Aquinas prior to Quantum Mechanics

[Soyeong]

It seems to me that QM is often used by someone as a cop out to show that Aquinas was wrong without having an understanding of his arguments. If Aquinas is wrong, then it was because he made a logical error and/or because he lacked information (QM). We can discuss whether QM trumps Aquinas in other threads, but for this thread one, I would like to look whether someone who understood Aquinas and lived prior to the development of QM should think that Aquinas established the existence of God through his Five Ways (and supporting works) and if he does whether, to a limited extent, we can know some things about the nature of God.

(Please refrain from using QM or ideas developed by it in this thread.)

[shunyadragon]

It seems to me that QM is often used by someone as a cop out to show that Aquinas was wrong without having an understanding of his arguments. If Aquinas is wrong, then it was because he made a logical error and/or because he lacked information (QM). We can discuss whether QM trumps Aquinas in other threads, but for this thread one, I would like to look whether someone who understood Aquinas and lived prior to the development of QM should think that Aquinas established the existence of God through his Five Ways (and supporting works) and if he does whether, to a limited extent, we can know some things about the nature of God.

(Please refrain from using QM or ideas developed by it in this thread.)

I responded to you on this issue in the other thread, but did not get a response. No, QM alone (QM is often used by someone as a cop out to show that Aquinas; was wrong) does not demonstrate that Aguinas, and including all other cosmological arguments, is insufficient to justify the argument for the necessity of contingency. because our physical existence has some sort of necessary 'first' cause.

I will go into more specifics in the next post, but in a nutshell, based on sum of knowledge of modern physics, cosmology and math, there is no basis for proposing that our physical existence has any sort of absolute beginning, or the necessity of a prior first cause. This is true on the QM level as well as the cosmos level, and modern math. At best it is a draw, because we in fact do not have sufficient evidence to definitively say whether the 'first' cause is natural or there is a finite physical existence with the necessity of a 'first' cause other than natural.

I do not propose Aquinas 'wrong,' but propose that his arguments are insufficient to justify the conclusions. I will not use QM theory in any of my posts to argue against Aquinas and all other cosmological arguments. I believe that his arguments were arguing for the existence of God, and not just to learn somethings about God.

[Soyeong]

I responded to you on this issue in the other thread, but did not get a response.

Sorry I saw your post and meant to reply, but that somehow slipped through the cracks.

I will go into more specifics in the next post, but in a nutshell, based on sum of knowledge of modern physics, cosmology and math, there is no basis for proposing that our physical existence has any sort of absolute beginning, or the necessity of a prior first cause. This is true on the QM level as well as the cosmos level, and modern math. At best it is a draw, because we in fact do not have sufficient evidence to definitively say whether the 'first' cause is natural or there is a finite physical existence with the necessity of a 'first' cause other than natural.

While Aquinas thought the universe had a beginning, his arguments do not depend on that being the case. By "first cause" he is not talking chronologically, but ontologically. The ordered series is not ordered per accidens, but per se, as the hand moves the stick that moves the rock. All parts are being moved simultaneously here and now and the first cause is one that is the most fundamental to this order.

[technomage]

Subscribing, but no comments at this time.

[robertb]

QM is not the first problem for Aquinas. Newton is.

[robrecht]

Apples & Oranges & Anachronism. I doubt Thomas would have any difficulty in accepting Newton or QM.

[robertb]

Apples & Oranges & Anachronism. I doubt Thomas would have any difficulty in accepting Newton or QM.

Since gravity answers the first three ways, maybe he would have just relied on the last two.

[robrecht]

I think he would have started over again from scratch.

[robertb]

I think he would have started over again from scratch.

Dumped Aristotle? Perhaps so.

[robrecht]

Sure, why not? His Aristotelian epistemology would have guided him to trust empirical data and dump Aristotelian physics.

[robertb]

Sure, why not? His Aristotelian epistemology would have guided him to trust empirical data and dump Aristotelian physics.

Indeed, though in doing so he necessarily discards the god of classical theism which Newton discovered was, in fact, gravity.

[robrecht]

We're still struggling to understand gravity to this day. Wasn't Newton rather religious?

[robertb]

At least before Einstein.
Yes Newton was religious as far as I know.

[robrecht]

This is where I apply apples & oranges. Einstein, or gravity, does not replace God IMHO, just makes him less likely to be conceived of in magical, architectural, or other limited terms. Philosophy or theology should never be competitive with science.

[GioD]

QM is not the first problem for Aquinas. Newton is.

Aquinas wasn't using "motion" in the same sense Newton was, so this isn't true.