Aquinas prior to Quantum Mechanics

[robrecht]

It was more abstract, moving from potentiality to act, and God was considered pure Act, thus neither changing nor static.

[shunyadragon]

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


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.

I understand this from the theist perspective, and have no problem, as a theist myself with this concept, but from the perspective of an argument for the necessity of contingency, and a first cause outside of our physical existence it is weak and insufficient.

[Soyeong]

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

Aquinas would have simply seen gravity as an inherent property of matter, and thus would have had no problem with Newton.

[shunyadragon]

Aquinas would have simply seen gravity as an inherent property of matter, and thus would have had no problem with Newton.

Newton also proposed 'absolute time' (infinite time without beginning nor end, nor specific reference points that would be outside any effects of gravity or other factors of our physical existence. This fell out of favor with 20th century time/space relativity, but it is back in the 21st century as time independent nature of the greater cosmos beyond our relative time/space relationship that began with the beginning of our universe,

[Soyeong]

I understand this from the theist perspective, and have no problem, as a theist myself with this concept, but from the perspective of an argument for the necessity of contingency, and a first cause outside of our physical existence it is weak and insufficient.

How so?

Newton also proposed 'absolute time' (infinite time without beginning nor end, nor specific reference points that would be outside any effects of gravity or other factors of our physical existence. This fell out of favor with 20th century time/space relativity, but it is back in the 21st century as time independent nature of the greater cosmos beyond our relative time/space relationship that began with the beginning of our universe,

Unless an idea can be shown to be more accurate than other ideas, then proposing an idea merely competes with existing ideas rather than contradicting them. However, in this case, this idea says nothing that contradicts Aquinas in the first place because his arguments are not dependent on the beginning on the universe.

[Xru]

SoyMan you are so smaaaaaaart!

Shuny . . . you are so smaaaaaart too. But in a different way;)

[shunyadragon]

How so?

the argument for the necessity of contingency and 'first' cause is assumption based only on religious beliefs, and not our knowledge of the nature of our physical existence.

It would help if you would out line the Aquinas argument and how you propose to support it. You also indicated that you describe it as supporting the nature of god and the relationship between God and Creation, and not necessarily an argument for the existence of God.

Unless an idea can be shown to be more accurate than other ideas, then proposing an idea merely competes with existing ideas rather than contradicting them. However, in this case, this idea says nothing that contradicts Aquinas in the first place because his arguments are not dependent on the beginning on the universe.

At present the argument that the cosmos containing universe is infinite and eternal is more accurate than others, ie the Standard Model, Velinkin, Borde, and Guth's work, and others. What would be competing arguments supported by cosmologists and physicists, and not be contradictory?

The idea that our physical existence may be described in terms of an absolute time and infinity would contradict Aquinas arguments. Aquinas arguments do propose a first 'cause' and the necessity of contingency that our physical existence has a beginning and is finite.

[shunyadragon]

SoyMan you are so smaaaaaaart!

Shuny . . . you are so smaaaaaart too. But in a different way;)

Welcome back, sort of. I have not seen you around lately.

[Xru]

Welcome back, sort of. I have not seen you around lately.

Hi . . . I'm always warmed by the unconditional regard you radiate to others:) You too SoyBurger.

Note: I've been off greasing Zombies . . . practicing for the coming Zombie Apocalypse.

[Soyeong]

the argument for the necessity of contingency and 'first' cause is assumption based only on religious beliefs, and not our knowledge of the nature of our physical existence.

Aquinas' arguments appeal to our knowledge of nature rather than to religious beliefs, so I'm not sure why you would think that is true.

It would help if you would out line the Aquinas argument and how you propose to support it.

It looks like you are focusing on Third Way, so I'll link it:

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

You also indicated that you describe it as supporting the nature of god and the relationship between God and Creation, and not necessarily an argument for the existence of God.

The Five Ways are summary arguments, so I wanted to also include his other writings about the nature of God if we get that far.

At present the argument that the cosmos containing universe is infinite and eternal is more accurate than others, ie the Standard Model, Velinkin, Borde, and Guth's work, and others. What would be competing arguments supported by cosmologists and physicists, and not be contradictory?

Aquinas acknowledged that there could be an infinite series ordered per accidens, so he used arguments that worked regardless of whether the universe has a finite or infinite past. Looking at the Third Way, it is illogical to say both that something is possible to have happened in the past and that with an infinite past it never happened. Therefore, because it is possible for everything not to exist in the past, then this happened at some point in the infinite past. However, if at some point nothing existed, then it is impossible for something to have begun to exist, which would be absurd in the present. Therefore, there is something that exists that is necessary.

As you see, this works from what we know and does not stem from religious beliefs.

The idea that our physical existence may be described in terms of an absolute time and infinity would contradict Aquinas arguments. Aquinas arguments do propose a first 'cause' and the necessity of contingency that our physical existence has a beginning and is finite.

Again, Aquinas' arguments do not depend on the universe having a finite beginning, so there is no conflict between ideas.

[robertb]

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

Motion in the sense of the acutalization of potency, yes it would be true. Gravity in that sense is pure act.

[robertb]

It was more abstract, moving from potentiality to act, and God was considered pure Act, thus neither changing nor static.

Thus it is a metaphysical description of gravity.

[robertb]

Aquinas would have simply seen gravity as an inherent property of matter, and thus would have had no problem with Newton.

And Aquinas would have been mistaken. Gravity is not an inherent property of matter. Gravity actualizes matter.

[robrecht]

Thus it is a metaphysical description of gravity.

Yes, indeed. But I'm not as sure of your description of gravity as pure act. Can you elaborate, please?

[robertb]

Yes, indeed. But I'm not as sure of your description of gravity as pure act. Can you elaborate, please?

Gravity is pure act in that it cannot be actualized, it has no potentiality, it simply is its essence.