT: To 1holycaltholic, I am not saying I can explain any of that, or subscribe to it in any form. I simply was wondering what people here (specifically warpspeed in fact) thought of it. That is all. And is Leela copying something? If so, what is she copying? I was simply unaware, that’s all.

Leela has a penchant for plagiarizing John Allen Paulos. Here is an excerpt from a review of Paulos’ book Irreligion:
In his opening chapters Mr. Paulos uses simple logic to point up the gaping holes in the so-called first-cause argument. “Either everything has a cause, or there’s something that doesn’t,” he writes. “The first-cause argument collapses into this hole whichever tack we take. If everything has a cause, then God does, too, and there is no first cause. And if something doesn’t have a cause, it may as well be the physical world.”
Does that sound familiar? The argument Leela has repeatedly presented as her own is Paulo’s argument which is really Russell’s argument, for Bertrand Russell writes in “Why I am not a Christian”:
If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
Which is just rehash of David Hume’s erroneous attack on causality from Dialogues on Natural Religion. The argument “Either everything has a cause, or there’s something that doesn’t" isn’t Aquinas’ argument from causality, it is a straw-man.

 

[Logos385]

To 1holycatholic: I see what you are getting at, but people have been re-using that argument almost constantly ever since, and plagiarism laws do allow using formerly published works (sadly without reference) for education, scholastic endeavors, private viewing and critiques. Leela could make the argument her use of the material is either out of no knowledge that this argument was made before, or within the Fair Use section of the law.

On to the argument itself: the real point of contention is whether the laws of causality apply to supernatural entities. Although the laws are within the realm of the natural, we have never observed the supernatural, thus it is a possibility those laws exist there as well. You would postulate that the laws of causality as we know them do not exist in the supernatural, while Leela would say they do. Both claims are not really based on evidence.

Although you might say it is a necessity for them to not apply to the supernatural realm in order for there to be a first cause, as Aquinas does as well, essentially that argument boils down to, “There must be something that the laws of causality do not apply to, and we call it God.” (If this is a strawman, please point out what is wrong with the statement or rectify it and make your preferred statement for review). This argument, however, is basically an admission that we truly do not know what caused all that there is, and simply a theory to suggest what it might be. Since this theory is not a scientific theory (not backed up by evidence- it would be known as a “hypothesis” in the scientific community) it remains just that, a hypothesis. An “educated guess.” Until we test it, we can’t make statements about its validity.

Essentially, what I am saying is that all Aquinas proves is that there must be something in the beginning that the laws of causality do not apply to, which I think the majority of the scientific community would agree with. However, as of yet, we have no idea what that might be.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Back to the Cyclic Theory, however, I’m not sure how to tackle the first cause argument as of yet

,

there isnt really one, at least no one in the last 800 years has found a serious answer that allows something to come from nothing. 0+0=0, its a mathematical certainty.

the real argument is not if there is or is not a G-d, all arguments against violate that simple mathematical principle.

but the most recent version of the Cyclic model I have seen says that matter, energy, space and time have always been there, and since energy causes motion in matter, that would seemingly lead to motion always being there as well.

except nothing physical can cause itself, if there was no first cause, then we would see nof urther causes. that is the giant gaping hole in any ‘eternal’ universe scenario, thats what i explained in the last post.

In the new cyclic model, the entropy created during one cycle is diluted during the period of accelerated expansion, but is never drawn together again (i.e., it remains dilute) during the contraction period.

if a balloon wams up it expands, as it cools it shrinks, but it always has the same amount of air. same with a cyclic universe. at least that is as close as an analogy as i can come up with off the cuff.

The total entropy of the universe as a whole increases steadily from bounce to bounce, as demanded by the second law of thermodynamics. However, the entropy from the previous cycle is spread to regions beyond the horizon during the period of dark energy domination and never seen again.

so it does a david copperfield? it just dissapears backstage? i assume you have had physics 101, does that sound right to you?

So, as far as any local observer is concerned, the entropy density is driven to zero before each bang and the universe appears to begin afresh after each bang."

by the time the universe would retract to a singularity, everything would be a local observer.

but that is not even the first problem,

in order to change from the expansion of the universe to a retraction,(halt and reverse entropy) one has to have an (name removed by moderator)ut of energy from outside the system. thats the problem i was actually refering to.

I, once again, realize this is unproven, however there are experiments being done in the next few years that can at least indirectly test for aspects of the current theories available.

i wouldnt count on it.

Very quickly: The supernatural/natural… I would rather not say non-physical/physical for those, for not all natural things are physical (Time, Emotions, Thoughts, etc.).

what? time is a thing? since when? it is a measurment of the passage of cause and effect. it is a concept not a thing.

emotions?, thoughts?

these are all concepts, not physically existent as anything more than anything more than chemical interactions in ones brain.

there are no natural things that are not physical. if you know of even one, lets hear it.

that said, these posts are open to the public. its like a prison in a way if someone walks up and offers to be your buddy and protect you, you should be extremely wary of their motives.

 

[grannymh]

Paulo’s argument which is really Russell’s argument, for Bertrand Russell writes in “Why I am not a Christian”:If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.quote]
Dear 1holycatholic,

Thanks to the people on this thread, I’m learning quite a bit about Thomas Aquinas and do understand that Bertrand Russell above is not accurate regarding dear Aquinas… However, I noticed that the word “thing” is used quite often in these kinds of arguments. Doesn’t thing refer to the things we see, poke, take apart, etc. ?? In other words everything would include our physical universe. Yet, most people find that the human being is both physical and non-physical.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[1holycatholic]

To 1holycatholic: I see what you are getting at, but people have been re-using that argument almost constantly ever since, and plagiarism laws do allow using formerly published works (sadly without reference) for education, scholastic endeavors, private viewing and critiques. Leela could make the argument her use of the material is either out of no knowledge that this argument was made before, or within the Fair Use section of the law.

On to the argument itself: the real point of contention is whether the laws of causality apply to supernatural entities. Although the laws are within the realm of the natural, we have never observed the supernatural, thus it is a possibility those laws exist there as well. You would postulate that the laws of causality as we know them do not exist in the supernatural, while Leela would say they do. Both claims are not really based on evidence.

Although you might say it is a necessity for them to not apply to the supernatural realm in order for there to be a first cause, as Aquinas does as well, essentially that argument boils down to, “There must be something that the laws of causality do not apply to, and we call it God.” (If this is a strawman, please point out what is wrong with the statement or rectify it and make your preferred statement for review). This argument, however, is basically an admission that we truly do not know what caused all that there is, and simply a theory to suggest what it might be. Since this theory is not a scientific theory (not backed up by evidence- it would be known as a “hypothesis” in the scientific community) it remains just that, a hypothesis. An “educated guess.” Until we test it, we can’t make statements about its validity.

Essentially, what I am saying is that all Aquinas proves is that there must be something in the beginning that the laws of causality do not apply to, which I think the majority of the scientific community would agree with. However, as of yet, we have no idea what that might be.

Leela copied and pasted Paulos word for word without attribution and presented his writing as her own. That’s plagiarism, not fair use.

The Principle of Causality applies to God. Reread the Principle of Causality from W. Norris Clarke that I posted in this thread. Leela’s plagiarized argument violates the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

I’m not sure where you are going with the whole “scientific theory/hypothesis” thing since the question at hand isn’t in the domain of science, therefore the scientific method is completely irrelevant to the question.

 

[1holycatholic]

Dear 1holycatholic,

Thanks to the people on this thread, I’m learning quite a bit about Thomas Aquinas and do understand that Bertrand Russell above is not accurate regarding dear Aquinas… However, I noticed that the word “thing” is used quite often in these kinds of arguments. Doesn’t thing refer to the things we see, poke, take apart, etc. ?? In other words everything would include our physical universe. Yet, most people find that the human being is both physical and non-physical.

Blessings,
grannymh

Thing as opposed to no thing (nothing).

 

[Leela]

You do not understand Aquinas’ argument from causality. You are misrepresenting it (either deliberately or ignorantly) by copying and pasting John Allen Paulos’ uncritical regurgitation of Bertrand Russells’ uncritical regurgitation of David Hume’s straw-man attack on causality.

This is exactly the sort of question begging I was talking about. If someone isn’t convinced by the First Cause argument, they must not understand it?

I actually didn’t copy and paste here but I have read the criticisms of the thinkers you mentioned as well as Dawkins and Harris. But so what? I guess accusing someone of plagiarism is easier than trying to argue that the First Cause argument actually constitutes proof?

If God has been proven by this argument, then why is it not accepted in the academic community? Why is faith so emphasized in Christianity? If we actually have such knowledge. why would anyone need faith? It seems that if faith is central to Christianity and if the First Cause argument is proof of God’s existence, then it follows that Christianity is false.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

On to the argument itself: the real point of contention is whether the laws of causality apply to supernatural entities. Although the laws are within the realm of the natural, we have never observed the supernatural, thus it is a possibility those laws exist there as well. You would postulate that the laws of causality as we know them do not exist in the supernatural, while Leela would say they do. Both claims are not really based on evidence.

I’m saying something a little different. The whole question of whether or not the laws of causality apply to God is to presuppose that God exists. I’m not willing to accept an argument that is based on assuming what it is supposed to prove. This is what I mean by question begging.

Although you might say it is a necessity for them to not apply to the supernatural realm in order for there to be a first cause, as Aquinas does as well, essentially that argument boils down to, “There must be something that the laws of causality do not apply to, and we call it God.” (If this is a strawman, please point out what is wrong with the statement or rectify it and make your preferred statement for review). This argument, however, is basically an admission that we truly do not know what caused all that there is, and simply a theory to suggest what it might be. Since this theory is not a scientific theory (not backed up by evidence- it would be known as a “hypothesis” in the scientific community) it remains just that, a hypothesis. An “educated guess.” Until we test it, we can’t make statements about its validity.

Essentially, what I am saying is that all Aquinas proves is that there must be something in the beginning that the laws of causality do not apply to, which I think the majority of the scientific community would agree with. However, as of yet, we have no idea what that might be.

The above is very well said.

I would just say that I don’t think we really have proof about the existence of something in the beginning to which causality did not apply because I’m not convinced that it even makes sense to ask such questions. Does it really make sense to talk about the beginning of time when terms like “beginning” presuppose the existence of time?

I think the honest thing to do is to admit the limitations of human knowledge about such things and not to pretend to know things that we simply don’t know.

Best.
Leela

 

[grannymh]

I think the honest thing to do is to admit the limitations of human knowledge about such things and not to pretend to know things that we simply don’t know.

Dear Leela,

I have to admit that I have not kept up with this thread as I should. Nonetheless your above sentence reminds me of a piece I wrote concerning the word “mystery” used in a Catholic way concerning the existence of God. It begins:

The word mystery simply means “that which is really there but cannot be easily seen nor readily understood.” The ending of a good whodunit will have us wondering how we missed the clues that were there all along. Scientists also experience the same feelings of amazement when a discovery is no longer mysterious.

It’s easy to be lulled into thinking that all mysteries are to be solved by human reason. This is a common error. The greatest mystery of all is the one which goes beyond the physical world of our created universe to reach the ultimate reality of God, the Creator. This mystery brings time and eternity together, the finite life on earth with the infinite life of our loving God–a reality that all humans long for, either openly or deeply within one’s heart.

Note concerning the above: I do honor the positions of the non-theists and the non-religious including my own kids. Nevertheless, the above, which was written for a Catholic parish bulletin, seemed to be in tune with the need to admit limitations in knowledge of both philosophy and science. It is perfectly o.k. to drop the last sentence. However, I do think that because there is a non-physical side to humans, it is possible to say poetically that way deep, there is something inside of us which wants to know the full reality of the non-physical.

Personally, I am comfortable with mysteries. That is the reason I like to explore all sides of topics.

Blessings for the future,
grannymh