Thomistic Approach for the Existence of God

[Quiddity]

That was not helpful, Victor. First Cause arguments presume a First Effect - not to mention a primitive concept of time.

Sorry Jay, that's the best I can muster at this time. Although I would like to hear from you what exactly is presumptuous about having it be one source? What is the scientific explanation of force/energy? Is it endless?

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Yes please.

Given that a body might just as naturally be in motion as at rest (according to my embarrassingly weak physics education) and that the idea of absolute motion has been dead for some time, does this prime mover 'way' make any sense?

(By the way, I am quite fond of St. Tommy, his arguments at least attempted to rely upon and explain natural, observable phenomena).

Sorry man, you lost me. I don't think the argument is attempting to justify "abosolute motion".

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry Jay, that's the best I can muster at this time.

Understood. It is difficult to avoid circular arguments. "There must be a first cause because there must be a first cause" is hardly compelling.

 

[Quiddity]

Understood. It is difficult to avoid circular arguments. "There must be a first cause because there must be a first cause" is hardly compelling.

True, on the other side (scientific) what is the argument (if any)?

Is it "There must be many causes because there must be many causes"?

~Victor

 

[Ceridwen018]

Through giving reasons one can in fact prove God, we will have to disagree on this.

Elaborate, please.

What it does say is that motion requires force. Force requires something or someone to initiate it. If you follow all forces to its source you find God.

You are assuming many things here.

1. You are assuming that all motion requires force of some kind. Although I am no physicist, I can recall no law which states this from my own personal study. Newton's laws explain what must happen when two objects in motion interact, or when an object in motion interacts with an object at rest, however they do not address how the objects in motion were able to acheive that motion. Especially in light of new discoveries in the field of quantum mechanics, our understanding of motion and energy consumption may change drastically.

2. "If you follow all forces to its source, you find God." I don't mean to offend, but this is the most presumptuous sentence in your entire post. How do you know that "God is the source of all forces?" Have you followed all forces to their sources and seen it yourself? Have you read a paper written by someone who did? If "god" to you, is some sort of physical element that can be identified by natural science, then yes, it is possible that all forces can be traced back to "initial movement" by this element, aka "god". However, if "god" to you is some sort of supernatural being who snapped his/her/their fingers and created motion, you're batting in a whole other ballgame.

You can believe that God was the "initial mover" if you want, but don't act like it is common, logical knowledge. In reality, it is quite the opposite.

 

[Fatmop]

Especially not changes of mind? People are constantly changing their positions because of some outside influence. You lost me here.

Changing their 'positions' - if by this you simply mean thinking about something some other way, then no, it does not relate to the problem of motion at all. There is no physical motion involved, and no force is required.
If by position you in fact mean physical location, people do not 'change location' simply because they have been told to, or because they changed their mind. They change location because they exerted a specific amount of force.

I think you misunderstood here. The argument didn’t say that physics can’t understand motion. What it does say is that motion requires force. Force requires something or someone to initiate it. If you follow all forces to its source you find God.

Actually, that's exactly what the argument said. If you want to go back and change what you meant, fine. Just don't tell me that you say one thing, but mean another, and I'm supposed to automatically understand your vague verbiage.

As people have repeatedly pointed out, your argument there is flawed: Force does not necessarily require an instigator, and motion exists without force (ie, inertia). If you want to trace all motion in the universe back to the Big Bang, which I do believe is what you mean, there is quite a good deal of research left to do. Scientists are studying that phenomenon every day, but I don't think many of them have thrown up their hands and said, "God did it."

This one is dealing with motion/change the other is dealing with causes.

You also said, "motion requires force. Force requires someone or something to initiate it." That is clearly a cause/effect relationship. There is, in essence, no difference between the First Cause and your Unmoved Mover.

That's what I get for trying. Oh well..such are your tactics.

By that I simply meant that I don't try to logically prove or disprove what is logically impossible to prove or disprove. I've never tried, and never will try, to disprove the existence of God - especially not based on physics. I will, however, argue with those who try to prove it one way or the other - and I will use logic in those arguments. My 'tactics' are to respond logically, never to initiate an argument without a solid ground, etc.

 

[JerryL]

What is the scientific explanation of force/energy? Is it endless?

We don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

 

[Quiddity]

Ok fellas, I'm gonna bow down on this one. Anthropomorphizing the natural sciences always loses people and it is difficult to apply to every detail and definition you guys throw at me. I'll take this as a learning experience and grow from it. Thanks everyone.

~Victor