Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
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
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI do not consider this a rational response. Aquinas was not remotely aware of the consequence of Quantum Physics, and modern concepts if 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.
You're still appealing to the fallacious idea that 'Newer ideas are more correct than older ones' rather than actually demonstrating where Leonhard (or Aquinas) is wrong about causation.
If at the fundamental (i.e. quantum) level material reality has no causal structure (that is, things just happen without any cause at all) then there is no reasonable basis for making causal connections ('If A, then B') at any higher level.
Source for your claim that the 'Quantum World of the Cosmos' doesn't change? Are you saying that it is eternal (it has always existed and will always exist)? If so, how do we know that?
What exactly do you mean by "Natural Law"? Does it exist? Where, and how?Last edited by MaxVel; 04-11-2014, 12:56 PM....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostOur 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,
I do not believe that these assumptions have any validity in the Quantum World of modern physics and cosmology.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThose two aren't equivalent. If you make a list of everything that is in fact possible it would not include things that are not possible for logical or metaphysical reasons.
Seer is simple listing Aquinas short argument for why its plausible that the past is finite. Actually its interesting to note that Aquinas himself didn't believe that it could be proved, but only rendered likely. That the past had a beginning he considered part of revealed truth.
Actually now that I think of it Aquinas would hold premise 2 to be certain because of his first way. As a corollary it has that its possible for all beings not to exist and they have a cause that sustains them in existence.
In his metaphysics anything which shows both actuality (what it currently is - say an unlit match on the table) and potentiality (what it could be - say a lit match in your hand) have a cause for that enables them to be. That's because all possibilities are actualized by something else. So if the ultimate cause of the match ceased to keep it in being the match would wink out before our eyes.
We need to have this distinction of actuality and potentiality to solve some otherwise unsolvable mysteries about motion. I might make a thread on this.
Its premise 1 which is tricky, because its kinda hard to prove that in all eternity all possibilities would obtain. In a naturalistic universe this is certain, however its conceivably false in some other worldview and therefore only probably true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostYou'll need to define your terms (e.g. what precisely do you mean by 'the cosmos' ?), but at face value I think your claim is wrong.
An uncaused self-existent whatever can't be contingent or dependent for it's existence in any way on anything else. It can't be something that can come into or go out of existence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIts sufficient for the premises to be known to be true with a high confidence. You're making a mistake between logical truth and empirical truth. If the premises are logically true, then the conclusion is logically true. However one can also ask whether we have warrant to believe the premises, which is a different question.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThis notion of a Quantum World is not particularly well-defined with you, so you'd have to explain more carefully what you're talking about. If you're talking about the quantum vacuum giving rise to the Big Bang, then I'm afraid that's still something with actuality and potentiality, namely its empty space filled with quantum fields who have the potential to give rise to certain effects.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
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI 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."
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostYou're still appealing to the fallacious idea that 'Newer ideas are more correct than older ones' rather than actually demonstrating where Leonhard (or Aquinas) is wrong about causation.
If at the fundamental (i.e. quantum) level material reality has no causal structure (that is, things just happen without any cause at all) then there is no reasonable basis for making causal connections ('If A, then B') at any higher level.
Source for your claim that the 'Quantum World of the Cosmos' doesn't change? Are you saying that it is eternal (it has always existed and will always exist)? If so, how do we know that?
Check out the Sean Carroll vs. William Lane Craig. Sean Carroll makes it clear there are many models by physicists and cosmologists model the multi-verse as possibly eternal.
What exactly do you mean by "Natural Law"? Does it exist? Where, and how?Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-11-2014, 08:36 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
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI don't get this. Something in the greater cosmos must change to produce this present universe for instance.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
Check out the Sean Carroll vs. William Lane Craig. Sean Carroll makes it clear there are many models by physicists and cosmologists model the multi-verse as possibly eternal.Last edited by seer; 04-12-2014, 06:14 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
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThats true, so why do you deny the same of a creative act of a God? You will argue that the nature itself of God doesn't change I suppose, but neither would the nature of the universe change when it creates.Last edited by seer; 04-12-2014, 06:16 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
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThe nature or character of a carpenter doesn't change when he makes a chair. And the problem with change according to Aquinas is infinite regression. For even in a multi-verse there must be a physical change or force that created this universe for instance. But some force or change must have preceded the force or change that created this universe, the movers and the moved, cause and effect, into infinity past.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
589 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
137 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment