Where did life begin? (Merged)

[Wafflestomper]

I did say that, and I stand by that statement. That's why I pointed out that you must understand his metaphysics to understand his arguments. No I provided an argument as to why it was only one God, which is again in quotes below, and you seemingly noted that argument as you then asked that if his nature is dependent on the properties that Aquinas assigned to God. That again tells me you do not understand his argument because you again fail to understand his metaphysics. God has no properties to Aquinas as that would mean he is not simple (see divine simplicity). To better understand his metaphysics and therefore his numerous arguments then I suggest picking up the kindle version of Aquinas for $6.

Who has said anything about multiple gods, other than you (a couple of times now)?

 

[JHuntVols]

Not if the moments are a closed loop. By definition there is no beginning or end to a circle. I’ve said this before until I’m blue in the face. Time is not a series of moments passing from the past to the present to the future. Time is like space, it just is. Space and time are the same thing. It could mean that time simply folds in on itself. That is perfectly reasonable and within the confines of accepted physics.

Think about it like going to Detroit. While Detroit will always be in the same geographic point, Detroit today doesn’t look anything like Detroit 500 years ago. The space changes, but the location never does. We could in a sense be “revisiting Detroit” over and over again.

Of course, that could be wrong. I fully admit that. But that is basic Einstein. Change is an illusion, everything just “is”. And to discount that as impossible is willful ignorance at best, and flat wrong at worst.

So no, Aquinas and all his infinite knowledge from the 1200’s can’t say that infinite regression is an impossibility. We continue to project conclusions based on our reality, when, in fact, our reality is a special case.

Can you elaborate more on you concept of time and space? Most philosophers today would at least implicitly consider the principle of causality to be a temporary ordered sequence of events.

On a side note, Einstein's idea is not new. The greek philosophers constantly argued over the concept of change, and Aristotle, who is the philosopher that the metaphysics of Aquinas is based upon, was the one who created a middle ground of the two extremes of change being an illusion and permanence being an illusion.

 

[JHuntVols]

Who has said anything about multiple gods, other than you (a couple of times now)?

What? You have to be trolling at this point as you have asked the same question multiple times.

Where in either of these arguments premises is it shown that more than one "first cause" (or non-contingent being) can't exist?

You originally said that I didn't understand the argument if I questioned whether there could be more than one non-contingent being. I've seen nothing yet, other than assertions vis-a-vis the nature of this being, that shows this to be true. The part in bold could easily apply to an infinite number of non-contingent beings if I decided to claim that it was in their nature to exist.

Is the claim that there can't be multiple non-contingent beings dependent upon Aquinas's derivation of this being's nature/properties? I think you probably know that I don't find those arguments compelling.

 

[JHuntVols]

The first and last points contradict each other;

There is a cause for everything
.
.
.
There is a first cause

If there is a first cause, then In fact there isn’t a cause for everything. The conclusion contradicts the premise on which it started. It’s an absurd circular argument.

But that really doesn’t matter because it breaks down at his second point of infinite regress. It isn’t possible? Oh really? Why? Because one can’t fathom infinite regress, doesn’t mean it isn’t possible.

I guess I should just say it again that the author you quoted apparently has no clue on what Aquinas actually meant by his first cause argument as he demonstrably has no understanding of the man's metaphysics. And again... his argument is not "everything has a cause" ... "there is a first cause".

 

[Orange_Crush]

Not if the moments are a closed loop. By definition there is no beginning or end to a circle. I’ve said this before until I’m blue in the face. Time is not a series of moments passing from the past to the present to the future. Time is like space, it just is. Space and time are the same thing. It could mean that time simply folds in on itself. That is perfectly reasonable and within the confines of accepted physics.

Think about it like going to Detroit. While Detroit will always be in the same geographic point, Detroit today doesn’t look anything like Detroit 500 years ago. The space changes, but the location never does. We could in a sense be “revisiting Detroit” over and over again.

Of course, that could be wrong. I fully admit that. But that is basic Einstein. Change is an illusion, everything just “is”. And to discount that as impossible is willful ignorance at best, and flat wrong at worst.

So no, Aquinas and all his infinite knowledge from the 1200’s can’t say that infinite regression is an impossibility. We continue to project conclusions based on our reality, when, in fact, our reality is a special case.

You don't see the absurdity of a logical statement that argues that there can be no logical statements, huh? That's a bold strategy.

You refer to scientific theory that, if true, would necessitate that there could be no scientific process, huh. That's a bold strategy.

Aren't you just the walking contradiction?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I guess I should just say it again that the author you quoted apparently has no clue on what Aquinas actually meant by his first cause argument as he demonstrably has no understanding of the man's metaphysics. And again... his argument is not "everything has a cause" ... "there is a first cause".

Go for it. I said it to many times myself.

 

[Wafflestomper]

What? You have to be trolling at this point as you have asked the same question multiple times.

And you've answered the same (wrong) question every time.

Are all beings gods?

 

[rjd970]

You don't see the absurdity of a logical statement that argues that there can be no logical statements, huh? That's a bold strategy.

You refer to scientific theory that, if true, would necessitate that there could be no scientific process, huh. That's a bold strategy.

Aren't you just the walking contradiction?

Just stop. It’s not a bold strategy. It’s ****ing physics.

Causality is still perfectly valid for what we know as reality and it still works. It has utility now and always will, but it doesn’t mean it is complete. Once we get to the quantum level, or approach speed of light, we all know things get very weird with space-time, particles appear out of nowhere then re-appear, sometimes matter doesn’t behave the way it should, etc.

But causality still holds true for what we consider reality, and again, still has utility. Newtonian physics still have utility, and still work, but it is incomplete. Einstein brought it a step further to make it more complete. Infinite regress no more refutes causality than Einstein refutes Newton.

If I have any bold strategy, it’s knowing what I’m talking about.

 

[rjd970]

Can you elaborate more on you concept of time and space? Most philosophers today would at least implicitly consider the principle of causality to be a temporary ordered sequence of events.

On a side note, Einstein's idea is not new. The greek philosophers constantly argued over the concept of change, and Aristotle, who is the philosopher that the metaphysics of Aquinas is based upon, was the one who created a middle ground of the two extremes of change being an illusion and permanence being an illusion.

It’s not my concept on space-time. It’s what it is. Any third year physics book lays it out in detail. It actually has practical application.

For instance, relativity predicts that time passes at a different rate depending on the speed of the object relative to its frame of reference. The Air Force has to periodically re-sync the clocks on its GPS satellites with those on the ground because the speed of the orbiting satellites causes time to pass slower on the satellites.

Again, with my Detroit example. Get in a car and go to Detroit. You didn’t bring Detroit into existence. It was always there. You got there by displacing yourself in space. Because time is the same as space, it works the same way. We are not bringing future events into existence, we are simply getting there by displacing ourselves in time.

This is not my theory or magic. It’s basic Ensteinian physics.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Just stop. It’s not a bold strategy. It’s ****ing physics.

Causality is still perfectly valid for what we know as reality and it still works. It has utility now and always will, but it doesn’t mean it is complete. Once we get to the quantum level, or approach speed of light, we all know things get very weird with space-time, particles appear out of nowhere then re-appear, sometimes matter doesn’t behave the way it should, etc.

But causality still holds true for what we consider reality, and again, still has utility. Newtonian physics still have utility, and still work, but it is incomplete. Infinite regress no more refutes causality than Einstein refutes Newton.

If I have any bold strategy, it’s knowing what I’m talking about.

You believe that time is not a series of moments, that change is an illusion, and yet you still want the rational high ground of causality. You want your cake and to eat it too.

You want technicalities that do away with causality when it's convenient, but you want causality in some sort of "what we consider reality" when it's convenient.

I have a secret to tell you. Cause and effect completely depend on synchronous time and actual change. If you don't believe in those, then you have offered up causality, rationality, logic and science on that altar.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

 

[rjd970]

I guess I should just say it again that the author you quoted apparently has no clue on what Aquinas actually meant by his first cause argument as he demonstrably has no understanding of the man's metaphysics. And again... his argument is not "everything has a cause" ... "there is a first cause".

Quote for me Aquinas exact proof. Evidently I’m not finding it or don’t have the requisite decoder ring.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It’s not my concept on space-time. It’s what it is. Any third year physics book lays it out in detail. It actually has practical application.

For instance, relativity predicts that time passes at a different rate depending on the speed of the object relative to its frame of reference. The Air Force has to periodically re-sync the clocks on its GPS satellites with those on the ground because the speed of the orbiting satellites causes time to pass slower on the satellites.

Again, with my Detroit example. Get in a car and go to Detroit. You didn’t bring Detroit into existence. It was always there. You got there by displacing yourself in space. Because time is the same as space, it works the same way. We are not bringing future events into existence, we are simply getting there by displacing ourselves in time.

This is not my theory or magic. It’s basic Ensteinian physics.

None of that has a single thing to do with an infinite series of moments.

Relative speed aside, do you believe in synchronous time? In s series of moments? The question was about an infinite series of moments leading up to this moment.

Relative speed does not negate the implications of an infinite series of synchronous moments, one after the other, leading up to now.

 

[rjd970]

You believe that time is not a series of moments, that change is an illusion, and yet you still want the rational high ground of causality. You want your cake and to eat it too.

You want technicalities that do away with causality when it's convenient, but you want causality in some sort of "what we consider reality" when it's convenient.

I have a secret to tell you. Cause and effect completely depend on synchronous time and actual change. If you don't believe in those, then you have offered up causality, rationality, logic and science on that altar.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

How much physics have you studied?

Newtonian physics aren’t “wrong”. They are incomplete. Approach the speed of light or try to explain gravity in terms is space time, and it can’t do it. Einstein expands on that.

Same with my example on closed loop. I pick up a ball and drop it. Cause and effect work. Try to explain the “beginning” or “end” of all those causes, or what we are observing at the quantum level, and that doesn’t work anymore.

The difference is there is an alternative still rooted mainstream physics that doesn’t demand the supernatural. Because you can’t understand that doesn’t mean it isn’t valid.

So, if you are are going to argue from a cause and effect regress, and stop it at a prime mover, then it’s still a perfectly valid question to ask what created the prime mover. Classic physics can clearly answer that it COULD (on this side of the aisle we aren’t as certain about the unknown) just be an infinite loop of cause and effects. Cause and effect is still happening in the loop and no prime mover or extra-natural intervention is necessary

 

[rjd970]

None of that has a single thing to do with an infinite series of moments.

Relative speed aside, do you believe in synchronous time? In s series of moments? The question was about an infinite series of moments leading up to this moment.

Relative speed does not negate the implications of an infinite series of synchronous moments, one after the other, leading up to now.

I wasn’t answering you.

Anyway, asking if I believe in a series of moments is like asking if I believe in a series of miles in space, or in this case, a series of radians on a circle. Sure, they are sequential. But if it is a closed loop, eventually you will get back to where you started.

 

[Orange_Crush]

How much physics have you studied?

Newtonian physics aren’t “wrong”. They are incomplete. Approach the speed of light or try to explain gravity in terms is space time, and it can’t do it. Einstein expands on that.

Same with my example on closed loop. I pick up a ball and drop it. Cause and effect work. Try to explain the “beginning” or “end” of all those causes, or what we are observing at the quantum level, and that doesn’t work anymore.

The difference is there is an alternative still rooted mainstream physics that doesn’t demand the supernatural. Because you can’t understand that doesn’t mean it isn’t valid.

So, if you are are going to argue from a cause and effect regress, and stop it at a prime mover, then it’s still a perfectly valid question to ask what created the prime mover. Classic physics can clearly answer that it COULD (on this side of the aisle we aren’t as certain about the unknown) just be an infinite loop of cause and effects. Cause and effect is still happening in the loop and no prime mover or extra-natural intervention is necessary

I have studied enough physics to understand what you are talking about. Enough quantum to know that matter shows up out of nowhere because energy is being borrowed from elsewhere, so it's not actually coming from nothing. But I digress.

I would like to cover two of your previous statements before we go forward. I apologise I'm on mobile so have trouble quoting and bolding.

You said that time is not a series of moments. You said that change is an illusion.

You also said that your description of time be wrong, but that's neither here nor there.

Synchronous time does not exist. Neither does change.

8 would like to give you opportunity to defend and refine.

And then consider the philosophical repercussions of your beliefs.

 

[rjd970]

I have studied enough physics to understand what you are talking about. Enough quantum to know that matter shows up out of nowhere because energy is being borrowed from elsewhere, so it's not actually coming from nothing. But I digress.

I would like to cover two of your previous statements before we go forward. I apologise I'm on mobile so have trouble quoting and bolding.

You said that time is not a series of moments. You said that change is an illusion.

You also said that your description of time be wrong, but that's neither here nor there.

Synchronous time does not exist. Neither does change.

8 would like to give you opportunity to defend and refine.

And then consider the philosophical repercussions of your beliefs.

Time could not be a linear series of events with a beginning and end. Perhaps that qualifies it. I’m being very careful to use the word “could” because you keep saying that I’m stating all this. I’m not. This is just what is taught in school.

Let me ask you this, given you’ve studied enough physics to understand. Theoretically faster than light travel is possible (not self-referenced). With an object moving faster than the speed of light, does cause and effect still hold true?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Time could not be a linear series of events with a beginning and end. Perhaps that qualifies it. I’m being very careful to use the word “could” because you keep saying that I’m stating all this. I’m not. This is just what is taught in school.

Let me ask you this, given you’ve studied enough physics to understand. Theoretically faster than light travel is possible. With an object moving faster than the speed of light, does cause and effect still hold true? Does space time? Mass? For that matter, does “reality”?

I will get answer the faster than light question when I am not on mobile.

What do you actually believe? Are you just arguing to disprove my statement about an infinite regression being a logical impossibility? Because if so, you haven't. You aren't proposing an infinite regression by arguing for a cyclical time.

And in your opinion, what do the big bang bang models do to the theory of infinite cyclical time?

And it's my understanding that an infinite cyclical time would require an infinite space universe. I'd this true?

 

[rjd970]

I will get answer the faster than light question when I am not on mobile.

What do you actually believe? Are you just arguing to disprove my statement about an infinite regression being a logical impossibility? Because if so, you haven't. You aren't proposing an infinite regression by arguing for a cyclical time.

And in your opinion, what do the big bang bang models do to the theory of infinite cyclical time?

And it's my understanding that an infinite cyclical time would require an infinite space universe. I'd this true?

The prevailing thought is once you pass through the Big Bang you come out on the other side into the universe again. Basically the Big Bang again. That’s if, one can even get there or if it happened.

I’m arguing the necessity of a beginning (prime mover) in the first place. Walk around in a circle an infinite number of times and you are clearly taking a series sequential steps, yet never reaching the end of your destination. Just starting at the beginning again. It’s why I liken it to Newton/Einstein. Cause and effect explain the steps nicely, yet is incomplete to the bigger picture.

I edited my previous question, by the way.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Time could not be a linear series of events with a beginning and end. Perhaps that qualifies it. I’m being very careful to use the word “could” because you keep saying that I’m stating all this. I’m not. This is just what is taught in school.

Let me ask you this, given you’ve studied enough physics to understand. Theoretically faster than light travel is possible (not self-referenced). With an object moving faster than the speed of light, does cause and effect still hold true?

It will be a while before I am on a computer so I will short answer now. Theoretically, if something could travel faster than light, information could travel back in time, so cause and effect would get weird.

Theoretically.

Now, my criticism still holds. If you believe this theoretical to be actual, and you are relying on it as an argument in this discussion... Then consider the ramifications to logic, rationality and science.

Your logic, if true, breaks the cause and effect that you trusted to form your logic, so it is self refuting.

You reference physics to prop up this possibility. Physics that bases it's professions on cause and effect tests. So it's physics that self-refute the process that it used to make it's own truth statement.

Again, my criticism stands. Will you truly use self-refuting science and philosophy to try to win a metaphysics point about infinite regression?

 

[Orange_Crush]

The prevailing thought is once you pass through the Big Bang you come out on the other side into the universe again. Basically the Big Bang again. That’s if, one can even get there or if it happened.

I’m arguing the necessity of a beginning (prime mover) in the first place. Walk around in a circle an infinite number of times and you are clearly taking a series sequential steps, yet never reaching the end of your destination. Just starting at the beginning again. It’s why I liken it to Newton/Einstein. Cause and effect explain the steps nicely, yet is incomplete to the bigger picture.

I edited my previous question, by the way.

Infinite universe to have infinite cyclical time?

 

[volbeast33]

I love slice. Speak for yourself.

I was just joking

 

[Orange_Crush]

I was just joking

Yah.I know.

Merry Christmas.

(And in the spirit of Christmas love, I'm swearing off this thread. Rjd, septic, waffle, etc... happy holidays. May this day be filled with joy, peace, love, and all fulfillment. Blessings to you and yours.)

 

[Wafflestomper]

Yah.I know.

Merry Christmas.

(And in the spirit of Christmas love, I'm swearing off this thread. Rjd, septic, waffle, etc... happy holidays. May this day be filled with joy, peace, love, and all fulfillment. Blessings to you and yours.)

Thanks, you too.

 

[Septic]

Yah.I know.

Merry Christmas.

(And in the spirit of Christmas love, I'm swearing off this thread. Rjd, septic, waffle, etc... happy holidays. May this day be filled with joy, peace, love, and all fulfillment. Blessings to you and yours.)

Hope all you guys had a great christmas too.

 

[Roustabout]

The first and last points contradict each other;

There is a cause for everything
.
.
.
There is a first cause

If there is a first cause, then In fact there isn’t a cause for everything. The conclusion contradicts the premise on which it started. It’s an absurd circular argument.

But that really doesn’t matter because it breaks down at his second point of infinite regress. It isn’t possible? Oh really? Why? Because one can’t fathom infinite regress, doesn’t mean it isn’t possible.

Thats why it's important not to go by a summary but by what Aquinas himself detailed.

Aquinas dealt with it differently, but modern examples would addendum that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Or, everything that BEGINS to move...... This article shows more of what direction Aquinas was coming from. After all, an eternal universe was not something Aquinas took exception with. Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Motion"

No contradiction. Just another example of how Aquinas is either misunderstood or misrepresented.