Frodo, I wish you had read all of my posts because I'm going to be repeating myself fairly often in considering all of your points. Here goes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lord_Frodo
Aquinas, in developing this argument, assumes that God requires no mover, which is a faith-based assertion. Essentially he's already moved outside of the realm of logic to one entirely supported by his own personal faith, which makes this a poor argument for God's existence.
I respond to this merely by saying that time extends infinitely backwards, just as it seems to extend infinitely forwards. There is no "beginning" to it.
|
A mover causes a motion, and the effect is that the motion is transfered to an object which then moves due to this original motion. This is a cryptic way of saying effects follow causes. But the very word "follow" implies a set grid wherein things or circumstances are existing at certain points. We name this grid time.
Materially, everything must have an origin, and that origin is very particular. A son cannot come from a stone, he originates from a father. But beyond the material, these particulars are no longer present. A son can be his own father or a daughter can be her mother's mother and so forth. This is due to the lack of any material constraint, namely time. God is not subject to these modes, and so He is not subject to having a beginning or an end or even a middle, He simply is.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lord_Frodo
Mr. Aquinas would do well to study mathematics. We often look at integrals, for example, that are bounded by infinity in the positive and negative direction. When we evaluate these integrals at any point, they're affected by the behavior they've experienced previously - which, according to Aquinas, is impossible.
The idea that the chain of efficient causes would not work if it extended infinitely far backwards is incorrect.
|
Ill illustrate your point with the following situation.
You have set up a very nice circle of upright dominoes. When you set one domino into motion, it knocks the adjacent domino forward into the next domino, and so on. Eventually, all the dominoes are resting on the floor. To assume that efficient causes extend back in time indefinitely and proceed forward indefinately -- and of its own accord -- would imply that these dominoes are able to rearrange themselves back into upright positions and continue the process of falling down from your original inertia in an unending manner. This cannot be done.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lord_Frodo
Again, this is countered by the simple argument that things have always existed, e.g. all of the matter in the entire universe. Aquinas' understanding of the existence of things was incredibly limited, and that shows in this proof. If two people create a child, for example, Aquinas would say that that thing "came into existence" - today we know that preexisting matter and energy was just rearranged into the configuration of a child.
|
Who can say that things have always existed? Have you always existed? How is this provable by any means, including logic?
As for creating a child, I do not believe Aquinas would say that. At least, I would not. I would say that two people combined parts of their genetic code and this union brought forth a human life. I would then use this fact to prove that life comes from life, not matter.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lord_Frodo
Rubbish. Goodness, nobility, and truth are completely subjective and human-created. We have commonly accepted standards for them but there is no absolute.
|
This is not a "goodness" proof as much as it is a study of our inferior quantity vs. God's superior quantity. We are able to posess aspects of God (wealth, fame, beauty, power, knowledge, and renunciation), but we can never approach God's level in respect to these qualities. We can share qualities with God and have varying levels of these qualities in respect to our fellow human beings, but because these qualities exist and because we have them, they must come from some source which posesses these qualities absolutely.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lord_Frodo
Entirely subjective and based on Thomas' own perceptions. For this reason I discard this "proof" entirely.
|
How can you argue that the fact of intelligence's existence is not indicative of a supreme intelligence?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lord_Frodo
Time extends infinitely far back. So this big bang is likely one in an infinitely long string of bangs, extending infinitely far back. Easy.
As for evolution, no one "created" life - it just happened.
|
However long this string is, it must have a definite origin because our universe is always subject to time. I hope you understand this concept by now.
So you "just happened"?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lord_Frodo
They do, the odds are just astronomically against it.
|
An example, please?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lord_Frodo
And he may well be able to, given four billion years to let the effects of that explosion propagate throughout the universe.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding you have about the commonly purported origins of the universe - the argument is not "there was an explosion, and ordered systems of planets flew out from the center of it, complete with trees, flowers, and fuzzy rabbits". The explosion threw matter across a colossally vast space, and that matter eventually condensed and formed planets, at least one of which had the proper combination of conditions to support carbon-based life forms. Not a quick process, and certainly not comparable to throwing TNT into the side of a mountain.
|
Please, I studied this subject (theoretical physics) for years on my own and for a couple in university. Supposedly, once the particles slowed down and cooled sufficiently they began to swirl and coalesce, forming stars. These stars created heavier elements and later exploded themselved, seeding the universe with these heavy elements. After a long time, these heavy elements began to form into planets orbiting stars, etc. etc. I know all about it. But what causes the particles to rotate in the first place? This requires a mover. Who is the mover?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lord_Frodo
Our understanding of science is not perfect. Far from it, in fact. Just because some things are not possible given our current understanding doesn't mean they're not possible at all.
|
The existence of God is not possible according to modern scientific theory, and many people are prepared to write of the possibility of God based only on this.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lord_Frodo
No more mad than me suggesting intangible gnomes (which may as well be what "god" is) magicked all of reality into being.
|
Hey, who am I to judge? Anything can be God, the only requirement is being the origin of everything.