Aquinas prior to Quantum Mechanics

[shunyadragon]

As much as fine tuning and multiverses are interesting concepts to talk about, they have nothing to do with Aquinas.

I would not say nothing to do with Aquinas' argument, because much of what he argued for has carried forward into arguments like those proposed for fine tuning, irreducible complexity, and Intelligent Design. Particularly when he argued for the necessity a deliberate 'per se' cause, as opposed to what he described as the impossible alternative 'per accidens.'

I agree that the various multi-verse theories is an interesting discussion, and is important to the discussion.

[shunyadragon]

I agree. But do not some theoretical physicists appeal to the multivese theories as resolving some of the difficulties of the fine tuning theories? That was my point, but I may be wrong about this point.

I do not believe that they appeal to the multi-verse concept for dealing with fine-tuning. I believe fine tuning is easily dealt with matter of factly as I described. The theories describing the possibilities of multi-verses have evolved in an attempt to explain many issues in QM and the origins of our universe.

[Soyeong]

I would not say nothing to do with Aquinas' argument, because much of what he argued for has carried forward into arguments like those proposed for fine tuning, irreducible complexity, and Intelligent Design.

The problem that Aquinas's arguments are much stronger than those arguments, and in fact, I think he would strongly object to them. The best those arguments can do is say that there probably was some sort of divine being who created and then left. Aquinas's arguments show there there necessarily is a classical God of theism who is sustaining the universe at every moment.

Particularly when he argued for the necessity a deliberate 'per se' cause, as opposed to what he described as the impossible alternative 'per accidens.

Per accidens is an ordered series like my grandfather begat my father who begat me. My grandfather was necessary to begat my father, but after that happened, he could die and the series could still continue. Aquinas says that it possible that this series could go on infinity. Pe se is an ordered series like the hand moves the stick that moves the rock. If any part is missing, then the series can't continue. It is impossible to have an infinite series of objects like the stick being moved and moving something else if there is nothing that starts the movement. This thing is the cause of all of the movement in the series, but is not moved by anything else in the series, is fundamental to the series, and is known to Aquinas is the First Mover.

Notice that this First Mover is necessary and that the series would stop moving if at any moment The First Mover stopped moving. At the moment we have to look at Aquinas' other writings to find reasons why this First Mover also has the attributes of the classical God of theism, but showing that that there is a being that is the cause of everything is an important attribute of God and a good start.

[Xru]

The problem that Aquinas's arguments are much stronger than those arguments, and in fact, I think he would strongly object to them. The best those arguments can do is say that there probably was some sort of divine being who created and then left. Aquinas's arguments show there there necessarily is a classical God of theism who is sustaining the universe at every moment.


Per accidens is an ordered series like my grandfather begat my father who begat me. My grandfather was necessary to begat my father, but after that happened, he could die and the series could still continue. Aquinas says that it possible that this series could go on infinity. Pe se is an ordered series like the hand moves the stick that moves the rock. If any part is missing, then the series can't continue. It is impossible to have an infinite series of objects like the stick being moved and moving something else if there is nothing that starts the movement. This thing is the cause of all of the movement in the series, but is not moved by anything else in the series, is fundamental to the series, and is known to Aquinas is the First Mover.

Notice that this First Mover is necessary and that the series would stop moving if at any moment The First Mover stopped moving. At the moment we have to look at Aquinas' other writings to find reasons why this First Mover also has the attributes of the classical God of theism, but showing that that there is a being that is the cause of everything is an important attribute of God and a good start.

SoyMan . . . you do actually understand this stuff you write on your comments don't you. For awhile . . . well, every since I got to know you months ago I figured you were just jerking ever one around by writing that crap down and you didn't understand what you wrote any more that when I read it.

But you really understand it . . . I'm starting to get the picture. It's just NOT to yank my chain?

I'm still trying to think this through . . . I'll get back to ya.

Regards

BTW, I love your avatar. If you don't want it I want it. Pleaz . . .

[Soyeong]

SoyMan . . . you do actually understand this stuff you write on your comments don't you.

I still have more to go before I understand everything about Aquinas, but Edward Feser's book Aquinas was a big help. The terms are unfamiliar at first, they they begin to make more sense as you keep at it.

[Xru]

I still have more to go before I understand everything about Aquinas, but Edward Feser's book Aquinas was a big help. The terms are unfamiliar at first, they they begin to make more sense as you keep at it.

Xru slowly looks away and rolls his eyes . . . meh.

[robertb]

I will, of course, respect your wishes and not cotinue to discuss robertb's very interesting application of the thomistic idea of pure act to modern conceptions of gravity. Thomas' arguments worked within his own metaphysical system, just as the ontological argument worked for many neo-platonists.

In order to not further derail this thread into areas that the OP would rather not discuss, we can start a new thread to specifically discuss gravity and its relation to the metaphysics of Aristotle and therefore, by extension, Aquinas.

[shunyadragon]

The problem that Aquinas's arguments are much stronger than those arguments, and in fact, I think he would strongly object to them. The best those arguments can do is say that there probably was some sort of divine being who created and then left. Aquinas's arguments show there there necessarily is a classical God of theism who is sustaining the universe at every moment.

I would consider it not any stronger and still like others, related and flawed. In these arguments I could simply substitute God with an eternal infinite Natural Existence and Natural Law. What evidence could you present that the universe and all of physical existence could not sustain itself without a God at every moment?

Per accidens is an ordered series like my grandfather begat my father who begat me. My grandfather was necessary to begat my father, but after that happened, he could die and the series could still continue. Aquinas says that it possible that this series could go on infinity. Pe se is an ordered series like the hand moves the stick that moves the rock. If any part is missing, then the series can't continue. It is impossible to have an infinite series of objects like the stick being moved and moving something else if there is nothing that starts the movement. This thing is the cause of all of the movement in the series, but is not moved by anything else in the series, is fundamental to the series, and is known to Aquinas is the First Mover.

Notice that this First Mover is necessary and that the series would stop moving if at any moment The First Mover stopped moving. At the moment we have to look at Aquinas' other writings to find reasons why this First Mover also has the attributes of the classical God of theism, but showing that that there is a being that is the cause of everything is an important attribute of God and a good start.

I more that notice I understand Aquinas argument for a f'irst mover.' but claiming everything would stop moving at any moment The First Mover stopped moving is like the slick insurance salesman selling elephant stampede insurance in Hillsborough, NC. His line is 'If you don't buy the insurance you could get run over by an elephant on King Street.

Again simply substituting Natural Law for God, we have no problem defining a First Mover from the Natural perspective.

I believe the objection to infinite events in the past, and an infinite physical past, not future events. Logically there is no problem with an absolute eternal past in terms of time.

As a theist I 'believe' in a First Mover, but as an argument for God, it sucks.