Aquinas's argument from Contingency revisited

[Soyeong]

"All models being equal?"

I was meaning all models being equal in that they are all models.

Aristotle (and later Aquinas, and Feser in his turn) are not working with a model: they are attempting to formulate (in Feser's case, defend) a statement that they hope to use as a universal law.

Aquinas saying the universe is like this, QM says it's like that - they are both using models. All sciences depend on the assumption that the universe makes sense and that if something doesn't make sense to someone, then the problem is that they currently lack of ability to make sense of it and not that the universe just doesn't make sense. We all paint word pictures or make models about aspects of the universe in order to make it more comprehensible, and we determine which ones are right or wrong based on which ones make the most sense. You've said that my model of gravity being an inherent property of matter makes more sense, but you have not explained why your model of gravity still existing without matter as a fundamental force is more accurate in spite of it making less sense. If it is more accurate, then it should make more sense.

[Soyeong]

It sounds very much like you are saying "I don't understand it, therefore it's obviously wrong," which does not strike me as a typical argument for you.

No, I was merely expressing my frustration at people trying to use QM as a trump card to dismiss Aquinas without engaging his arguments, especially when they have very little understanding of either.

It is imprecise of me to state, however, that these events have no cause.

Again, I don't see how it's even possible to even prove that. Looking at everything else, it is better to state that there a cause, but that we just don't know what it is, and and express confidence that it will eventually be found through further understanding.

Specifically,
1. He is wrong in his assertion that causation was axiomatic;
2. He is wrong in his assertion that the universe could be fully understood by his "laws";
3. His argument is not universal enough to build further universal arguments on.

In other words, he's wrong because QM says he's wrong, but I see no reason to trust this model of causality over Aquinas'.

In regards to causation? More-or-less. These later discoveries required technology that Aquinas did not have access to, just as Einstein's discoveries required technology that Newton did not have access to.

They are superior models because they make more sense of the universe than previous ones. With causality in QM, this is not the case.

But that's the thing about science--when science discovers new data, and says "This is our best understanding of how the universe works," the old understanding is refuted.

And sometimes the old understanding is just passes over without getting refuted. I think that this is getting at something I'd like to take a closer look at in this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ntum-Mechanics

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense Shuny, I proved you wrong on this and you should not falsely accuse Craig. You took his statements out of context like I showed on Natural Science 301. Vilenkin did say, like I also linked, that this universe did have a beginning. And also as I showed that there is not one bit of evidence that matter and energy existed before this universe. Craig also referenced Vilenkin's idea of this scalar field. So you are again bringing a false accusation against Craig - is this what your religion teaches you to do?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/vilen...-worlds-in-one




BTW - will you ever admit that you were wrong?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...27#post3431027

Nonsense seer, you proved nothing wrong you made a lot of assertions, that is all. Craig most definitely dishonestly misrepresent Vilenkin and his work, None of Vilenkin's work can be used to argue that the beginning of the universe is any sort of absolute beginning. Vilenkin's work only demonstrates the beginning of the universe with expansion from preexisting state of matter and energy.

[shunyadragon]

BTW - will you ever admit that you were wrong?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...27#post3431027

Another thread on another topic I will address this after some reading. Your reference is basically correct. Please stay on topic.

[technomage]

Not sure here considering a few of your posts. We have been in threads before that you seem to understand the origins of our universe and the nature of beginnings, time and infinities, you have presented some confusion here.

Not so much "confusion," as I reject the hypothesis as insufficiently substantiated ... at least, so far. (I also tend to reject the "multiple worlds" interpretation. In other words, I tend to be a stick-in-the-mud on certain topics.)

[technomage]

No, I was merely expressing my frustration at people trying to use QM as a trump card to dismiss Aquinas without engaging his arguments, especially when they have very little understanding of either.

Soy, I have engaged Aquinas' argument. Because it is based on a false premise (that the universe necessitates a cause), it's wrong. What more is there to engage in? If an argument has twenty linked assertions, I don't have to address all twenty points--I only have to point out one break in the chain to refute the entire argument.

What more do you want?

Again, I don't see how it's even possible to even prove that. Looking at everything else, it is better to state that there a cause, but that we just don't know what it is, and and express confidence that it will eventually be found through further understanding.

Doing so is called "Argument from ignorance."

In other words, he's wrong because QM says he's wrong, but I see no reason to trust this model of causality over Aquinas'.

Whether or not you see it, or whether or not any individual sees it, is irrelevant.

They are superior models because they make more sense of the universe than previous ones. With causality in QM, this is not the case.

Soy, here you are using a subjective definition of "makes more sense." \

There is also this to consider ... to assert that we, as human beings, should be able to comprehend every facet of this universe is, IMO, abject arrogance. What guarantee do we have that everything in the universe will "make sense?"

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ntum-Mechanics

Provided my internet connection holds, I'll take a look.

[Soyeong]

Soy, I have engaged Aquinas' argument. Because it is based on a false premise (that the universe necessitates a cause), it's wrong. What more is there to engage in? If an argument has twenty linked assertions, I don't have to address all twenty points--I only have to point out one break in the chain to refute the entire argument.

Aquinas said if something comes into being then it has a cause, so if the universe came into being then it necessitates a cause, but I don't recall him using that a premise.

Doing so is called "Argument from ignorance."

Looking at everything else, we see that everything else that comes into being has a cause. It is more reasonable to assume this trend will continue when running across something new than to assume that it must not have a cause.

Whether or not you see it, or whether or not any individual sees it, is irrelevant.

That was your cue to provide one.

Soy, here you are using a subjective definition of "makes more sense." \

Well, all human knowledge is subjective. Knowledge that appears to most closely match reality makes the most sense.

There is also this to consider ... to assert that we, as human beings, should be able to comprehend every facet of this universe is, IMO, abject arrogance. What guarantee do we have that everything in the universe will "make sense?"

Indeed it is arrogant and we have no guarantee that the universe will make sense, nonetheless, all sciences proceed with that assumption. Perhaps you have a reason why we should assume otherwise?

[technomage]

Aquinas said if something comes into being then it has a cause, so if the universe came into being then it necessitates a cause, but I don't recall him using that a premise.

Re-read the Fourth Argument. (I think it was fourth, and fifth was teleology)

Looking at everything else, we see that everything else that comes into being has a cause. It is more reasonable to assume this trend will continue when running across something new than to assume that it must not have a cause.

Soy, why do you keep saying that science "assumes" that quantum events have no cause. Have you not seen the evidence offered? Have you not gone to other sources and read them for yourself?

The conclusion that quantum events have no cause was not an assumption--it was the result of years of investigation.

[seer]

Nonsense seer, you proved nothing wrong you made a lot of assertions, that is all. Craig most definitely dishonestly misrepresent Vilenkin and his work, None of Vilenkin's work can be used to argue that the beginning of the universe is any sort of absolute beginning. Vilenkin's work only demonstrates the beginning of the universe with expansion from preexisting state of matter and energy.

That is false Shuny, Vilenkin himself said this universe "began" - do I have to link that article too? But that it may have come out of a scalar field. Craig deals with that point, as my link shows. And there is not one bit of evidence that said field existed, or gave rise to this universe, or if it did give rise to our cosmos there is no reason to believe that this field is eternal. He demonstrated nothing. So stop bringing false accusations against Craig, he rightly pointed out what Vilenkin was saying.

[seer]

Another thread on another topic I will address this after some reading. Your reference is basically correct. Please stay on topic.

Ok, show me where the quotes from your own religion are wrong. I will be waiting...

[seer]

Nonsense seer, you proved nothing wrong you made a lot of assertions, that is all. Craig most definitely dishonestly misrepresent Vilenkin and his work.

Ok Shuny, show us exactly where Craig misrepresents Vilenkin. We will all be waiting... Or are you fibbing?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/vilen...-worlds-in-one

[shunyadragon]

Ok Shuny, show us exactly where Craig misrepresents Vilenkin. We will all be waiting... Or are you fibbing?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/vilen...-worlds-in-one

This represents a more recent rewrite by Craig more critical of Vilenkin's multiverse view somewhat different from his earlier works appealing to vilenkin's work describing the beginning of the universe as potentially interpreted as an absolute beginning, but no Vilenkin proposed the beginning of preexisting forms of matter and energy. i will refer to this earlier misuse and misrepresentation of Vilenkin's work by Craig also, but from this reference he still misrepresents Vilenkin as follows . . .

Craig says . . .

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/vilenkins-cosmic-vision-a-review-essay-of-many-worlds-in-one

At the heart of Vilenkin's vision of the world is the theory of future-eternal, or everlasting, inflation (Vilenkin misleadingly calls it eternal inflation, even though he holds that the inflationary multiverse has only a finite past).

© source where applicable

Vilenkin only holds that the individual inflationary universes have a finite past beginning with inflation. He considers in his theory that the 'ergotic universe' is infinite. The misuse and misrepresentation of Vilenkin is proposing that his theories of the beginning of inflation as an absolute beginning, instead he proposes that the beginning of the universe from preexisting forms of matter and energy, and cannot be used to justify an absolute beginning, and Vilenkin does not hold this views nor theories in any form for an absolute beginning. The following cites his book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

A generic prediction of chaotic inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which, being infinite, must contain Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions. Accordingly, an infinite universe will contain an infinite number of Hubble volumes, all having the same physical laws and physical constants. In regard to configurations such as the distribution of matter, almost all will differ from our Hubble volume. However, because there are infinitely many, far beyond the cosmological horizon, there will eventually be Hubble volumes with similar, and even identical, configurations. Tegmark estimates that an identical volume to ours should be about 1010115 meters away from us.[4][5] This estimate implies use of the cosmological principle, wherein one assumes our Hubble volume is not special or unique. By extension of the same reasoning, there would, in fact, be an infinite number of Hubble volumes identical to ours in the universe.

© source where applicable

One point is very important that I am not arguing whether Vilenkin's theories are correct nor incorrect, but that the beginning of the universe with inflation described by Vilenkin can be interpreted as an absolute beginning that Craig proposed. It also must be noted that virtually ALL recent cosmologists have proposed a beginning of the universe from preexisting forms of matter and energy. The previous most common theory was the beginning of the universe from a preexisting singularity call the Big Bang. Vilenkin proposed a different beginning from a zero-state field through Quantum tunneling.

[Soyeong]

Re-read the Fourth Argument. (I think it was fourth, and fifth was teleology)

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

I don't think he ever used "the universe has a beginning" as a premise.

Soy, why do you keep saying that science "assumes" that quantum events have no cause. Have you not seen the evidence offered? Have you not gone to other sources and read them for yourself?

I used "assume" because I don't think it is something that can be proven. The wiki page you linked with Bell's theorem used the phrase "if correct" several times, which leads me believe that they are assuming it is correct. For example, it is at least possible that he was wrong about the results that local realism would yield. Furthermore, he is assuming physical causes and ruling out metaphysical causes. It would be circular to rule out metaphysical causes to show that Aquinas was wrong about metaphysical causes.

[shunyadragon]

That is false Shuny, Vilenkin himself said this universe "began" - do I have to link that article too? But that it may have come out of a scalar field. Craig deals with that point, as my link shows. And there is not one bit of evidence that said field existed, or gave rise to this universe, or if it did give rise to our cosmos there is no reason to believe that this field is eternal. He demonstrated nothing. So stop bringing false accusations against Craig, he rightly pointed out what Vilenkin was saying.

Vilenkin did not say the universe 'began' any more than any other prior cosmologist. All cosmologists have described the present universe 'began' from a previous state or form of energy and matter. Prior to Vilenkin the predominant theory was the universe 'began' from a singularity called the Big Bang. Vilenkin's theories propose that the universe began with expansion from a zero-state field through quantum tunneling.

The argument is not whether Vilenkin and Borge were right or wrong in the theories and hypothesis they proposed, but whether they proposed anything new that could be used to justify the universe had an absolute beginning that Craig proposed that Vilenkin's proposed beginning supported his view of an absolute beginning. This is a misuse and misrepresentation of Vilenkin, Guth and Borde's research and theories.

[seer]

This represents a more recent rewrite by Craig more critical of Vilenkin's multiverse view somewhat different from his earlier works appealing to vilenkin's work describing the beginning of the universe as potentially interpreted as an absolute beginning, but no Vilenkin proposed the beginning of preexisting forms of matter and energy. i will refer to this earlier misuse and misrepresentation of Vilenkin's work by Craig also, but from this reference he still misrepresents Vilenkin as follows . . .

No Shuny, you said that Craig said Vilenkin suggested an "absolute beginning." That is not at all what Craig said, as the article clearly shows. And where is your evidence that Craig's work is a "recent rewrite?" Another false accusation? The fact is Craig always acknowledged that Vilenkin believed that the universe rose out of a preexisting state. Of course there is no evidence for such a preexisting state, so the only evidence we have is for a finite universe.

One point is very important that I am not arguing whether Vilenkin's theories are correct nor incorrect, but that the beginning of the universe with inflation described by Vilenkin can be interpreted as an absolute beginning that Craig proposed. It also must be noted that virtually ALL recent cosmologists have proposed a beginning of the universe from preexisting forms of matter and energy. The previous most common theory was the beginning of the universe from a preexisting singularity call the Big Bang. Vilenkin proposed a different beginning from a zero-state field through Quantum tunneling.

Aaaaarghh! First you say that Craig misrepresented Vilenkin by suggesting an absolute beginning (which he never did) now you said that it can be can "interpreted" as such!