Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An Infinite Past?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    I would argue with Aquinas that this is impossible. The universe itself undergoes change, this means that it has both actuality and potentiality. However if that is the case then it cannot be self-sufficient and would have to be actualised by something else. So the ultimate cause of existence cannot be found in the universe itself.
    You may argue that this is impossible, but the cosmos from which our universe arose may possibly be infinite. You would have to present more evidence then an assertion something with actuality and potentiality cannot be infinite nor self-sufficient. Natural Law itself may very well be self-sufficient, infinite, and not dependent on anything else. This is also possible of the matrix of our physical existence that contains all possible universes.

    Our universe most likely did have a beginning, but that cannot be the basis for an argument that the cosmos that contains our universe had a beginning.

    What would be the basis for this argument other then simply an assertion?
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-11-2014, 06:45 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      I have been interested in Aquinas' schema of potentiality and actuality, however I find the God described in it - a God who cannot change - is not the God of Scripture who became flesh and tabernacled amongst us. The schema appears to be a case of cart before horse - the creation a philosophical schema apart from Scripture (in this case an Aristotelian schema) and then attempting to shoehorn the God of Scripture into the schema. It doesn't seem to work.
      There's not much of a problem here. There is a mystery in exactly how it works, however in Christ there exists two natures, his Divine nature and his human nature. When The Word became incarnate it took on a human nature which was added to the Divine nature, however no change occurred in the Divine nature.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        You may argue that this is impossible, but the cosmos from which our universe arose may possibly be infinite.
        Does that universe undergo change? Then the same problem would exist in that universe and it too would need a cause.

        You would have to present more evidence then an assertion something with actuality and potentiality cannot be infinite nor self-sufficient. Natural Law itself may very well be self-sufficient, infinite, and not dependent on anything else.
        If something is a composite of actuality and potentiality, then in order for it to exist a potential would have to be actualised. A lit match, was made by striking an unlit match; you were born because your father and mother came together; a rock in the ground was formed when it fell off a mountain...

        This implies two kinds of chains of causality, one is the one typically used in modern apologetics, which the thomists would call the accidentally ordered chain. This is basically the historical sequence of causes that brings something about. A match is struck -> the struck match falls on some gasoline -> the gasoline ignites and causes a fire -> the fire burns down a house... Some arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument then proceeds to argue that this chain has to terminate at one point in the past for various reasons. I think this is correct.

        The more interesting to me is the essentially ordered chain of causality, which is the one Aquinas talks about in his First Way. If I'm holding a rock, my grip is the cause of the rock not falling, the state of my muscles and my arm are the cause of that grip, the state of my muscles and arm are caused by their inherent biomechanics, which presumably is caused by their molecular structure, which is caused by quantum electrodynamical interactions of the involved atoms etc... each level has actuality and potentiality, so there has to be an explanation for why potentiality is actualised at all. The essential chain of causality cannot keep going down forever, otherwise nothing would ever be actualised.

        It has to terminate at something which is pure actuality.

        Since even an infinitely old multiverse isn't pure actuality as it undergoes change (especially in chaotic inflation cosmology where its undergoing constant exponential explosive changes!), it cannot be self-existent. It requires something else to be the cause of its existence.

        Our universe most likely did have a beginning, but that cannot be the basis for an argument that the cosmos that contains our universe had a beginning.
        Its a good thing then that Aquinas didn't base his arguments on the universe having a beginning then. However it seems a plausible corollary to his Third Way, which is the point of the argument that Seer wrote in the beginning.

        What would be the basis for this argument other then simply an assertion?
        The real kicker is whether you agree that the world has objects which are composed of actuality and potentiality. If you don't, then we can argue about that, if you do, then I'm not sure how you'd avoid the conclusion I argued for in this post.
        Last edited by Leonhard; 04-11-2014, 07:17 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
          There's not much of a problem here. There is a mystery in exactly how it works, however in Christ there exists two natures, his Divine nature and his human nature. When The Word became incarnate it took on a human nature which was added to the Divine nature, however no change occurred in the Divine nature.
          Let me see if I have understood you: in Aquinas' view, God is the being that doesn't change. When you say that the Word became incarnate, there you have a change: the Word who was not incarnate became incarnate. The being has changed. Your response tries to accommodate this fact by modifying that which is immutable: with respect to Jesus it is not God who doesn't change, but his divine nature which doesn't change.

          Have I represented your response accurately?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Paprika View Post
            Let me see if I have understood you: in Aquinas' view, God is the being that doesn't change. When you say that the Word became incarnate, there you have a change: the Word who was not incarnate became incarnate. The being has changed. Your response tries to accommodate this fact by modifying that which is immutable: with respect to Jesus it is not God who doesn't change, but his divine nature which doesn't change.

            Have I represented your response accurately?
            I would say that is correct. God is "Spirit" and I don't think it matters what that "Spirit" inhabits, it remains the same. We Christians for instance believe that the "Spirit" of God, in some very real way, inhabits us. That cohabitation, if you will, does not sully or change the character or nature of the "Spirit."
            Last edited by seer; 04-11-2014, 07:57 AM.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
              Let me see if I have understood you: in Aquinas' view, God is the being that doesn't change. When you say that the Word became incarnate, there you have a change: the Word who was not incarnate became incarnate. The being has changed. Your response tries to accommodate this fact by modifying that which is immutable: with respect to Jesus it is not God who doesn't change, but his divine nature which doesn't change.

              Have I represented your response accurately?
              This is getting way beyond topic, I only needed to point out a solution existing, namely the traditional one.

              What I'm proposing isn't new, this is basically the the view from back when the doctrine of the Triune nature of God was declared. Jesus had a fully human nature (with human body and even a human soul, and its own human will), and a fully Divine nature. The Divine nature didn't change when the human nature was added to it. These two natures exists in perfect harmony in one person. How that is possible is the mystery of the incarnation, but I don't have to argue what it is, just what it isn't.

              Its been the doctrinal understanding of the Church for all its history that God did not change when he became incarnate.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                I would say that is correct. God is "Spirit" and I don't think it matters what that "Spirit" inhabits, it remains the same. We Christians for instance believe that the "Spirit" of God, in some very real way, inhabits us. That cohabitation, if you will, does not sully or change the character or nature of the "Spirit."
                Are you trying to say that the incarnation was the mere inhabitation of a human body?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                  This is getting way beyond topic, I only needed to point out a solution existing, namely the traditional one.
                  I'm just trying to understand: are you differing from Aquinas on what is immutable: originally, as I understand it, it was the being called God that was immutable; now you're offering an alternative account that it is the divine nature that is immutable?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    Are you trying to say that the incarnation was the mere inhabitation of a human body?
                    Yes, and there was nothing "mere" about it.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Yes, and there was nothing "mere" about it.
                      Let me rephrase my point: are you saying that the incarnation is the same as the Spirit indwelling believers?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Yes, and there was nothing "mere" about it.
                        This is actually a heresy; Jesus was fully Human. Not merely a divine nature controlling a human meat-puppet. This means he has a human soul and a human mind. Otherwise he would not be able to suffer, because the Divine nature is changeless. Gaining a human nature it was made possible for Christ to suffer, not merely to appear to suffer.

                        Look up the heresy called Apollinarism, it was condemned at the First Council of Constantinople

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                          This is actually a heresy; Jesus was fully Human. Not merely a divine nature controlling a human meat-puppet. This means he has a human soul and a human mind. Otherwise he would not be able to suffer, because the Divine nature is changeless. Gaining a human nature it was made possible for Christ to suffer, not merely to appear to suffer.

                          Look up the heresy called Apollinarism, it was condemned at the First Council of Constantinople
                          I'm not sure what your point is Leonhard. I believe that Christ had a fully human body and mind.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                            Does that universe undergo change? Then the same problem would exist in that universe and it too would need a cause.
                            Our universe likely had a beginning, constantly changes and has a cause, but the Quantum World of the Greater Cosmos likely does not change and a cause is not necessary to explain its existence. The Natural Law that underlies all of our physical existence would not change nor have a cause.



                            If something is a composite of actuality and potentiality, then in order for it to exist a potential would have to be actualised. A lit match, was made by striking an unlit match; you were born because your father and mother came together; a rock in the ground was formed when it fell off a mountain...

                            This implies two kinds of chains of causality, one is the one typically used in modern apologetics, which the thomists would call the accidentally ordered chain. This is basically the historical sequence of causes that brings something about. A match is struck -> the struck match falls on some gasoline -> the gasoline ignites and causes a fire -> the fire burns down a house... Some arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument then proceeds to argue that this chain has to terminate at one point in the past for various reasons. I think this is correct.

                            The more interesting to me is the essentially ordered chain of causality, which is the one Aquinas talks about in his First Way. If I'm holding a rock, my grip is the cause of the rock not falling, the state of my muscles and my arm are the cause of that grip, the state of my muscles and arm are caused by their inherent biomechanics, which presumably is caused by their molecular structure, which is caused by quantum electrodynamical interactions of the involved atoms etc... each level has actuality and potentiality, so there has to be an explanation for why potentiality is actualised at all. The essential chain of causality cannot keep going down forever, otherwise nothing would ever be actualised.

                            It has to terminate at something which is pure actuality.

                            Since even an infinitely old multiverse isn't pure actuality as it undergoes change (especially in chaotic inflation cosmology where its undergoing constant exponential explosive changes!), it cannot be self-existent. It requires something else to be the cause of its existence.



                            Its a good thing then that Aquinas didn't base his arguments on the universe having a beginning then. However it seems a plausible corollary to his Third Way, which is the point of the argument that Seer wrote in the beginning.



                            The real kicker is whether you agree that the world has objects which are composed of actuality and potentiality. If you don't, then we can argue about that, if you do, then I'm not sure how you'd avoid the conclusion I argued for in this post.
                            This reflects an old world Newtonian Physics of the nature of our physical existence, and the ancient view of the likes of Thomas Aquinas. I do not believe that these assumptions have any validity in the Quantum World of modern physics and cosmology.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-11-2014, 12:18 PM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Our universe likely had a beginning, constantly changes and has a cause, but the Quantum World of the Greater Cosmos likely does not change and a cause is not necessary to explain its existence. The Natural Law that underlies all of our physical existence would not change nor have a cause.





                              This reflects an old world Newtonian Physics of the nature of our physical existence, and the ancient view of the likes of Thomas Aquinas. I do not believe that these assumptions have any validity in the Quantum World of modern physics and cosmology.

                              At least do Leonhard the courtesy of addressing his specific points, Shunya.

                              Or is this another case of you handwaving away things you don't yet understand?


                              Pro Tip #1: Quantum physics doesn't refute causation as Aquinas uses it. Unless you want also to abandon all pretense of rationality and reasoning being possible...

                              Pro Tip #2: Appeal to Novelty is a logical fallacy
                              Last edited by MaxVel; 04-11-2014, 12:27 PM.
                              ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                                At least do Leonhard the courtesy of addressing his specific points, Shunya.

                                Or is this another case of you handwaving away things you don't yet understand?


                                Pro Tip #1: Quantum physics doesn't refute causation as Aquinas uses it. Unless you want also to abandon all pretense of rationality and reasoning being possible...

                                Pro Tip #2: Appeal to Novelty is a logical fallacy
                                I do not consider this a rational response. Aquinas was not remotely aware of the consequence of Quantum Physics, and modern concepts of infinities. To best of the knowledge of modern science and physics the Quantum world does not change, nor is it known to have a cause, it simply exists. What does rationality and reason have to do with the Physics of the Quantum World? Neither is Natural Law potentially known to have a cause nor change.
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-11-2014, 02:55 PM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                51 responses
                                212 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                345 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 08-29-2023, 08:00 AM
                                272 responses
                                1,517 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X