Where did life begin? (Merged)

Do you believe we have a creator, aka "God"?

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
#2,301
#2,301
To all reading.

I think it's a rabbit hole to deal in infinite regress as it relates to time. As you can see, depending on what time theory someone was taught and accepts, it will change to force of the argument. That is NOT what Aquinas was doing and is perhaps where he is most misunderstood. This is not a matter of moments. This is a matter of act and thus, cause. Thus why Aquinas refers to God as Actus Purus.

Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Efficient Cause" Abstract: Thomas' First Cause Argument for the existence of God is outlined and briefly clarified. ... There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes. Sourced online
 
#2,302
#2,302
Orangeslice13 said:
You’re memes are weak.
If you want to aggravate Christians you need to step it up big time. Right now all you’re doing is having people look down on you with pitty.
Click to expand...

Sir,

Christians, during this time of year, and each day of the year, may find joy in these and many other words of the Spirit:

"Even my close friend, someone I trusted, one who shared my bread, has turned against me" Ps 41:9

as it was fulfilled

"Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them." Mk 14:10

"He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth" Is 53:7

as it was fulfilled

"But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed" Mk 15:5.

"And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am" Jn 14:3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,303
#2,303
UT-Rex said:
Sir,

Christians, during this time of year, and each day of the year, may find joy in these and many other words of the Spirit:

"Even my close friend, someone I trusted, one who shared my bread, has turned against me" Ps 41:9

as it was fulfilled

"Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them." Mk 14:10

"He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth" Is 53:7

as it was fulfilled

"But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed" Mk 15:5.

"And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am" Jn 14:3.
Click to expand...



Wow.
I didn’t know any of that about Christians.

That’s for posting a bunch of vs that I’m sure make since to you and thanks for taking a break from your saturnalia celebrations to express them.
 
#2,304
#2,304
Roustabout said:
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.
Click to expand...

That’s a good article. Thanks.

For reference, I or Septic stated every legitimate objection referenced in that article (objections A-E). Objection E even references Theory of Relativity, which I was laughed at for.

Interesting too it referenced Newton’s first law which states an object remains at rest or in motion unless acted on by an outside force. So the default state of the universe could be motion and never need “prime moved”. It would need “prime stopped”.

And there is nothing there that says the proof doesn’t suffer from the Who/What causes God problem, despite the assurances in this thread it is perfectly logical.

Objection A for reference (on mobile, can’t quote):

There seems to be a contradiction in the argument. Premise (2), "Whatever is moved is moved by another," conflicts with the notion of God in this argument as that of something unmoved, i.e., that of the Unmoved Mover. God, then, is an the exception to the truth of premise (2). Nevertheless, cannot God move or act? If God is pure actuality, then it would seem to follow that God can't do anything, for God is already all that God could be. If, then, God is already all that God can be, there's no potential for God to be able to act or be in any way different from what God is. If God is claimed to have a privileged status and not subject to the firse premise, then the argument becomes viciously circular.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#2,305
#2,305
rjd970 said:
That’s a good article. Thanks.

For reference, I or Septic stated every legitimate objection referenced in that article (objections A-E). Objection E even references Theory of Relativity, which I was laughed at for.

Interesting too it referenced Newton’s first law which states an object remains at rest or in motion unless acted on by an outside force. So the default state of the universe could be motion and never need “prime moved”. It would need “prime stopped”.

And there is nothing there that says the proof doesn’t suffer from the Who/What causes God problem, despite the assurances in this thread it is perfectly logical.

Objection A for reference (on mobile, can’t quote):

There seems to be a contradiction in the argument. Premise (2), "Whatever is moved is moved by another," conflicts with the notion of God in this argument as that of something unmoved, i.e., that of the Unmoved Mover. God, then, is an the exception to the truth of premise (2). Nevertheless, cannot God move or act? If God is pure actuality, then it would seem to follow that God can't do anything, for God is already all that God could be. If, then, God is already all that God can be, there's no potential for God to be able to act or be in any way different from what God is. If God is claimed to have a privileged status and not subject to the firse premise, then the argument becomes viciously circular.
Click to expand...

For the record, I was merely trying to alert you to the ramifications of your use of relativity references. Blessings... 😊
 
#2,307
#2,307
Here's an argument against libertarian free will based upon the conclusion of the cosmological argument:

1. There is a first cause from which all other causes originate.

2. Thoughts do not exist without a mind.

3. Minds were created by the first cause.

Therefore the thoughts and subsequent actions of a "free" agent are caused by the first cause.
 
#2,309
#2,309
Wafflestomper said:
Here's an argument against libertarian free will based upon the conclusion of the cosmological argument:

1. There is a first cause from which all other causes originate.

2. Thoughts do not exist without a mind.

3. Minds were created by the first cause.

Therefore the thoughts and subsequent actions of a "free" agent are caused by the first cause.
Click to expand...

Could you clarify?
 
#2,311
#2,311
Wafflestomper said:
Which part do you want me to clarify?
Click to expand...

I may just be missing it, but I'm not sure how our minds being caused by the first cause would negate the possibility of libertarian free will. Again... There may be nuances that I've failed to see, but I don't think your argument necessitates your claim that there could thus be no free will.

I suspect that the argument may be mixing worldviews and presuppositions to make that logical jump.
 
#2,312
#2,312
Wafflestomper said:
Here's an argument against libertarian free will based upon the conclusion of the cosmological argument:

1. There is a first cause from which all other causes originate.

2. Thoughts do not exist without a mind.

3. Minds were created by the first cause.

Therefore the thoughts and subsequent actions of a "free" agent are caused by the first cause.
Click to expand...
Material, formal, efficient or final cause???
 
#2,313
#2,313
Orange_Crush said:
I may just be missing it, but I'm not sure how our minds being caused by the first cause would negate the possibility of libertarian free will. Again... There may be nuances that I've failed to see, but I don't think your argument necessitates your claim that there could thus be no free will.

I suspect that the argument may be mixing worldviews and presuppositions to make that logical jump.
Click to expand...
It doesn't. It's an equivocation fallacy.
 
#2,314
#2,314
rjd970 said:
That’s a good article. Thanks.

For reference, I or Septic stated every legitimate objection referenced in that article (objections A-E). Objection E even references Theory of Relativity, which I was laughed at for.

Interesting too it referenced Newton’s first law which states an object remains at rest or in motion unless acted on by an outside force. So the default state of the universe could be motion and never need “prime moved”. It would need “prime stopped”.

And there is nothing there that says the proof doesn’t suffer from the Who/What causes God problem, despite the assurances in this thread it is perfectly logical.

Objection A for reference (on mobile, can’t quote):

There seems to be a contradiction in the argument. Premise (2), "Whatever is moved is moved by another," conflicts with the notion of God in this argument as that of something unmoved, i.e., that of the Unmoved Mover. God, then, is an the exception to the truth of premise (2). Nevertheless, cannot God move or act? If God is pure actuality, then it would seem to follow that God can't do anything, for God is already all that God could be. If, then, God is already all that God can be, there's no potential for God to be able to act or be in any way different from what God is. If God is claimed to have a privileged status and not subject to the firse premise, then the argument becomes viciously circular.
Click to expand...

Those were the same objections I had before I embraced on classical theology. After reading Ed Feser's 'Aquinas' and subsequent study, I was able to better grasp these concepts. Having participated in forums on these debates with people much more qualified than myself, it became clear that nearly all the objections are from distortions and misunderstanding of the actual argument. Feser has a blog where he unpacks this stuff regularly.

In the sense of the objection and how you are using do and act, yes. Actus Purus has a lot detailed info, and based on what you've referenced, I should think it would be available to you. There is no change in God and God is not contingent.
That being, there wasn't a time where God was deciding, create or not to create. This is all consistent with DS. Is it 'simple', no, it's a very complex subject.
What you are suggesting is that it makes God impotent. This is because you see this as an inability, or a lack. To put it simply, if God cannot chose between a and ~a then there must be some deficiency or lack. There is a ton written on the subject and as you probably know, it can get crazy technical in the terminology.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,317
#2,317
Wafflestomper said:
And you've answered the same (wrong) question every time.

Are all beings gods?
Click to expand...

You really have to twist the meaning of your previous questions to come out with that interpretation. I'm not even sure that's a plausible interpretation given how direct of a question it seemed, especially given the context of our argument.

Regardless, we both know I already answered your question. I'll restate it again though. The idea of more than one being that is pure actuality is impossible as that would mean one being would have a "feature" that must distinguish it from the other being. That feature would mean the being that lacks said feature is not actually pure actuality (read: God) as it has an unrealized potential, which is by definition contradictory to what a Thomist would term God.
 
#2,318
#2,318
Roustabout said:
Those were the same objections I had before I embraced on classical theology. After reading Ed Feser's 'Aquinas' and subsequent study, I was able to better grasp these concepts. Having participated in forums on these debates with people much more qualified than myself, it became clear that nearly all the objections are from distortions and misunderstanding of the actual argument. Feser has a blog where he unpacks this stuff regularly.

In the sense of the objection and how you are using do and act, yes. Actus Purus has a lot detailed info, and based on what you've referenced, I should think it would be available to you. There is no change in God and God is not contingent.
That being, there wasn't a time where God was deciding, create or not to create. This is all consistent with DS. Is it 'simple', no, it's a very complex subject.
What you are suggesting is that it makes God impotent. This is because you see this as an inability, or a lack. To put it simply, if God cannot chose between a and ~a then there must be some deficiency or lack. There is a ton written on the subject and as you probably know, it can get crazy technical in the terminology.
Click to expand...

Feser changed my life. I was your stereotypical new atheist until I read his detailed, unapologetic dismantling of their regurgitated arguments.
 
#2,321
#2,321
JHuntVols said:
Wafflestomper: Hint - Teleology.

Just another example of how different the metaphysics of A-T is so different than the strawmen you're introduced to in philosophy 101.
Click to expand...

HUNT...i am a believer who studies apologetics but doesnt much debate. Leave it to those more studied at the nuance of the methods for exchanging ideas. I want to read Feser, and anything else relevant you know of. When you have time, please post some reference materials. I know i am not alone in this request. Thx
 
#2,323
#2,323
marcusluvsvols said:
HUNT...i am a believer who studies apologetics but doesnt much debate. Leave it to those more studied at the nuance of the methods for exchanging ideas. I want to read Feser, and anything else relevant you know of. When you have time, please post some reference materials. I know i am not alone in this request. Thx
Click to expand...

Aquinas: A Beginners Guide is a good place to start. It fleshes out a lot of the natural theology at a fairly easy level. Deals with a lot of the misconceptions. It's important to know what is actually said otherwise you are constantly dealing with strawmen.

You can also Google him to check out his blog.

One negative thing of the Reformation is the decline of classical theology. You can see it in this thread, regarding infinite regress. This is almost always handled as an issue if time, which leads to these rabbit holes. This was never the case with Aquinas.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top