God is not his thoughts.

God doesn’t move his mind: that makes no sense — Bob Ross

These are contrary to each other. If he is his thoughts he cannot move his mind but if he doesn't move his mind than he cannot move. To have thoughts mean movement. To be purely simple is impossible

Even if there was a thing which was uncreated, if it is composed of parts then that composition cannot be an infinite regress — Bob Ross

In time it could be eternal. In space it is infinitely divisible. See Kant's antimonies

composed part is separate from the thing which ultimately provides the ability to actualize it — Bob Ross

This is Thomism and false. A part is not actualized by the whole. That would mean it actualized *itself* with the rest of the whole

thing being purely actual means that it lacks passive potency: it does not entail that everything actualized by a purely actual being is a part of that being — Bob Ross

Yes it does since you say God is existence itself and the world exists. Thomism is a tangle of falsehoods

a purely actual being cannot have parts and for everything to be a part of God entails that God has at least everything in the universe as His parts, therefore God must be separate from the universe. — Bob Ross

The premise here is a purely actual being cannot have parts. Why is the premise the conclusion? This is what Aquinas does. All the 5 ways have the conclusion in the premise

. I would say that a form is instantiated by way of the parts arrangement in such-and-such manners; and so the essence is not strictly reducible to the parts which comprise the being which has it; but this doesn’t seem to negate the fact that the essence itself is contingent for its existence on the parts — Bob Ross

So now the parts instantiate the whole. You can't keep your story straight

but it weirds me out: is it really a demonstration of being all-loving to will the good of everything by merely keeping it in existence? — Bob Ross

Good you're questioning

As for the accidental infinite series, physics demonstrates perfectly fine how there can be a universe that subsists in its laws on its own. There is no proof from Aquinas's meager physics that there is a power out there other than the natural order. Imagine a slide that flows water down infinitely from infinite height downwards. The gravity is the prine mover, not some person you invent who has no parts lol. If you don't prove a mind you don't prove a God

Finally, answer me: if God is his thoughts and he knows he moved his mind to create the world, this brings new knowledge to God and since he is his thoughts he has therefore changed. Therefore to create is to change for God. Simple

TPF is turning into Reddit, conspiracy theories and all — Leontiskos

The Catholic Church has many secrets

But he came up with Occam's razor, showing that common sense, scientific style that he wrote in. I question whether Aquinas wrote everything that is attributed to him. It just so processed and empty that to me it seems the Church has hidden the true story behind their creation. It has had a very damaging influence on the vitality of Western thought

I don’t see why that is the case at all. The OP clearly demonstrates that an absolutely simple being—with no parts—has active potencies; and one of which is willing — Bob Ross

Loosely related statements do not make an argument. Can something non-composed exist? It sounds like a contradiction in terms. It doesn't have clear meaning. It is so outside of noumena in that which it tries to describe that it becomes abstract instead of concrete. Better off reading Hegel

Well, Aquinas is the saint of Catholic studies, isn't he? So, I associate him more with the Catholic church than with medieval Latin culture — Arcane Sandwich

He seems like a very odd person to me. I would think Aristotle for example would consider him odd

What do you mean? Doesn't Thomism accept Aristotle's concept of substance — Arcane Sandwich

Not exactly because Aquinas has a Biblical idea of a pure *existence* which was uncreated because it was what was, was necessarily there. Aristotle had like sixty something prime movers according to Bertrand Russell, but don't quote me on that. Aristotle was more Greek culturally in his philosophy, while St. Thomas was more Latin and Jewish in his understanding. Aquinas is either too personalistic in his conception of God (they say he laid his head against the tabernacle and cried because he wanted to know more of God) or not enough (oddly). At the end it is believed he had a mystical experience

God cannot incarnate since that requires a change in His nature — MoK

Jews and Moslims would would agree that auch a change, from all knowing to a state of ignorance, would be impossible for a divine consciousness. I see no way out for Christian paradoxes

If God is pure act he would be everything. Just "to be", is everything. See Spinoza. No thing can be beyond noumena. So God must be fully empty. If he has thoughts then he has division, knowledge of his actions. Aquinas gets so speculative that he forgets the personhood of God. In the end he was just a theologian.

Thomism doesn't establish a substance. Ok so some power holds the universe together. There is no proof of a God beyond in simple-state doing just this for us. It's like the form/matter distinction: good for praticing though, but not establising duality in a composite thing. Outside experience is a nonsensical hence there is no time for God to exist (see Hawking on this). Games about an accidental series vs a substantial one don't establish that what our senses consider nothing is the true reality

Composed beings are made up of parts.
2. A composed being exists contingently upon its parts in their specific arrangement.
3. A part of a composed being is either composed or uncomposed.
4. A part that is a composed being does not, in turn, exist in-itself but, rather, exists contingently upon its parts and their specific arrangement.
5. An infinite series of composed beings for any given composed being (viz., a composed being of which its parts are also, in turn, composed and so on ad infinitum) would not have the power to exist on their own.
6. Therefore, an infinite series of composed beings is impossible.
7. Therefore, a series of composed beings must have, ultimately, uncomposed parts as its first cause. (6 & 3)
8. An uncomposed being (such as an uncomposed part) is purely simple, since it lacks any parts.
9. Two beings can only exist separately if they are distinguishable in their parts.
10. Two purely simple beings do not have any different parts (since they have none).
11. Therefore, only one purely simple being can exist.
12. The purely simple being would have to be purely actual—devoid of any passive potency—because passive potency requires a being to have parts which can be affected by an other.
13. No composed being could be purely actual, because a composed being always has parts which, as parts, must have passive potency.
14. Therefore, there can only be one purely actual being which is also purely simple. (11 & 12 & 13)
15. The purely actual being is changeless (immutable), because it lacks any passive potency which could be actualized.
16. The purely actual being is eternal, because it is changeless and beyond time (as time’s subsistence of existence).
17. The effect must be some way in the cause.
18. The physical parts of a composed being cannot exist in something which is purely simple and actual; for, then, it would not be without parts.
19. Therefore, the forms of the composed beings must exist in the purely simple and actual being.
20. Intelligence is having the ability to apprehend the form of things (and not its copies!).
21. The purely simple and actual being apprehends the forms of things. (19)
22. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being must be an intelligence.
23. To know the forms of every composed being is what it means to be omniscient.
24. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being is omniscient.
25. To cause the existence of a thing in correspondence to its form from knowledge (intelligence) requires a will.
26. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being must have a will.
27. To be good is to lack any privation of what the thing is.
28. The purely simple and actual being cannot have any privations, since it is fully actual.
29. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being is all-good.
30. To will the good of another independently of one’s own good is love.
31. The purely simple and actual being wills the good of all composed beings by willing their existence.
32. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being is all-loving.
33. Power is the ability to actualize potentials.
34. The purely simple and actual being is the ultimate cause of all actualization of potentials.
35. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being is omnipotent.
36. The existence of all composed things subsists through this purely simple and actual being.
37. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being is omnipresent.
38. A being which is absolutely simple, absolutely actual, eternal, immutable, all-loving, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, all-good, one, unique, and necessary just is God.
39. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being is God.
40. The world we live in is made up of composed beings.
41. The composed beings must subsist through an absolutely simple and actual being.
42. Therefore, God exists. — Bob Ross

1) Composed beings are made up of parts."

No. They are the parts as whole

2. A composed being exists contingently upon its parts in their specific arrangement."

It doesn't rely on its parts, is IS all the parts as whole. You can think of a composite thing as a number with it's parts fractions. The sum is a convergence


3. A part of a composed being is either composed or uncomposed."

Of course, but this doesn't follow from 1) and 2)

4. A part that is a composed being does not, in turn, exist in-itself but, rather, exists contingently upon its parts and their specific arrangement."

False. It is not separable like that from it parts


5. An infinite series of composed beings for any given composed being (viz., a composed being of which its parts are also, in turn, composed and so on ad infinitum) would not have the power to exist on their own."

Zeno?


6. Therefore, an infinite series of composed beings is impossible.

Then show me something discrete

7. Therefore, a series of composed beings must have, ultimately, uncomposed parts as its first cause. (6 & 3)

So it must BE God?

8. An uncomposed being (such as an uncomposed part) is purely simple, since it lacks any parts."

And is nothing

9. Two beings can only exist separately if they are distinguishable in their parts."

False. They can be diiferent in identity. Why are you invoking Leibniz?


10. Two purely simple beings do not have any different parts (since they have none)."

Ok

11. Therefore, only one purely simple being can exist."

False. See 9)

12. The purely simple being would have to be purely actual—devoid of any passive potency—because passive potency requires a being to have parts which can be affected by an other.

Why is God death the answer to divisibility?

13. No composed being could be purely actual, because a composed being always has parts which, as parts, must have passive potency.


Existence needs potency in order to be. Hence there can be incarnations?

18. The physical parts of a composed being cannot exist in something which is purely simple and actual; for, then, it would not be without parts."


What do you mean by "in". This one is dubious

19. Therefore, the forms of the composed beings must exist in the purely simple and actual being."

Form and matter are the same thing seen from different angles

20. Intelligence is having the ability to apprehend the form of things (and not its copies!).
21. The purely simple and actual being apprehends the forms of things. (19)
22. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being must be an intelligence.

Who says he knows human qualia?

23. To know the forms of every composed being is what it means to be omniscient.'

Only if the world is infinite

24. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being is omniscient."

False

25. To cause the existence of a thing in correspondence to its form from knowledge (intelligence) requires a will."

True but what if there are infinite wills?

28. The purely simple and actual being cannot have any privations, since it is fully actual."

No because before you tried to say God was simple because he is empty. Now your trying to sneak in the full part. Typical Thomism

29. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being is all-good.
30. To will the good of another independently of one’s own good is love.
31. The purely simple and actual being wills the good of all composed beings by willing their existence."

Maybe he is only kind of good

34. The purely simple and actual being is the ultimate cause of all actualization of potentials.

But deism

42. Therefore, God exists."

False. Thomism is inferior philosophy

Oh, I didn't know that philosophers had pointed out this issue in the past — MoK

Hegel ends his first work with the death of God

that is against the concept of the Trinity. There are several verses in the Bible mentioning that God does not change — MoK

If God is pure actuality, how come he has the potential to incarnate one of the three Persons and live a non-God life? It seems movement means potential is eternal, assuming a God Person can incarnate

He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one — MoK

We mustn't depersonslize Jesus and say his human nature spoke for him. Persons speak, not natures. Surely Jesus said "why did i forsake me"

Philosophers often make up there own language while writing about science. Some words like elements might have a mere generic meaning. I think your quotation is saying something like you cann't get purposive organism from matter without providing a form, any more than you can have a permanent now by adding up past moments.

So this means you are not going to explain how they know particles are in a state of superposition at exactly the moment they are not measuring them, or what?

Nope, that’s called hidden variable and that was disproven by the experiment — Darkneos

So they can rule out God as a hidden variable?

I think it’s more like you don’t understand what’s going on.

I told you what it means, doesn’t matter what you think it means that’s what it is. There is no contradiction — Darkneos

That's it? No explanation?

not really look, measurement in QM just means any interaction even with each other — Darkneos

No I think it's any interaction between the classical world and an isolated quanta. But to say apart from this interaction quanta is in multiple states is to say what you forbade yourself to do: tell something about the system without analyzing it. So it's self contradictory the way most physicists speak of this. They are philosophizing. Also, any "isolated" quanta is really always interacting with the whole system, so according to their philosophy everything must be only classical. A lot of what scientists say doesn't make any sense

How can we know the state of something apart from measurement?

Well that’s what they are. It’s not a matter of belief. That’s is until they interact with anything, at which point they settle — Darkneos

The whole "measurement problem" seems like a hoax. If it only settles when we look we have no idea what it would be (or is) if we didn't

Do you believe quantum particles can be in multiple statea at once, and why believe that?

It made me wonder if things like mass, and position are not truly the fundamental building blocks of existence, but are only derived phenomena from something even more fundamental — Brendan Golledge

How would we even be able to know what state or lack of states quanta has apart from measurement?

Problem with the Big Bang theory is, inability for explaining the perfect position, and workings of the matter, space and time in the Solar system — Corvus

The James Webb telescope findings might be saying you are correct. BB needs correcting but the details themselves don't matter much to philosophy

. If the BB had created the solar system as it is now, then it must be the most unbelievable magic ever created in the universe nothing short of the miracle act of some omnipotent being. But is it — Corvus

Reality itself could be the miracle, God itself could be the miracle.

Could time be potentiality, the possibility to be, endless possibility??

space and time within the universe can be motion, obviously.

The universe is in motion due to its own space and time — Darkneos

So space and time are not separate? And motions come from them? I've speculated on this forum that motion creates time as it moves through space so there is no need for a before the Big Bang being it's creater (motion) moves singularly at the moment of the universe's and time's first motion forward. It seems like something coming from nothing but it's not. The primordial singularity is it's own casuality

Action at a distance might be momentary separations of time from spacetime. If space only exists all things are connected instantly — jgill

Space only: nothing moves. But doesn't this at least imply eternal time, or "instant" as you say? Space seems to imply time therefore. But does time imply space? This leaves room for a reality of spirit. If time must exist yet space is contingent there seems to be something that connects them into actuality. Maybe time is a highest Platonic form, or space and time unite instantly like magnets. Idn

We are not denying the existence of the universe, but saying the end point of the universe is not known. It could be the proof or ground for the existence and validity of the concept of infinity i.e infinity exists, but the end of infinity is unknown.

Therefore we could deduce The Principle of Unknowability in existence i.e. there are entities which do exist for certain, but the details of the existence is unknown — Corvus

Yes i think there are infinite things we don't know about existence. We are connected by our bodies to the physical world and both are connected with God, Heavenly Father, or whatever you want to call it. I guess i'm agnostic about whether there is literally another consciousness beyond those in the physical universe. Descartes said his finite consciousness could never be infinite so he thought God must be *just there* and uncreated. But how can "the good" subsist without going from potential to actual? Where is will? Pure actuality seems so illogical to me. I would say we could be infinite consciousness and not be aware of it, and so there is no need to posit a Father who lives above us instead of saying we are one with Him, and there is the physical, the organic, and the spiritual, but we know too little on this side of death to say enough about it to satisfy everyone. "I and the Father are one. He who sees me [literally] sees the Father" (Jesus in Gospel of John). We are the essence of what we make ouselves. Sartre ect. Life is spirit

Under certain conditions, time separates from spacetime. Or not — jgill

If it wants to be eternal

If something is in motion, it requires space and time. If the universe is in motion, then which space and time is it in motion? Space and time within the universe cannot be motion in itself. They require space and time which is external and separate to themselves in order to be in motion. — Corvus

Very interesting. Peoples' thoughts starting changing when Galileo started saying things like dropping something on the moon should follow the same physics as here on earth.

it is possibly ubiquitous and eternal, i.e. a domain of the physical reality which doesn't require a first cause — jkop

Isn't this just a modern version of eternal "potential"?

You don't have to know everything to know something. You might know what a rock is but not a cloud, but at least you'd have some knowledge. You say your body is real but maybe not the clothes you wear, or maybe not your hair because it's not alive? Where do you think this line of questioning will lead you? Maybe you are on to something, but such doubt is not a destination

I asked what do you mean by real, when you say X is real. Is all that you see real? Is all that you know real? You think something is real, but later it turns out to be something else, or it disappears from your sight.

Is the universe real? What is the universe? Where does it start and end? If you don't know what universe is, then how do you know it is real — Corvus

You're the one questioning the world.. I'm saying that to doubt the sky is blue and the suns shines is a pointless exercise unless you get to a higher philosophical stage from the doubt. We all know what it MEANS to say your body is real

They aren't really philosophical categories, — Darkneos

Are you aware that John Bell was a super-determinist? If that is a philosophical position that is legit with observation, the idea of random vs determined can be seen then as philosophical categories. You can't do anything without philosphy in life. The old religious debates on predestination, likewise, had much in common with this random vs determined debate. Finally, Einstein has yet to be dethroned

They aren't really philosophical categories, they're pretty well defined TBH — Darkneos

Well then these scientific principles should be explained by science instead of being seen as philosophy. So how would they ever prove sonething is random if they don't know what the mathematical law behind the action is? If the answer is crunched down to numbers 1, 3, 7 and 9 and this is considered random, how do we know 1, 3, 7, and 9 aren't the right answer to the equation according to an overarching mathematical scheme we aren't aware of? So then, in that case, it's not random. Philosophy is overarching; science is the handmaid

How can science prove an action is random or determined? These seem like philosophical categories to me, not related to science and math

Your spine is real. Your brain is real. Real is all your organs. At least rest in your flesh and know the psycho-organic as physical, as "there" for others (even the inanimate) to observe. "I think therefore I am". What a silly notion it is to say nothing is real. This is where Kant causes a lot of stumbling for thos who long for something else..

, if one buys into something like computational theory of mind (long the dominant paradigm in cognitive science) or integrated information theory, then it would seem that information has to come prior to consciousness (else we have a circular explanation) — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed, just as the mother comes before the child. But does it make sense to extend backwards humanity, as a thought experiment, and think of it with no origin except the ever intermediate subject. What information gives us is knowledge, but information is what the medievals called phantams, which really is just imagination. Yes it's not circular or linear

." Nor in it's classical forms can it incorporate information and the successes of information theory — Count Timothy von Icarus

Information reminds me of Kant and his spiritual-metaphysical-psychological-physiological take of space and time and how it interacts with the brain.

If something physical has something to offer consciousness this is its information, or "phenomena". If we are dealing with something so small that it makes no sense to ask it to present anything to our senses, then we are clearly dealing with noumena

It's pretty much done every day, you don't really need philosophy to do that. The fact it pans out and leads to discoveries that we can manipulate and act on sorta implies it doesn't matter what philosophy thinks about — Darkneos

When they are studying things so small we have to invent maths just to understand how small they are (Plank scale) they truly at that point interacting with an abstraction

"The true being of a man is, on the contrary, his act; individuality is real in the deed, and a deed it is which cancels both the aspects of what is 'meant' or 'presumed' to be. In one aspect where what is 'presumed' or 'imagined' takes the form of a passive bodily being, individuality puts itself forward in action as the negative [dynamic] essence which only is so far as it cancels being. Then furthermore the act does away with the inexpressible of what self-conscious individuality really 'means'; in regard to such 'meaning', individuality is endlessly determining and determinable. This false infinite, this endless determining, is abolished in a completed act. The act is [nonetheless] something simply determinate, universal, to be grasped as an abstract, distinctive whole..." Hegel on physiogomy from The phenomenology of Mind 1807