Can Thomas Aquinas's Christian adaptation of Aristotle's "First Mover" really be God?
I know that his five proofs in the Summa Theologiae were weak explanations on account of universal belief in God in his era, but I still see I strong argument underneath.
For those who don't know what I'm talking about, this involves the arguement that there has to have been some first efficient cause to cause the first effect (currently argued to be the "big bang"). He ends all his proofs as "this cause is what we come to know as God."
How do scientists respond to such a question as what came before? It sounds like a more philosophical question, and most seem to believe a stark beginning over an infinite past.
Any thoughts from anybody here? Maybe I can find the answer to all things here on Yahoo answers :D
2009-04-18T21:26:13Z
I see what you mean, but this is more of a time questions than size. But the argument works for both.
j153e2009-04-18T21:31:48Z
Favorite Answer
"Why is there something?" is the underlying question of interest.
Logic and science, and theology too, tell us that "nothing comes of nothing."
Therefore, there has always been Some Thing.
Science presently primarily focuses on measuring energy, whether of fields (which comprise most of our known universe, which in turn is about 4% of what is believed to exist, i.e. dark matter and dark energy being the other 96%). Hence, science would say before BB, "Energy."
This indeed begs the question of "Why is there something?"
Theology gives the logically satisfactory yet circular statement "Because there is Eternal Creative Being."
To know God is to Love God, for God loves us. This love is perceived by soul, which has the ability to resonate with God.
To measure scientifically Energy (God) as energy is to focus on bits and pieces of Matter, which is coalesced Energy.
There is a sufficient gap between the two approaches or positions, which philosophers such as Plotinus, Plato, Husserl, Hegel, Buber, Whitehead, and Bergson have on occasion satisfactorily bridged.
"A Philosophy of Universality," O. M. Aivanhov, "Nihilism," Father Seraphim Rose, "The Path of the Higher Self," Mark Prophet. http://www.divinecosmos.com
To be frank, no one knows what was before the big bang. I've read about physicists arguing that you can't ask that question, since time, matter, and space were all created at the moment of the big bang.
However, since we don't know or don't understand, it isn't a reason to assume that there must be a prime mover, or an initial cause. As a previous poster said, our universe, or other universes, may have been infinite, allowing for the "creation" of this one.
Finally, it could asked why, if there is an initial cause that had no creator for it, that our universe could not be one.
P.S. I find it ironical that booklover 8 starts off saying that you should do your own research and not look to be fed answers, and then ends off asking for you to tell him/her what you find out after you do that research.
I think it depends on perspective...as always. The initial cause is by this universe's standards. But what if there are infinite universes? This would certainly give room for a previous cause at another location.
The fact that we can't see past our own overriding system doesn't mean that there isn't a larger system out there. There seems to be an infinite amount of smaller and smaller realities....so why not larger as well?
We are limited in "seeing"that which is infinite because we are bound by the dimension of time. As far as science goes there exists 2 theories that would suggest the big bang theory had to have Something behind it and those theories are 1) that nothing can come from nothing 2)that energy does NOT die-it simply changes form.
The whole idea of a first cause is begging the question. It's not a valid argument no matter how you slice it. If the "first effect" required a cause, why did not the first cause also require a cause? Because we said it was first. Why can't we just say the Big Bang was the First Cause? No reason.