Griggsy

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Originally posted by GioD

"Taking into account the advance of science" should not be relevant, because my question, in context, was about the intended meaning of terms like "cause" and "motion" as well as the interpretation of principles like the principle of causality and the law of non-contradiction when Aristotle and Aquinas designed the arguments. If you think I'm talking about evidence for excluding broader meanings of the term over the meanings of the terms from science, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Feser, among other A-T philosophers, has been ready to point out on multiple occasions how the modern scientific meanings of terms like "cause" and interpretations of certain axioms are not what was intended by Aristotle or St. Thomas when they used those terms. If it's his bare word against yours, I'm going to side with Feser on this one.

There are advances in science concerning the potential nature of origins and cause and effect that show that the nature of our physical existence at both the quantum and cosmos levels is possibly without any cause other than natural causes, and the 'first mover' can possibly be natural law.

Aristotilian 'infinities' also represent inadequate concepts when arguing for the necessity of a finite and temporal physical infinities, and beginnings for our physical existence. These concepts of 'infinities' have limited or no value in defining possible limits in time and space, by today's math and science.

As far as the 'Law of Contradiction' goes, any argument that uses this concept will and of itself make human assumptions as to what is in contradiction and what is not. Yes, ultimately the nature of our existence is most likely non-contradictory whether God exists or not, but I do not believe humans are capable of defining this ultimate non-contradictory nature.