|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 5, 2005 2:33:07 GMT -5
...Newton's law ... does not say that all objects are in motion, or that they are all not. Newton's thesis agrees with Aquinas because Aquinas would say the same thing - for motion (or change) to happen, then something had to have caused that motion to occur (the agent.) Without an agent, the object will stay at rest. Thus Newton doesn't answer why an object is in motion Aren't you assuming that the default status of matter is stationary? How about saying "without an agent, the object will stay in motion". Given your first sentence I quoted, neither would Newton's law say that all objects were once stationary. An agent is not required to begin motion any more than one is required to stop motion. It could be either.
|
|
|
Post by Electron on Mar 5, 2005 11:20:24 GMT -5
I'm going to quote Jedikiller from another topic here: How I separate God's doings from just natural things is if it had a point and/or purpose. The flooding of the Earth with noah had a purpose, but the Tsunami's (just barely) did not (that I know of) God just let's the Earth sort out it's differences all by itself. This seems to be a common understanding among many religions - that god does things that can prove fatal to man. In doing so on a large scale the probability that innocent life is taken as a result of collateral damage has to be considerable. I would like to know if it is believed that god ever takes innocent life in this way. And I'm wondering what Jedikiller meant by parenthesizing "just barely" in the above quote?
|
|
Jedikiller
New Member
Hunt them down, and destroy them
Posts: 38
|
Post by Jedikiller on Mar 5, 2005 11:27:06 GMT -5
When I said (just barely) I meant like the tsunami's that just barely happened. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
|
|
Jedikiller
New Member
Hunt them down, and destroy them
Posts: 38
|
Post by Jedikiller on Mar 5, 2005 11:29:00 GMT -5
Yes, I believe innocent life is taken, because, and I think I already posted this somewhere before, but that death is not as bad as we all make it out to be. Yes, of course I mourn with the rest of you when a loved one dies, but I know where their going and that it is better than this life.
|
|
|
Post by Electron on Mar 5, 2005 16:20:13 GMT -5
Yes, I believe innocent life is taken, because, and I think I already posted this somewhere before, but that death is not as bad as we all make it out to be. Yes, of course I mourn with the rest of you when a loved one dies, but I know where their going and that it is better than this life. Ah, so the innocents only have to endure the excruciating pain and torment for however long it takes for thier suffering to come to a merciful end. Like a small child being trapped under the rubble for several days following an earthquake for instance? I feel sick just typing this. I think you'll find there is an awful lot more to this than you and other believers of an afterlife imagine.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 7, 2005 12:01:59 GMT -5
No. Aquinas didn't define motion, it was Aristotle's concept. When Aristotle used it he meant more generally a change in physical matter (from actuality to potentiality to actuality.) Ok, so we're broadening the scope of motion. I still think this leads us into Aquinas' other postulates, but let's just forget that for the moment. Ok. Okay, I agree that if object A strikes object B that is the 'something happening' that causes object B to move from a state of rest to a state of motion. Or when it's at rest. Again, I think we may be crossing postulates again, but never mind. Right, so we've got to what I think you believe to be the crux of Aquinas' argument and that's 'first cause'. First cause implies a beginning and that in itself is a very big assumption to make. At the moment we cannot prove whether or not the universe began or has always been. Until we can prove that the universe must have had a beginning, I don't think there's a great deal of mileage to be had from Aquinas' first postulate. Even assuming some sort of beginning, there are a number of theories that describe the origins of the universe and many of those theories do not require a Creator. The 'Creator' theory can stand up there with the rest of the theories for the moment, but currently I see no proof of the existence of a God in Aquinas' first law. In order for Aquinas' first postulate to stand true, we need to prove that the universe had a specific beginning and that there was no other possible start to it than through the hand of a Creator. If think if the 'Creator first cause' theory is true, we'll see non-Creator scientific theories about the origin of the universe fall by the wayside and the general consensus of theoretical cosmology will gravitate towards a Creator-driven universe. At the moment there are too many options and too many more discoveries to be made. It is - thank you also. I'm sure we've both discussed Aquinas' stuff separately before but, in my case at least, it's been quite a while!
|
|