Did Aquinas Prove That God Exists?

[Polymath257]

We're literally walking through the proof(s) for it.

Yes, but one thing I have learned in studying science is that philosophical arguments are of almost no value until they are tested. Those which cannot be tested are of no value (in science).

The best physical models we have are from quantum mechanics. And, in quantum mechanics, causality simply doesn't work the way it does classically. One reason is that, at base, physical objects don't have definite properties at all times and all properties are probabilistic to some degree.

We are at the place where we need to get rid of most metaphysics that was produced before 1900 and, essentially rewrite our ontology and epistemology to be consistent with quantum mechanics (relativity is easier in many ways).

 

[shunyadragon]

We're literally walking through the proof(s) for it.

We're walking through the witness of the nature of our physical existence, but not proofs. Some sort of proofs (?) would require some sort of universal acceptance, and there are too many diverse and contradictory claims that insure that there are no proofs that are meaningful.

 

[Left Coast]

Well, causality requires time, so it simply isn't possible to have a cause for time. And, in particular, if time is part of the universe, it isn't possible to have a cause for the universe.

This does give me pause, because we're talking about the supernatural, which I know obviously can't be empirically demonstrated, and all the examples of "stuff" we can actually verify are part of the universe.

 

[Left Coast]

And *how* does something bring another thing into being? Through the action of natural laws. So, it is impossible to have a cause for those natural laws.

Furthermore, to 'bring something into being' is a process in time, so time is necessary for causation. Hence it is impossible to have a cause for time itself.

Now, I thought before you explained that natural laws were descriptions of what we observe (and I agree). So laws don't "cause" anything, they simply describe what will happen under certain conditions. So that answers the question of "how" something happens, but not really "why."

 

[Left Coast]

Yes, but one thing I have learned in studying science is that philosophical arguments are of almost no value until they are tested. Those which cannot be tested are of no value (in science).

The best physical models we have are from quantum mechanics. And, in quantum mechanics, causality simply doesn't work the way it does classically. One reason is that, at base, physical objects don't have definite properties at all times and all properties are probabilistic to some degree.

We are at the place where we need to get rid of most metaphysics that was produced before 1900 and, essentially rewrite our ontology and epistemology to be consistent with quantum mechanics (relativity is easier in many ways).

I see your point. I suppose this goes back to questions of scientism and materialism: is science the only way to obtain knowledge of reality? And is reality only material/physical?

As I'm reading up on Scholastic metaphysics, I'm also realizing that it doesn't conceive of causation in a purely deterministic way. I need to study it more in depth, though.

 

[osgart]

The problem is that this only applies to the beginning of our universe and every possible universe. The singularity existed prior to the universe. There is absolutely no evidence to support that our universe had an absolute beginning.

The concept of the expansion of the universe from the singularity expansion as the beginning of time/space is based on our knowledge of Quantum Mechanics, which in turn is the basis for the possibility of the multiverse, and the concept that the Quantum World is timeless and boundless.

How would something timeless and boundless exist?

 

[Thief]

I am looking more closely at your point - dead center.
I quite understand why you mentioned the center point.
You were thinking of a perfect circle, and I understand from that perspective, because you had God in mind, and therefore nothing less than perfect came to your mind.
So for the circle to be perfect, the center point must be the beginning, but of course you would need accurate mathematical measurements.
So you are saying God is the center, and starts the circle with perfect measurement.
Am I reading you correctly?
It makes sense, and I never looked at it from that angle, but reading this article, and this, showed a new perspective.
Interesting how angle makes a difference.

almost there....

in the beginning....God

the mystery would be His Self Awareness
and how to speak of it in the 'moment'

HOW to say....I AM!
with nothing to show for it

I believe the pronouncement to be a mystery
and simultaneous to the quote.....Let there be light

at the starting 'point'...….God

the expansion begins with His Self proclamation......Let there be light

HOWEVER......to allow infinity to expand ….perfectly
that creation would be ONE single shockwave
perfectly spherical

that is not what we see when we look up

He 'pinched' that singularity......and distorted it
He 'snapped' His fingers to set the rotation in play

the expansion was then to be...…..less than
perfect

the void was perfect …...uniform is all ways

light is an aberration

 

[shunyadragon]

How would something timeless and boundless exist?

 

[shunyadragon]

How would something timeless and boundless exist?

How or why something exists are philosophical questions. Science is simply descriptive of the nature of our physical existence.. The basis for these being the properties of the Quantum World is the result of research on the nature of the Quantum World through Quantum Mechanics. These are the conclusions of contemporary cosmologists and physicists based on their research. Our universe like all possible universes are considered temporal and finite with a life span, but the Quantum world from with our time/space universes is timeless and boundless..Stephan Hawking, Max Plank and others developed Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Gravity, Quantum Field Theory to develop a descriptive explanation of the Quantum World. It is a work in progress

Its late. More to follow . . .

 

[Aman Uensis]

But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover;

Aquinas states this cannot be, but I believe this is exactly the way it is and has to be. For I could not imagine a time of non-existence. To go from non-existence to existence would indeed be impossible, even for God, because if God were present within non-existence then it wouldn't really be non-existence to begin with if something existed in the first place.

Therefore, existence has to be infinite, with neither a beginning nor an end. This does throw the question of the "first mover" up into the air but perhaps that is the way it is designed to be - one perpetual machine of which the search for answers and debate is never ending. Because if we found the ultimate, definitive answer of why we are here, what then would be the point of going forwards?

I believe some things must remain out of the reach of both faith and science to keep the machine that is existence running.

 

[Left Coast]

How or why something exists are philosophical questions. Science is simply descriptive of the nature of our physical existence.. The basis for these being the properties of the Quantum World is the result of research on the nature of the Quantum World through Quantum Mechanics. These are the conclusions of contemporary cosmologists and physicists based on their research.

If they (the properties of the Quantum World) are simply descriptions, then as you said they're irrelevant to the deeper question of why things are the way they are.

Our universe like all possible universes are considered temporal and finite with a life span, but the Quantum world from with our time/space universes is timeless and boundless..

You keep saying this but not demonstrating it. If our understanding of QM came from scientific investigation, then we can't have concluded they're "timeless and boundless." They're descriptions of what happens within the bounds of spacetime.

 

[Heyo]

This does give me pause, because we're talking about the supernatural, which I know obviously can't be empirically demonstrated, and all the examples of "stuff" we can actually verify are part of the universe.

Thanks to @Polymath257 for taking over while I was away.

It's not only that empiricism fails, logic also shares that fate at the singularity. Now, I can't really blame that on Aquinas since he didn't have the idea of time having a beginning or the universe being in a singular point. Nor had his contemporaries so it was never discussed with him. The only source that could have nudged him into that direction that I know of would have been Zeno's paradoxa. He was really into temporal phenomena but also didn't address the beginning of time. (And Aquinas did study Zeno.)
Our level of argumentation really is only possible with Relativity and the Big Bang in mind even though my arguments don't rest on the physical.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks to @Polymath257 for taking over while I was away.

It's not only that empiricism fails, logic also shares that fate at the singularity. Now, I can't really blame that on Aquinas since he didn't have the idea of time having a beginning or the universe being in a singular point. Nor had his contemporaries so it was never discussed with him. The only source that could have nudged him into that direction that I know of would have been Zeno's paradoxa. He was really into temporal phenomena but also didn't address the beginning of time. (And Aquinas did study Zeno.)
Our level of argumentation really is only possible with Relativity and the Big Bang in mind even though my arguments don't rest on the physical.

Actually, Augustine also investigated time and allowed for the possibility that time had a beginning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, but one thing I have learned in studying science is that philosophical arguments are of almost no value until they are tested. Those which cannot be tested are of no value (in science).

The best physical models we have are from quantum mechanics. And, in quantum mechanics, causality simply doesn't work the way it does classically. One reason is that, at base, physical objects don't have definite properties at all times and all properties are probabilistic to some degree.

We are at the place where we need to get rid of most metaphysics that was produced before 1900 and, essentially rewrite our ontology and epistemology to be consistent with quantum mechanics (relativity is easier in many ways).

Well, value is not only in science.

As for:
"We are at the place where we need to get rid of most metaphysics that was produced before 1900 and, essentially rewrite our ontology and epistemology to be consistent with quantum mechanics (relativity is easier in many ways)."

That one is already answered. Metaphysics and ontology are not science. That is philosophy.

So again:
It begins with Protagoras and Agrippa the Skeptics.

It ends here:
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Gödel's incompleteness theorems has nothing to do with just math.
That is a part of understanding the limits of knowledge, reason, logic/proof and truth.

Everything, that is real and exists, can be tested for and measured. Me: No, it is to simple. Logical positivism didn't work.

Bummer, right. In practice there is no God and no Truth. You are looking for Truth, not truth.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, value is not only in science.

As for:
"We are at the place where we need to get rid of most metaphysics that was produced before 1900 and, essentially rewrite our ontology and epistemology to be consistent with quantum mechanics (relativity is easier in many ways)."

That one is already answered. Metaphysics and ontology are not science. That is philosophy.

Exactly. And philosophy is at its best when it takes the information from other areas of study and ponders what that information has to say.

Kant thought that geometry was a prior knowledge. He was wrong, as shown by non-Euclidean geometry.

So again:
It begins with Protagoras and Agrippa the Skeptics.

It ends here:
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Well, it ends there *so far*.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems has nothing to do with just math.
That is a part of understanding the limits of knowledge, reason, logic/proof and truth.

Most people who talk about Godel's theorems know almost nothing about what he actually proved.

Everything, that is real and exists, can be tested for and measured. Me: No, it is to simple. Logical positivism didn't work.

Bummer, right. In practice there is no God and no Truth. You are looking for Truth, not truth.

Capitalization doesn't make a difference to me.

 

[shunyadragon]

If they (the properties of the Quantum World) are simply descriptions, then as you said they're irrelevant to the deeper question of why things are the way they are.

Yes, which is the way of science. The question of why something is the way it is is not falsifiable, because is is a subjective philosophical and theological question.

You keep saying this but not demonstrating it. If our understanding of QM came from scientific investigation, then we can't have concluded they're "timeless and boundless." They're descriptions of what happens within the bounds of spacetime.

No, their descriptions of Quantum Mechanics are the behavior of matter and energy on the micro scale of Quanta. The macro world which arises from the Quantum World in space/time is described differently in physics. In the maro world we have different physical laws, the world of chemistry, gravity, and in the micro world we have the smallest particles of matter and Quantum Gravity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Exactly. And philosophy is at its best when it takes the information from other areas of study and ponders what that information has to say.

Kant thought that geometry was a prior knowledge. He was wrong, as shown by non-Euclidean geometry.



Well, it ends there *so far*.



Most people who talk about Godel's theorems know almost nothing about what he actually proved.



Capitalization doesn't make a difference to me.

Let us turn the Holy Grail of philosophy into a testable question.
Find for all of reality with prior evidence or proof all local examples of it within reality (as it comes to humans). Now use logic and reduction to math and science and keep the strong AND from logic and only get positive results.
The last one is the joker:
Your overall theory of everything can't yield relativism.
Here is how:
You: Here is the ToE, follow it, because you can't do it differently. (That is the testable part)
Me: No!

The test is as always that there is no relativism at all.

You can't reduce all human behavior down to the same with the logical AND.
So here it is from within philosophy as with logic and ontology combined:
"It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect." Aristotle

Now you can't reduce differences in human behavior away if they disagree and you can't use logic on two humans, if they disagree. How? Because they are not the same thing!!!
It is that simple!
That is it. We can go on with logic as much as you like and if I can do my life differently that you can do yours, I will do so, when it comes to this.
The actual everyday life falsification of your idea, is that humans will continue to disagree with you.

I am a general skeptic and I know how to falsify the ToE for all human behavior. I just disagree.
Agrippa the Skeptic - Wikipedia

The first mode of falsification as per Agrippa the Skeptic of a ToE is simple:
The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.

You have nothing but an opinion and I have a different one. Nice, ain't it.
You really need to study the basics and apply them to all human behavior as observed by field observation. You know, look at humans in the will. Like as an Internet forum and observe that they can actually disagree and both can get away with it.

Relativism in humans are a result of the effect of the replication of the fittest gene with a social species like humans. We do the 4Fs in biology within the species and we compete for resources, power and prestige.

Now if humans cease to be humans, then yes, there might be a possible ToE. But as long as our biology stays fundamentally the same, humans will continue to answer "No!" to your idea.
Subjectivism and relativism in humans are a result of biology. Good luck trying to change that.

Sorry, I know, it is a bummer. But if you had checked the knowledge already out there, you wouldn't claim, what you claim.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, which is the way of science. The question of why something is the way it is is not falsifiable, because is is a subjective philosophical and theological question.

I'll go a bit further. When asking the question 'why', we usually want to get a description of the phenomenon from more basic physical laws. So, we can ask why planets form the way they do and use the theory of gravity along with aspects of accretive systems to do this.

But this means that the *most* fundamental questions *cannot* have an answer to the question of 'why'. To give an answer would be to go to a more fundamental level and that is impossible at the most fundamental level.

And that means that for the fundamental laws, the *only* reasonable question to ask is 'how': how do they operate and how can we detect and verify our hypotheses. To even ask for a deeper 'why' means you really don't think you are at the fundamental level.

Now, as far as we know, quantum mechanics is fundamental. We don't even have a hint at a more fundamental level. And, given what we have seen in QM, we fully expect any more fundamental level to agree concerning the issues of causality and the probabilistic aspects of the universe.

No, their descriptions of Quantum Mechanics are the behavior of matter and energy on the micro scale of Quanta. The macro world which arises from the Quantum World in space/time is described differently in physics. In the maro world we have gravity, and in the micro world we have the smallest particles of matter and Quantum Gravity.

Not completely true. Quantum particles do interact with gravity: a proton will fall under the gravity of the Earth. What we do NOT have is a good quantum description of the gravitational interactions between fundamental particles.

Also, the macro world is built up from the quantum world. The regularities we see at the macro level are the result, usually, of averaging of the probabilities at the quantum level. But we *do* know of 'macro' devices that act quantum mechanically. Josephsen junctions are a long-known example.

The primary difference between the quantum level and the macroscopic level is that Planck's constant is small. This means that the wavelengths relevant for macro objects are incredibly small, so interference, superposition, and entanglement happen at such a level that they are impossible to detect with ur t technology.

As an example, the wavelength of *anything* goes down as the momentum goes up. The momentum is a product of the mass and the velocity. Hence, if the mass or the velocity goes up, the wavelength goes down. The actual size is determined by Planck's constant divided by the momentum.

For electrons going at typical electron speeds, this is a measurable wavelength and corresponds roughly to the size of an atom (it is, in fact, why atoms have the size they do). Protons are about 2000 times the size of electrons, so their wavelengths are correspondingly smaller. Atoms have masses ranging from that of a proton (hydrogen) to a couple of hundred times the mass of a proton (uranium, for example). So the wavelengths of atoms tend to be very small.

Nonetheless, we have been able to detect quantum interference in smaller atoms. But anything macroscopic is made of quadrillions of atoms. So the relevant wavelengths are so small that we have no hope of detecting them. Yet it is precisely this wavelength that determines the size of the quantum effects.

And *that* is why we don't usually detect quantum indeterminacy in macroscopic objects.

 

[Polymath257]

Let us turn the Holy Grail of philosophy into a testable question.
Find for all of reality with prior evidence or proof all local examples of it within reality (as it comes to humans). Now use logic and reduction to math and science and keep the strong AND from logic and only get positive results.
The last one is the joker:
Your overall theory of everything can't yield relativism.
Here is how:
You: Here is the ToE, follow it, because you can't do it differently. (That is the testable part)
Me: No!

The test is as always that there is no relativism at all.

You can't reduce all human behavior down to the same with the logical AND.
So here it is from within philosophy as with logic and ontology combined:
"It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect." Aristotle

Now you can't reduce differences in human behavior away if they disagree and you can't use logic on two humans, if they disagree. How? Because they are not the same thing!!!
It is that simple!
That is it. We can go on with logic as much as you like and if I can do my life differently that you can do yours, I will do so, when it comes to this.
The actual everyday life falsification of your idea, is that humans will continue to disagree with you.

I am a general skeptic and I know how to falsify the ToE for all human behavior. I just disagree.
Agrippa the Skeptic - Wikipedia

The first mode of falsification as per Agrippa the Skeptic of a ToE is simple:
The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.

You have nothing but an opinion and I have a different one. Nice, ain't it.
You really need to study the basics and apply them to all human behavior as observed by field observation. You know, look at humans in the will. Like as an Internet forum and observe that they can actually disagree and both can get away with it.

Relativism in humans are a result of the effect of the replication of the fittest gene with a social species like humans. We do the 4Fs in biology within the species and we compete for resources, power and prestige.

Now if humans cease to be humans, then yes, there might be a possible ToE. But as long as our biology stays fundamentally the same, humans will continue to answer "No!" to your idea.
Subjectivism and relativism in humans are a result of biology. Good luck trying to change that.

Sorry, I know, it is a bummer. But if you had checked the knowledge already out there, you wouldn't claim, what you claim.

All I got out of that is that people will have different opinions. But that is precisely why we require testable predictions from our theories and that we reject those theories that don't hold up to observation.

If we have a difference of opinion, find an experiment we can do that will give different results depending on which of us is correct. If no such experiment is possible, then our differences aren't important for discussing science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All I got out of that is that people will have different opinions. But that is precisely why we require testable predictions from our theories and that we reject those theories that don't hold up to observation.

Yeah, as long as you don't believe physics is everything or believe everything else can be reduced down to being physics.

Image the following. You do it. You make a physical/scientific theory of everything and people keep on believing differently than you. Have you then made of a theory of everything? No, not really. That is the limit of science in practice.

You do everything as a scientist and I will do everything as a human and include science, where it is useful. But the usefulness of science is limited.