What was God doing?

[MaxVel]

) Argument from motion: according to Aquinas only actual motion can convert potential motion into actual motion. Maybe and maybe not (we don't know). His inductive inference certainly didn't account for the quantum world. However, the real flaw is his assumption that nothing (e.g. a sequence of motion) can extend infinitely into the past (a standard argument from ignorance).

{emphasis mine}

Compare Article 3:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

{emphasis mine}

Aquinas didn't assume anything about such sequences, he argued for it. The reasons such sequences cannot extend to infinity is the nature of the causality in such sequences - it's dependent on something 'outside' as it has no inherent power to cause. Without a 'first mover' such a causal chain could not begin at all.

[Tassman]

{emphasis mine}

Compare Article 3:



{emphasis mine}

Aquinas didn't assume anything about such sequences, he argued for it. The reasons such sequences cannot extend to infinity is the nature of the causality in such sequences - it's dependent on something 'outside' as it has no inherent power to cause. Without a 'first mover' such a causal chain could not begin at all.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy#Goddidit

[MaxVel]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy#Goddidit

What is meant by 'actuality'? What is meant by 'potentiality'? What does Aquinas mean by 'motion'?

I gave you a quote from Aquinas, please cite where exactly he gives the premise that "...everything which initiates change must have been initiated in some way itself."

[Leonhard]

1) Argument from motion: according to Aquinas only actual motion can convert potential motion into actual motion.

You already said this before. I replied with a correction that you haven't acknowledged, or answered. (#92)

I'll cite St. Thomas Aquinas again:

Prima Pars, Quastio Dos, Articulus 1, "Nihil enim movetur, nisi secundum quod est in potentia ad illud ad quod movetur, movet autem aliquid secundum quod est actu."

Or translated

"For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality."

So I have no idea what you mean by with 'actual motion', as in comparison to an actual being.

Maybe and maybe not (we don't know). His inductive inference certainly didn't account for the quantum world. However, the real flaw is his assumption that nothing (e.g. a sequence of motion) can extend infinitely into the past (a standard argument from ignorance).

First of all you have yet to show what in his arguments is invalidated by quantum mechanics. And on the contrary quantum mechanics is only a problem for those who think the universe is mechanical in nature. There if you want to keep a simple materialistic picture, you get into some really surreal interpretations, multiverse mania galore.

2) From efficient causes: basically same as his first argument. There must be a first cause because efficient causes cannot extend infinitely into the past.

Actually St. Thomas Aquinas argument is improperly interpreted, as I pointed out in post #92, if you take the sequence of casualities to be accidental series, rather than essentially ordered series. There's a neat difference between these two that I don't think you understand. I'll gladly explain them, and we could have a conversation about it.

But it requires you to do more than waving your arms going "Your metaphysics is wrong.. because.. *sniff* because quantum mechanics!!!"

You seem to forget I'm a physics graduate, and worked under a professor who was designing quantum computers. Granted I ended up doing surface science instead, but there was a lot of ψ symbols involved in understanding the math of how tightly atoms bonded to the surface of a crystal lattice.

3) From possibility and necessity: There could have been a time where nothing existed, and thus there would be nothing to cause everything else. Once again, this is an argument from ignorance. As far as we know it's impossible for nothing to exist, because even an apparent vacuum isn't truly empty (it's seething with quantum particles and a ground state of energy).

4) From gradation of being: The maximum genus is the cause of that genus. An argument from ignorance in Aquinas' day, but plain wrong today (we know evolution and even the "genus" of our universe worked in exactly the opposite way -- complex things are formed from elementary particles, and simple organisms evolved into intelligent life).

Actually his arguments are a bit more sophisticated than that, but I'll rather focus on the argument from motion.

So are you actually going to interact with our responses, or are you just going to flap your arms and mumble something about Sean Carroll and quantum mechanics?

[Sea of red]

Do you understand Thomism - especially modern interpretations of it - well enough to make this judgment? I have my doubts. Last time you asserted something like this you were unable to show that you knew anything of the actual arguments themselves, like premises, let alone any understanding of what Aquinas meant or understood.

I've read very little Thomas Aquinas in my life to be honest. I'd be happy to answer any arguments you have if you're willing to tango.

Feel free to jump in too, Adrift.

[Sea of red]

Nevertheless Thomism, which is the backbone of your argument, consists of intuitive argumentation based upon the macro-world of classical mechanics, which is all Aquinas knew. He had no knowledge of the counter-intuitive universe of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, which is a fundamental branch of physics involving for example, atoms and photons. Systems such as these obey quantum mechanics and can be in a quantum superposition of different states, unlike in classical physics. all the classical philosophers. They can no longer be relied upon to provide an accurate representation of the universe.

Furthermore, any argument that concludes with as per Aquinas, or

[robrecht]

... Furthermore, any argument that concludes with as per Aquinas, or

I hold to what may be a minority interpretation of the Thomistic Five Ways of Speaking of God, but I'm pretty sure it is correct, as are several world class Thomist scholars or medievalists whom I have had as teachers. But, even if it is not, in fact, Thomas' own interpretation of his own arguments ('though I believe it is), it is still, in my own most humble opinion, the best way to understand Thomas' Five Ways. At any rate, all that being said, it is not at all necessary that one understand Thomas as arguing for a god of the gaps.

And, ... believe it or not, despite all of the weaknesses of a god-of-the-gaps argument, there is still something attractive about speaking of God in terms of our gaps in knowledge, not as an artificial filler for whatever we do not know, but rather in terms of what we do not know, because God, if he does exist, and if he is truly God, is certainly beyond our ability to understand and better understood in terms of what we do not know.

[Tassman]

You already said this before. I replied with a correction that you haven't acknowledged, or answered. (#92)

I'll cite St. Thomas Aquinas again:

Prima Pars, Quastio Dos, Articulus 1, "Nihil enim movetur, nisi secundum quod est in potentia ad illud ad quod movetur, movet autem aliquid secundum quod est actu."

Or translated

"For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality."

So I have no idea what you mean by with 'actual motion', as in comparison to an actual being.

What is meant by:

First of all you have yet to show what in his arguments is invalidated by quantum mechanics. And on the contrary quantum mechanics is only a problem for those who think the universe is mechanical in nature. There if you want to keep a simple materialistic picture, you get into some really surreal interpretations, multiverse mania galore.

Do you have any reason to think that the universe is more

Actually St. Thomas Aquinas argument is improperly interpreted, as I pointed out in post #92, if you take the sequence of casualities to be accidental series, rather than essentially ordered series. There's a neat difference between these two that I don't think you understand. I'll gladly explain them, and we could have a conversation about it.

But it requires you to do more than waving your arms going "Your metaphysics is wrong.. because.. *sniff* because quantum mechanics!!!"

Actually his arguments are a bit more sophisticated than that, but I'll rather focus on the argument from motion.

So are you actually going to interact with our responses, or are you just going to flap your arms and mumble something about Sean Carroll and quantum mechanics?

[MaxVel]

I've read very little Thomas Aquinas in my life to be honest. I'd be happy to answer any arguments you have if you're willing to tango.

Feel free to jump in too, Adrift.

What are your thoughts on the First Way? I've given one version of it in my post above (#106). I'll see if I can put up a more recent version later.

[Sea of red]

What are your thoughts on the First Way? I've given one version of it in my post above (#106). I'll see if I can put up a more recent version later.

I think it's not very powerful at all and plays on our senses. I don't think there has to be some first cause to everything, nor do I think it's impossible for something to be a cause of itself. Virtual particles, quantum tunneling, and radioactive decay come to mind as examples that defy our senses of how causality works.

I see no reason why we can't give the universe more credit - especially given what we now know about 'empty' space.

[MaxVel]

Ok... here's what I think is quite a helpful version off Aquinas' First Way:

The first way can be outlined as follows:[8]

(1) For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world moves.
(2) But, all that is moved, is moved by another.
a. Nothing is, in fact, moved, unless it is in potency[9] to that towards which it is moved.
b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in act.[10]
c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act.
d. But, it is not possible that a thing be reduced to act, unless it is by a thing that is[11] in act.
i. For example, an actually burning or hot thing, such as a flame, makes wood, which is potentially burning, to be burning in act, and in this way the wood is moved and altered.
e. But it is not possible that the same thing be simultaneously in act and in potency in the same sense, but only in a different sense.
i. That, in effect, which is actually burning, cannot at the same time be potentially burning, but is simultaneously potentially freezing/cold.
f. It is therefore impossible that, in the same way and same sense, a thing is moving and is moved,[12] or in other words, that it moves itself.
g. It follows, therefore, that all that is moved is moved by another.
(3) If, therefore, that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on].
(4) But this cannot proceed to infinity:
a. Because, in this case, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another,
b. Because second movers do not move unless they are moved by a first mover, in the same way that a cane is not moved unless it is moved by a hand.
(5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved:
a. and this is what all consider to be God.[13]

The comments and footnotes are well worth reading - essential in fact, if you're not familiar with Thomist terminology.

I think it's not very powerful at all and plays on our senses. I don't think there has to be some first cause to everything, nor do I think it's impossible for something to be a cause of itself. Virtual particles, quantum tunneling, and radioactive decay come to mind as examples that defy our senses of how causality works.

I see no reason why we can't give the universe more credit - especially given what we now know about 'empty' space.

To address some of your points in order:-

1. As I understand it, Aquinas isn't saying that everything needs a cause, but that everything that changes needs a cause of that change. The argument is not about one kind of change, but about change as such.

2. It seems to me to be impossible for something to be a cause of itself, in a number of senses. See premise 2 a-g.
Further, if something doesn't exist, it can't cause anything. And if something doesn't have the potential to change in a certain way, it can't change in that way.

3. Does everything ultimately boil down to physics, in your view? Is (even if we can't do it yet in some cases) everything explainable in terms of mathematical formulae (i.e. physics) or otherwise in empirically falsifiable hypotheses?

[Sea of red]

1. As I understand it, Aquinas isn't saying that everything needs a cause, but that everything that changes needs a cause of that change. The argument is not about one kind of change, but about change as such.

Not sure how that helps Aquinas's argument at all. We can explain the dynamical changes in the universe rather well and we understand those properties of the causes too.

2. It seems to me to be impossible for something to be a cause of itself, in a number of senses. See premise 2 a-g.
Further, if something doesn't exist, it can't cause anything. And if something doesn't have the potential to change in a certain way, it can't change in that way.

How does this work towards prime mover? I see still no reason to invoke a deity to explain the universes features

3. Does everything ultimately boil down to physics, in your view?

Not everything, but this is a question I think it can answer with enough research and experimenting.

Is (even if we can't do it yet in some cases) everything explainable in terms of mathematical formulae (i.e. physics) or otherwise in empirically falsifiable hypotheses?

For this it's preferable.

[shunyadragon]

Ok... here's what I think is quite a helpful version off Aquinas' First Way:

1. As I understand it, Aquinas isn't saying that everything needs a cause, but that everything that changes needs a cause of that change. The argument is not about one kind of change, but about change as such.

This argument is an old argument and assumes that there is an existence of 'change or cause' ultimately has a 'Source' outside our physical existence. There is no objective evidence that this argument has any value beyond the Theological assumption that God exists as the ultimate source of change.

The misuse of the math of 'actual infinities' used to support the Kalam cosmological argument that there logically has to be an uncaused cause other than the nature of our physical existence further weakens the argument concerning the chain of causes or changes.

2. It seems to me to be impossible for something to be a cause of itself, in a number of senses. See premise 2 a-g.
Further, if something doesn't exist, it can't cause anything. And if something doesn't have the potential to change in a certain way, it can't change in that way.

Modern science has never proposed that 'anything is a cause of itself.' The present knowledge of science demonstrates that there is no other potential causes than Natural Laws, and the nature of our physical existence. There very well may be an ultimate uncaused cause, God, beyond the nature of physical existence, but there is no objective evidence that could make this determination either way.

3. Does everything ultimately boil down to physics, in your view? Is (even if we can't do it yet in some cases) everything explainable in terms of mathematical formulae (i.e. physics) or otherwise in empirically falsifiable hypotheses?

Is everything explainable or falsifiable concerning the nature of our physical existence by science and math? Likely not, but a hypothetical 'appeal to ignorance' cannot address the question of what can and what cannot be explained. At present science, with the math tool box does provide an adequate explanation.

[MaxVel]

This argument is an old argument and assumes that there is an existence of 'change or cause' ultimately has a 'Source' outside our physical existence. There is no objective evidence that this argument has any value beyond the Theological assumption that God exists as the ultimate source of change.

The misuse of the math of 'actual infinities' used to support the Kalam cosmological argument that there logically has to be an uncaused cause other than the nature of our physical existence further weakens the argument concerning the chain of causes or changes.



Modern science has never proposed that 'anything is a cause of itself.' The present knowledge of science demonstrates that there is no other potential causes than Natural Laws, and the nature of our physical existence. There very well may be an ultimate uncaused cause, God, beyond the nature of physical existence, but there is no objective evidence that could make this determination either way.



Is everything explainable or falsifiable concerning the nature of our physical existence by science and math? Likely not, but a hypothetical 'appeal to ignorance' cannot address the question of what can and what cannot be explained. At present science, with the math tool box does provide an adequate explanation.

You have no idea what you're talking about here; you habitually misrepresent other poster's views as well as anything you read on the topic; you quotemine the first Google source you can find with no idea as to it's credibility; and I have no desire at all to discuss this with you.

Please stay out of the conversation between Sea of Red and me.

[shunyadragon]

You have no idea what you're talking about here; you habitually misrepresent other poster's views as well as anything you read on the topic; you quotemine the first Google source you can find with no idea as to it's credibility; and I have no desire at all to discuss this with you.

Please stay out of the conversation between Sea of Red and me.

You are not the author of this thread, therefore you cannot determine who can post and where, nor can you speak for Sea of Red.

There is no quote mining in my post, nor unless you can document this, it is a meaningless assertion. Only if Jim L has objections to my posts in this thread would I change my position concerning posting here. You do have the choice of ignoring my posts.