Eternity

[Diogenes]

Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #56]

If the first statement is true, then the universe is deterministic and randomness is an illusion.

I think that this is a true statement. The universe is deterministic and randomness is an illusion.

It is the statement

"if universe would be without beginning and be eternal, I think it would mean that it is constant loop and then I would have existed unlimited times in past and this same moment would have happened unlimited times."

which is incorrect.

What is determined [by consciousness] is fixed for each manifestation...the changes which happen are called 'beginnings'...and each beginning can therefore be the beginning of something different than ever before...than in any previous manifestation

[historia]

I'm not disputing the fact that certain philosophers have, down through history, made various cosmological arguments for the existence of God. I'm simply asking you to directly quote one so we can assess the argument as they have articulated it, rather than continue to give us your impression of what they have said.

“The existence of a prime mover- nothing can move itself; there must be a first mover. The first mover is called God.”

― Thomas Aquinas St.

I'm afraid this is not a quote from Aquinas. Rather, it appears to be a terse summary of one of Aquinas' Five Ways that has then been falsely attributed to him as a direct quote.

"by historia
Sun Jul 03, 2016 4:13 pm
Forum: Christianity and Apologetics
Topic: Kalam Cosmological Argument
Replies: 78
Views: 5924

This historia fellow is not a philosopher.

"cos·mo·log·i·cal ar·gu·ment
/ˌkäzməˌläjəkəl ˈärɡyəmənt/

I'm not asking for a definition of the term 'cosmological argument'.

For Swinburne's "Inductive Cosmological Argument," See:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... .tb00085.x

This is an article from a critic of Swinburne, rather than a summary of the argument from Swinburne himself.

But, in the interest of moving the conversation along, perhaps you can tell us what you think is intellectually dishonest about Swinburne's argument?

The article you've cited here would seem to cut against any such assertion. While Martin clearly disagrees with Swinburne's conclusions, he never charges Swinburne with intellectual dishonesty. Indeed, it would be unusual for an atheist philosopher like Martin to devote an article in a peer-reviewed journal to rebutting an argument he thought was just intellectually dishonest.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
I believe spirit can interact with matter, but I don’t know how exactly.

"I believe me this thing here, but can't put me no truth to it it."

We just as well fuss on how it is a rabbit came to spread about boiled eggs on a given weekend.

To believe universe with everlasting change that has no beginning is to me more difficult to believe than God that does not change. And that is because, if universe would be without beginning and be eternal, I think it would mean that it is constant loop and then I would have existed unlimited times in past and this same moment would have happened unlimited times. If things would go by a chance, I think it would be just too improbable to have exact same complex systems to develop on its own unlimited times the same way, without God.

It is not the same with God, because God doesn’t change, at least if we believe what the Bible tells.

"It's too difficult to believe me something else" is astoundingly indicative of the problems we face in getting the ignorant to quit projecting their irrational, unfounded beliefs upon society.

It's far past the time we quit the mollycoddling these superstitious beliefs, to the point of em being tax free and politically active.

[Diogenes]

I'm not disputing the fact that certain philosophers have, down through history, made various cosmological arguments for the existence of God. I'm simply asking you to directly quote one so we can assess the argument as they have articulated it, rather than continue to give us your impression of what they have said.

“The existence of a prime mover- nothing can move itself; there must be a first mover. The first mover is called God.”

― Thomas Aquinas St.

I'm afraid this is not a quote from Aquinas. Rather, it appears to be a terse summary of one of Aquinas' Five Ways that has then been falsely attributed to him as a direct quote.

Since you allege you are familiar with the source, perhaps you could give us the correct, and exact quote directly from Aquinas that properly demonstrates his cosmological or first mover argument [or however you wish to label it]? You are, of course, aware Aquinas wrote his best known works in Latin, so a direct quote in English is not possible. Perhaps you could provide a "'Historia' approved" English translation.

Would this do?
"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."
– Summa Theologicae

Drawing your attention to the last, "... seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God;"
could you delineate how this substantially deviates from how I have previously summarized his argument?

In any event, despite your digressions, do you seriously dispute the claim that in general, Christians have employed the cosmological (or 'prime mover') argument for centuries? Perhaps also you could demonstrate in what way(s) my descriptions of it substantially deviate from the argument of Aquinas.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #64]

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.

This is in fact, not true. Rather ALL things are in motion, even that it may be evident to our senses that some things are not moving...our senses are giving us information which we are processing incorrectly.

Search: "how many miles does the earth travel in a day?"
Earth travels about 1.6 million miles (2.6 million km) a day, or 66,627 mph (107,226 km/h).

Movement is what the universe does and why time exists...is this a minor detail which does not undermine the rest of what Aquinas was attempting to convey?

[historia]

Would this do?

Yes, that is an actual quote from Aquinas, from Summa Theologica I, q. 2, a. 3:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion.

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.

Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself.

Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

So, what do you think is intellectually dishonest about this argument from Aquinas?

In any event, despite your digressions, do you seriously dispute the claim that in general, Christians have employed the cosmological (or 'prime mover') argument for centuries?

I'll simply refer you back to what I said in my earlier reply:

I'm not disputing the fact that certain philosophers have, down through history, made various cosmological arguments for the existence of God.

Your other question:

Perhaps also you could demonstrate in what way(s) my descriptions of it substantially deviate from the argument of Aquinas.

By your "description of it," do you mean the summary you gave in the OP?

I actually mentioned this in the post from another thread that you quoted above. Aquinas' argument here is not strictly about the temporal ordering of events, and so doesn't set out to demonstrate "the universe must have had a beginning."

For a quick, useful commentary on what Aquinas is saying here, I would recommend this eight minute video from Thomas Joseph White, from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas. See especially 5:14-6:15 where he notes that Aquinas is "surprisingly agnostic" on the question of the universe's beginning.

In that way, Aquinas is not a good example of the type of cosmological argument you are gesturing toward in the OP. The kalam cosmological argument would be a better example. To that end, we could look at a quote from William Lane Craig instead, if you prefer.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #64]

In any event, the 'prime mover' is whatever the object was which exploded, causing the chain-effect of 'time-through form and movement' so it may not be accurate to claim that this object is "God" as seems to be the case with the word-string

"... seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God;"

[Diogenes]

Would this do?

Yes, that is an actual quote from Aquinas, from Summa Theologica I, q. 2, a. 3:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion.

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.

Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself.

Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

So, what do you think is intellectually dishonest about this argument from Aquinas?

It is very simple. He makes a special pleading, as I've previously stated. Cutting through the verbal barrage, he claims everything must be moved by something, EXCEPT his God. God, the Roman Catholic version, is the one entity that need not be moved. This is intellectually dishonest. For all his brilliance, Thomas falls prey to simple prejudice, to the allegiance of his own 'god.'

[Diogenes]

....
In that way, Aquinas is not a good example of the type of cosmological argument you are gesturing toward in the OP. The kalam cosmological argument would be a better example. To that end, we could look at a quote from William Lane Craig instead, if you prefer.

Why not offer the quote itself?
Will this from Craig do?
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... l-argument
Craig is a sophist. He is MUCH more cumbersome than Aquinas. He multiplies argument upon argument without adding anything but verbiage.

For example, WLC offers, "Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will."
This is just another, less ingenuous way of stating what Aquinas wrote. This is typical of Craig's sophistry.
The problem remains. The ASSUMPTION, that there must be a 'First Cause' is just that, an unjustified assumption. There remains no reason to assume the world has not always been.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #68]

It is very simple. He makes a special pleading, as I've previously stated. Cutting through the verbal barrage, he claims everything must be moved by something, EXCEPT his God. God, the Roman Catholic version, is the one entity that need not be moved. This is intellectually dishonest. For all his brilliance, Thomas falls prey to simple prejudice, to the allegiance of his own 'god.'

If it is the same "God" as biblically defined, then defining 'movement' as that which "caused the universe" - it is written that it was the very idea of "let there be" which created "So it was" and it might be acceptable that even if it were a thought of the God-creator, that was enough to spark a reaction and could be counted as a 'movement' - as in "The thought is itself a movement."

So far we have science telling of an object which exploded and some theists explaining that the "object" was actually a thought God had.