Space is a container for matter. It's necessary for matter. Time is an effect that happens from motion. Physicists speak of "spacetime" because it's easier to do the math when space and time are seen as one entity. Scientists know time is not a substance but in practice you have to go with what is easiest to understand

Aristotle had a middle ground between materialism and life in the mind

Deleted

My point is that there two kinds of good,

1) goods of nature (babies, strawberries, ect)

2) and goods of action, like sacrifice

If God contains of the good of (1) he has no more casual power than the universe. If he is a necessary being he can only have (1) and not (2) because he doesn't change and can't be tested or do wrong. The conclusion is God has no casual power unless he is contingent

I think he is saying that the god of the philosophers is more reasonable than the God of the religions because religion says he creates from nothing. So religion has to explain what this God is and how it can create something by sheer power

Which is this thread about?

God has no power he doesn't have to earn. A necessary being is an incoherent idea. Who created God?

The Greeks seem to be divided between materialists and idealists. Plato, Parmenides, the Skeptics, all seem to be about the life of the mind. Those who posited different material substances as the cause of the world seemed to promote a materialistic agenda. Aristotle was different

how many Gods are first principle, prime mover, and ultimate cause? — Apollodorus

Aquinas makes it out as if God is reality itself and there can only be one reality. He also says you couldn't distinguish between different Gods if there were more than one, although I would say "maybe by their individuality?". At this point I think we see Aristotle and Aquinas being at odds (Bertrand Russell said Aristotle thought there were around 60 supreme Gods) and the speculation, in the sense of trying to find the "truth", becomes impossible

His 'God', or 'Nous', was neither the sole god, nor a creator. — hairy belly

Because Aristotle thought there might be many First Movers and the world was eternal so it was not technically created, right?

discrete space — Metaphysician Undercover

An oxymoron for a classicist

It seems to me that Aristotle was trying to say something about the world while Plato was trying to help people find a personal truth

The action is destroyed indirectly by destroying the actor

Stopping cannot be destroyed it seems to me

Terminate means to stop, exterminate means to destroy

What are parabolic linear fractional transformation? Is it something I should fear lol, jk

Yes classical space is what is illogical. Zeno was the first to prove it. Space in order to remain itself has to be divisible. Yet infinite sections means a distance has infinite parts, a finite length, and takes infinite slices of time to traverse. Which makes no sense. So a loop or something is needed to explain it and I'm sure many physicists have good ideas on this

If space is not infinitely divisible than there is a space that can't be divided. But that wouldn't be space. So space is infinitely dividable. So it has infinite parts. Yet it has finite length. Therefore the infinite is finite and the finite is infinite. Antimony 2 of Kant

Nonstandard analysis

Of course not all philosophers are physicists but I consider all physicists as philosophers of some sort. People were saying "Krauss is not a philosopher" when his book on nothing came out but I would respond to that by saying that Krauss thinks with philosophical ideas all the time in the field he's in

"In space, in which time is suspended, the body is enduring, and in time, in which the indifferent substance of space is suspended, the body is transitory." Hegel

Yes but Galileo didn't talk about space and time being united like Hegel did

Zeno showed that space and objects in them appear to be both finite and infinite at the same time. This is why Kant called this an Antimony (an impasse)

Spinoza? Plato? I think the former thought that mind and matter were two sides of a coin while Plato thought matter was decayed mental stuff. Hegel thought matter was real and mind was real and so sided with Spinoza. For him Spirit is life and exists as matter and the Absolute idea was the realization of the full infinite truth by Spirit within matter. So Hegel and Spinoza were more materialist while Plato was more idealist. I find it interesting that Hegel anticipated the theory of relativity by his comments on space and time in his Philosophy of Nature

As for physics, it's a very philosophical and mathematical science and so speculations will always run wild

The word "beginning" is misleading because there could be a finite universe with a first movement and a material engine of causality but there be no beginning. Beginning implies springing from something. Without absolute or philosophical time, there simply would be a first this then that and so on according to material laws. "Beginning" is intricately linked to absolute time

I agree that is the case regardless of what religion one believes. Unless the whole subject of predestination is just a mystery, I think there are some things that we can know from reason about it however.

The PBS digital series has said that entropy comes from quantum physics, that time comes from entropy, and that gravity comes from time. So it seems the quantum is the root of gravity. How this works is what present research in studying. Quantum gravity!

Malebranche thought that Jesus' humanity gives grace and since he doesn't think of everyone at once he doesn't give grace to all. His critics retorted "he believes many are damned because they have a Savior".

The point of my thread is that God can give everyone grace to be saved before they ever make any moral decisions. The fact that some are said to be damned implies that God is not fully in control of the situation and obtains knowledge of our actions from our free actions themselves. He doesn't know what we will choose. That part is the philosophical part of the discussion

I read a lot of theology because it's interesting and I like to put my ideas on it out there for comments to them

Hawking's imaginary time turns time into space and nowadays they say this is also what gravity is. So with Hawking's picture the universe is not eternal but as he says springs from nothing. Something springs from nothing for Hawking because energy is balanced with gravity such that it is just force and thus can spring from nothing. Before someone has a theory of an eternal universe they need to have a theory of a universe finite in time, otherwise you are begging the question by pushing it back in time

You are assuming God can't give grace before someone first sins

I'm reading a book about Malebranche, Leibniz, Arnauld, and theology. You don't have to be Christian to discuss these matters

Even if matter is more than force or more than energy, we could posit that time is beyond something we can know fully about from physics and that it started somehow along side the first motion of activity between substances, whether this is fromnmagnetism or what ever. You simply have the series of motions going to the Big Bang and the series of time moving along with it. There was nothing before the Big Bang

If matter is energy or force than it can come from nothing. Substance in the philosophical sense doesn't exist

Classical theists say that deism is wrong because God can't be all powerful and at the same time not know everything. I think God could be all powerful and know everything within himself without having to have knowledge of contingent beings. Aristotle, when he says the world is eternal and that God is not the efficient cause of the world, seems to say that the contingent world flows from God without his will and so perhaps without his knowledge. Understanding ancient philosophical text is hard in the sense of sharing common ideas with the ancient writer through language

Aquinas says that Aristotle thought God(s) didn't know of our particular lives. That sounds like deism the most. Do modern translations of Aristotle say this as well?

It seems to me that theists behavior appears to be better because of their religion but what if the religion sucks the soul out of them and they act "good" in a mechanical way that is really not wholesome?

An object is that which has a certain classical cohesion. Most things can be broken down into their substances but not everything. It's hard to define but not false to say true substances exist. A car is made of many substances. A pool of water is one substance but you can take a glass full of it and it is the same substantial thing. A substance can be destroyed, everyone knows fire can totally destroy something. Physicists take into account that energy remains when something is destroyed

God is Neutral Spiritual Energy, which in the Bible is said to be a "void". — 1 Brother James

You don't have a single original of the Bible so everything you quote is contingent. You have no reason to hold it in regard even if you had all the original. It was just written by Jews a long time ago and you can't say for sure what it means

And an "object" can be destroyed, it is Energy that is not destroyed. — 1 Brother James

This is just physical law. What physical law does the soul follow, or God? Neither because they don't exist.