Religion II

[boxcar]

[quote=Light;2196994]Man has no clue why we are here on this Earth, where we came from or where we go when we die. Man has a thirst to know those answers. That is what being saved is all about. To know our purpose during our short time here.



His people? Are some people not made by God or are they made from non human sources? God is not a Jew or Christian.

Incredibly stupid statement! A baby's heart DEPENDS on love. Is a baby's heart born with anger, rebellion and hostility towards God? A baby is dependent on LOVE and it is a scientific fact that it will die without LOVE. So the natural disposition of the heart is LOVE,NOT ANGER and is a scientific fact.

What's incredibly stupid is that you must think Jesus' Sermon on Mount was directed to babies. The irrefutable fact6 remains is that in that sermon, Jesus did not include the virtue of love in the Beatitudes. And by the way, babies are born with a sinful nature. This is why it is certain they will sin!

No its you has nothing but disdain for Christ. Christ's law is LOVE FIRST and since you reject that as mere "new age", it is you who reject Christ's intrinsic law.

But that law of Christ also says that if you love Christ you will keep his COMMANDMENTS. Your love is in word and feelings only -- not in deed.

Really? I am with God everyday. That's better than worship. And what about you? You only THINK you worship God. You worship the Devil because all the qualities you talk about that you attribute to God are those of the Devil.

The word "evangelical" is not in scripture.

Who does? They're all crazy like you.

Classless statement to someone you know has faith. You sure you're not Satan's helper?


That's right. Because that God is only the God of Hell. That's who you worship. You worship the Anti Christ disguised as Christ. A God of love does not send people to Hell. He loves them with UNCONDITIONAL LOVE.

If God and Satan were standing right in front of you and you were asked to pick God, of course you would pick Satan. He has all the qualities you love. Angry, sends people to Hell etc. The other guy is too nice for your taste. Too "new age".

There are a lot of theological terms not in scripture, so what? The fact remains that Christ commissioned his apostles and all future believers to EVANGELIZE the world. Something you don't do because that's beneath your dignity. You're too self-righteous to both to evangelize.

Also, why don't you believe Jesus when he said:

John 4:23-25
23 "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
NASB

Since the worship of the living God is also beneath you, this also proves that God has not sought you out. All believers joyfully and willingly offer their praise, worship and hymns to their Lord and Savior both privately and corporately. You are like the woman at the well, who worships that which you don't know (Jn 4:22).


You got it half right about God. But God is the God of Heaven and Hell. (After all, he is the Sovereign King of the entire universe.) Scripture even teaches that Christ himself holds the keys to the Abyss (Death and Hades)! (Bet you didn't know this!). But God's throne and temple is in heaven, not hell. Hell is reserved for all the fallen angels (for whom the God of love made no salvific provision) and for all unrepentant sinners.

Finally, since God poured out his righteous judgment upon his Son on behalf of his elect, I guess He didn't love Jesus too much, heh? Again, the Cross of Christ demonstrates very clearly God's love for his elect and his love for justice. Love and Justice are not contradictions. They are not mutually exclusive actions. Jesus proved this by his death, burial and resurrection.

[Actor]

Since boxcar's "long post" from the previous thread appeals to Feser who, in turn, "condenses" Aquinas I think it best to preface my remarks with Aquinas' actual words. Of course this is a translation.

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

[Actor]

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

boxcar rests on the idea that there must have been a supreme creator because "the universe could not have created itself." The law of non-contradiction.

However, it turns out that science has some ideas about this.

"In the 1980s, the cosmologist Alex Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts came up with a mechanism through which the laws of quantum mechanics could have generated an inflating universe from a state in which there was no time, no space and no matter. There’s an established principle in quantum theory that pairs of particles can spontaneously, momentarily pop out of empty space. Vilenkin took this notion a step further, arguing that quantum rules could also enable a minuscule bubble of space itself to burst into being from nothing, with the impetus to then inflate to astronomical scales. Our cosmos could thus have been burped into being by the laws of physics alone. To Vilenkin, this result put an end to the question of what came before the Big Bang: nothing."

Maybe the universe creating itself isn't so far fetched after all.

[Actor]

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.

What is certain and evident is that Aquinas knew nothing of the principle of relativity. Living over two centuries before Copernicus he undoubted believed the Ptolemaic geocentric theory of the universe. In other words his world was a privileged frame of reference. When he says "some things are in motion" he errs. All things are in motion. The exact nature of any one thing's motion depends on which reference frame you choose, and that choice is completely arbitrary.

Aquinas may have stood in the doorway of his church and believed that said church was not in motion. But the earth rotates on its axis so the church is in motion. Further, the earth is in orbit about the sun, there's another motion. The sun orbits a super massive black hole at the center of the galaxy which is hurtling through space toward the Andromeda galaxy. Etc., etc., etc.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Actor

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.

This somehow got posted accidentally while I was composing post #3050. Please ignore it.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

boxcar rests on the idea that there must have been a supreme creator because "the universe could not have created itself." The law of non-contradiction.

However, it turns out that science has some ideas about this.

"In the 1980s, the cosmologist Alex Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts came up with a mechanism through which the laws of quantum mechanics could have generated an inflating universe from a state in which there was no time, no space and no matter. There’s an established principle in quantum theory that pairs of particles can spontaneously, momentarily pop out of empty space. Vilenkin took this notion a step further, arguing that quantum rules could also enable a minuscule bubble of space itself to burst into being from nothing, with the impetus to then inflate to astronomical scales. Our cosmos could thus have been burped into being by the laws of physics alone. To Vilenkin, this result put an end to the question of what came before the Big Bang: nothing."

Maybe the universe creating itself isn't so far fetched after all.

FWIW, this has been addressed...

http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2010/09/...n-hawking.html

https://www.firstthings.com/web-excl...ating-universe

[Actor]

Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act.

Compare this with Isaac Newton's First and Second Laws of Motion.

• 1. An object remains in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by a net external force.
• 2. An object acted upon by a net external force will accelerate in the direction of that force at a rate that is directly proportional to the magnitude of that force.

Only one thing puts anything in motion. More accurately, only one thing changes anything's state of motion relative to whatever reference frame we choose. That one thing is force. If one thing pushes another it's because of the force the one thing applies to the other. At this point we must not forget Newton's Third Law

• 3. When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

In his first two sentences Aquinas puts forth a premise which is entirely at odds with scientific thought going back to Newton. Of course Aquinas can be forgiven this since he lived 400 years before Newton, but forgiving his ignorance in no way validates his claim.

Suppose that the universe consisted of just two helium atoms which are at rest relative to one another and at some distance apart, say one meter. Further suppose that we choose a frame of reference wherein they appear to be at rest. Will they remain that way? No. At one meter apart the strong and weak forces have no effect. Since they each have two protons and two electrons they are electrically neutral, so electromagnetism has no effect. That leaves gravity which, though weak, still has an effect. Over time they are drawn together. But do they ever touch? No. Even though each is electrically neutral the positive charge is concentrated at their centers while the negative surrounds the center with a negative electron cloud. As they approach each other the negative charges of their electron clouds begin to repel each other until that repulsive force overcomes the gravitational force, the closing motion stops and is replaced with a repulsive motion. They move away from each other until gravity again dominates and they stop (at one meter). This motion repeats forever.

Now add a third atom, a fourth, all the atoms in the universe. All the atoms in the universe are in motion and that motion is changed by the forces from all the other atoms in the universe.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

What is certain and evident is that Aquinas knew nothing of the principle of relativity. Living over two centuries before Copernicus he undoubted believed the Ptolemaic geocentric theory of the universe. In other words his world was a privileged frame of reference. When he says "some things are in motion" he errs. All things are in motion. The exact nature of any one thing's motion depends on which reference frame you choose, and that choice is completely arbitrary.

Aquinas may have stood in the doorway of his church and believed that said church was not in motion. But the earth rotates on its axis so the church is in motion. Further, the earth is in orbit about the sun, there's another motion. The sun orbits a super massive black hole at the center of the galaxy which is hurtling through space toward the Andromeda galaxy. Etc., etc., etc.

By "motion" is meant any change, not simply locomotion. Changes in quantity, knowledge levels, birth or death or, returning to locomotion, acceleration or deceleration, etc.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Compare this with Isaac Newton's First and Second Laws of Motion.

• 1. An object remains in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by a net external force.
• 2. An object acted upon by a net external force will accelerate in the direction of that force at a rate that is directly proportional to the magnitude of that force.

Only one thing puts anything in motion. More accurately, only one thing changes anything's state of motion relative to whatever reference frame we choose. That one thing is force. If one thing pushes another it's because of the force the one thing applies to the other. At this point we must not forget Newton's Third Law

• 3. When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

In his first two sentences Aquinas puts forth a premise which is entirely at odds with scientific thought going back to Newton. Of course Aquinas can be forgiven this since he lived 400 years before Newton, but forgiving his ignorance in no way validates his claim.

Suppose that the universe consisted of just two helium atoms which are at rest relative to one another and at some distance apart, say one meter. Further suppose that we choose a frame of reference wherein they appear to be at rest. Will they remain that way? No. At one meter apart the strong and weak forces have no effect. Since they each have two protons and two electrons they are electrically neutral, so electromagnetism has no effect. That leaves gravity which, though weak, still has an effect. Over time they are drawn together. But do they ever touch? No. Even though each is electrically neutral the positive charge is concentrated at their centers while the negative surrounds the center with a negative electron cloud. As they approach each other the negative charges of their electron clouds begin to repel each other until that repulsive force overcomes the gravitational force, the closing motion stops and is replaced with a repulsive motion. They move away from each other until gravity again dominates and they stop (at one meter). This motion repeats forever.

Now add a third atom, a fourth, all the atoms in the universe. All the atoms in the universe are in motion and that motion is changed by the forces from all the other atoms in the universe.

Actor, I'm a layman who does best with the poor man's version of Scholastic metaphysics ...

https://www.amazon.com/Who-Designed-.../dp/1586179691

Appendix 4, most of it here, is the acceptable level for this simpleton...

https://books.google.com/books?id=cB...ix%204&f=false

You may have your questions addressed here, probably not to your satisfaction but at your level, without having to wade too far down...

http://faculty.fordham.edu/klima/SML...10/PSMLM10.pdf

But the acknowledged ace by many on my side of the aisle is Thomas McLaughlin...

https://isidore.co/misc/Physics%20pa...cLaughlin).pdf

I wouldn't expect you to pour over something you reject a priori, but it's not like defenders of the Five Ways have avoided challenges, hoping no one would notice.

[hcap]

Did Aquinas ever imagine quantum mechanics?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...particles-rea/

Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

Casimir effect

Here is a physical experiment that potentially demonstrates "creation" continuing to happen all around us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect



Casimir forces on parallel plates

[hcap]

Another demonstration.


https://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html

Scientists create light from vacuum
November 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists at Chalmers University of Technology have succeeded in creating light from vacuum – observing an effect first predicted over 40 years ago. The results will be published tomorrow (Wednesday) in the journal Nature. In an innovative experiment, the scientists have managed to capture some of the photons that are constantly appearing and disappearing in the vacuum.


Btw, http://hst-archive.web.cern.ch/archi...rticles/06.pdf

TEACHING QUANTUM PHYSICS
www.iop.org/journals/physed
The uncertainty principle,
virtual particles and real forces

[hcap]

Western religions proposing pie in the sky deities relying in part on middle ages first mover thinking instead of the study of the mind, as many eastern beliefs do, have been knocking on the wrong doors particularly in the modern era.

Deity
Shmeity.

Man's mind unable to drop man's own presumptuous forced intellectual theories can only understand the "divine" as an external golden calf. The great mystics may have been experiencing and writing about primarily the non-external.

However my own limited direct discoveries sort of point to some sort of corresponding external principle.

"The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus: "That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing."

This is a concept that transcends the typical "figuring out". Yes I am very much STILL stuck in this, but occasionally am not.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What is certain and evident is that Aquinas knew nothing of the principle of relativity. Living over two centuries before Copernicus he undoubted believed the Ptolemaic geocentric theory of the universe. In other words his world was a privileged frame of reference. When he says "some things are in motion" he errs. All things are in motion. The exact nature of any one thing's motion depends on which reference frame you choose, and that choice is completely arbitrary.

Aquinas may have stood in the doorway of his church and believed that said church was not in motion. But the earth rotates on its axis so the church is in motion. Further, the earth is in orbit about the sun, there's another motion. The sun orbits a super massive black hole at the center of the galaxy which is hurtling through space toward the Andromeda galaxy. Etc., etc., etc.

Better get up to speed on what Classical Realism is before you presume to criticize Aquinas. As it has already been pointed out by Doc, I believe, the classical philosophers used the term "motion" in a more expanded way -- to mean any kind of change from one state to another, etc.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Did Aquinas ever imagine quantum mechanics?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...particles-rea/

Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

Casimir effect

Here is a physical experiment that potentially demonstrates "creation" continuing to happen all around us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect



Casimir forces on parallel plates

I thought Aquinas was a theologian and philosopher...