Been reading Saint John Damascene's "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith," and he raised an interesting point...

Been reading Saint John Damascene's "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith," and he raised an interesting point. Wouldn't something that always existed, be immutable (since there is nothing else to make it change but itself)? And for things which did not always exist, their very existence would be mutable, and unless they exist of their own volition (they willed themselves into existence), wouldn't there have to be some source of their movement? 'An object at rest' and all of that?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Also I know Aristotle raised similar points, but not in terms of always existing vs. not always existing (since Aristotle did not believe the universe was created, but always was, it's just that it was *moved* by God).

>Wouldn't something that always existed, be immutable (since there is nothing else to make it change but itself)?

No, that doesn't follow at all.

>things which did not always exist, their very existence would be mutable

Nope, you can change matter into energy and vice versa but you can't "unmake" it. It's character is mutable, but it's existence isn't.

>unless they exist of their own volition (they willed themselves into existence

Logically impossible.

>wouldn't there have to be some source of their movement?

Yes, it's called "the big bang".

The big bang is a mutable occurrence, though. Unless you believe spontaneous movement can occur (in which case we can throw out Newton's First law), something else would have to have set it in motion.

Prove it. Prove a universe can't spontaneously come into being. And even if the universe had a cause, why assume that cause is Yahweh? It could just as easily be Azathoth or some unknown-to-us cosmic law.

>(in which case we can throw out Newton's First law)
Newtonian mechanics are reasonable approximations of certain scales of macroscopic matter but are by no means adhered to perfectly by the universe at large or at small. Quantum physics is pretty old at this point, so it's strange how people keep clinging to old arguments like that.

I'm not saying it can't, but that would be, by definition, a miracle (something which defies the laws of physics).

Do quantum physics not adhere to Newton's First Law?

Easternism is heresy
Repent and believe the gospel

Not really strange, Newton's laws are simple and elegant, quantum mechanics is extremely difficult to grok even for people with strong backgrounds in science and math,

>Do quantum physics not adhere to Newton's First Law?
As I said, Newtonian mechanics are reasonable approximations of matter and energy acting at certain scales. But when you start getting really small or really big, or really hot or really cold, the relationships do not necessarily apply.

That doesn't really answer my question. as to whether physical things can spontaneously move on a quantum level. A yes or no would do.

Yes, it does. If Newtonian mechanics are just an approximation, and even as only an approximation they are only applicable at certain scales, why do you think they would be iron-clad descriptors of behaviour outside that context? At the quantum scale there are spontaneous events, and many other things that make no sense in a Newtonian context.

Literally all descriptions of everything are approximation, you're just pulling a Bill Clinton here.

So quantum objects can move of their own volition?

>Literally all descriptions of everything are approximation,
You're undermining your own argument here, since if you acknowledge Newton's laws as approximations then "violations," the kind you are saying are impossible without God, suddenly become not a problem.

And yes, particles that exist on the quantum scale can do things like change their position without external influence, be in two positions at once, and so on, in ways that do violate the classical "laws."

>then "violations," the kind you are saying are impossible without God, suddenly become not a problem.
Then believing in Christ's Resurrection becomes a completely tenable position.

> particles that exist on the quantum scale can do things like change their position without external influence
Are you saying the external influence is not yet fully understood, or that evidence shows there to be no external influence?

>as to whether physical things can spontaneously move on a quantum level.

I'm 99% certain you don;t understand what you just asked. ALL matter obeys quantum dynamics, it's effects are not visible on the macro scale because all the possibilities cancel out and produce what appears to be discreet objects.

>Then believing in Christ's Resurrection becomes a completely tenable position

There's no obvious reason why a corpse couldn't be revived, given suitably advanced technology. But there's also no reason to assume Jesus had access to such technology.

Perhaps you don't understand implications of my question.

If matter on a quantum level moves spontaneously, then conceptions like atrophy leading to heat death are completely unfounded.

There is no reason to assume technology would be required.

>Are you saying the external influence is not yet fully understood, or that evidence shows there to be no external influence?
The latter. Both empirically and the models.

What is the evidence?

>then conceptions like atrophy leading to heat death are completely unfounded.
No, they really aren't. Please read a book.

>There is no reason to assume technology would be required.

Yes there is, human bodies don't come back to life on their own.

>If matter on a quantum level moves spontaneously, then conceptions like atrophy leading to heat death are completely unfounded.

This doesn't follow at all. I'd explain but it would take thousands of words and you wouldn't understand any of them.

Why do christcucks constantly try to co-opt science to support their idiot ideas? I thought faith was all you needed? So admit you have /nothing/ but blind faith, don't try to hide behind reason like the cowardly liars you are.

No, they really are. If you are positing that quantum physics is the unmoved mover, there is absolutely no basis to believe things would ultimately cease to move, since quantum particles never run out of energy.

>Yes there is, human bodies don't come back to life on their own.
That's an approximation.

This discussion is pointless, you're obviously completely ignorant about physics.

An approximation of what?

>An approximation of what?
Of truth.

"Human bodies don't come back to life spontaneously" is an approximation of truth? What do you mean, fucktard? Use your words.

Are you saying that's a physical law? It certainly isn't, and even if it were, you'd say it was only an approximation.

>Are you saying that's a physical law?

That corpses don't come back to life? No, it's an empirical observation. There are a large number of physical reasons why corpses don't come back to life, some of which are laws (such as thermodynamics).

If specific external triggers existed, even if we weren't able to detect them directly, they ought to be inferred by the measured behaviours of the particles. We don't, and in fact trying to force such an interpretation onto the data leads to consistent errors.

And laws are, as you said, approximations

>they ought to be inferred by the measured behaviours of the particles
Why? This is based on the premise that variables must have *consistent* patterns *detectable* to humans.

>And laws are, as you said, approximations

Yes but if you want to claim that "sometimes" corpses DO come back to life, the burden is on you to prove it.

But saying they *can* come back to life, requires no proof, since they implicitly can.

>But saying they *can* come back to life, requires no proof, since they implicitly can.

No, it absolutely requires proof because it is NEVER observed in nature.

It's possible, using some advanced technology we don't yet know about, that a man might be able to fly with no obvious means of support. But if you want to claim that a given man levitated, you have to provide proof because such a thing is NEVER observed.

>No, it absolutely requires proof because it is NEVER observed in nature.
What does whether or not it is observed have anything to do with it? Unless there is a law prohibiting it, it can happen--well, as you pointed out, there is such a law, but you yourself said physical laws are guidelines, not actual laws.

>What does whether or not it is observed have anything to do with it?

Did you miss the part where I said it is an empirical observation that corpses don't spring back to life?

>If matter on a quantum level moves spontaneously, then conceptions like atrophy leading to heat death are completely unfounded.

Firstly no, I didn't say that. You're talking to more than one person. Physical laws are OBSERVATIONS. It is true that gravity pulls masses together because that is what is OBSERVED. We didn't find a list of physical laws in a book someplace, each and every one of them had to be discovered thru observation.

>Unless there is a law prohibiting it, it can happen--well, as you pointed out, there is such a law, but you yourself said physical laws are guidelines, not actual laws.

This is what my second reply is aimed at, idk why it posted the wrong thing.

>Did you miss the part where I said it is an empirical observation that corpses don't spring back to life?
So? How does that mean they can't? You just said you can only draw approximations form that, not absolute laws.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

For saying something did happen, but we're just asking if it *can*.

No, you're claiming it did happen. Why are christians such liars?

I do, but I don't claim that's a statement with any backing. But saying it can happen, is entirely true.

>anything can happen

By your own admission. Therefore it's just a matter of whether the sources of the Resurrection are credible or not.

>Therefore it's just a matter of whether the sources of the Resurrection are credible or not.

Then the answer is clear: No, they aren't. Not only do they contradict one another, they were written GENERATIONS after the supposed time of the events.

>Not only do they contradict one another
Not significantly. In the crucial facts, they agree.

> they were written GENERATIONS after the supposed time of the events.
Why do you suppose this?

>Why do you suppose this?

It's not my conclusion, it's the finding of biblical scholarship. The earliest parts of the Bible are the letters of Paul, the gospels came much later.

>The earliest parts of the Bible are the letters of Paul, the gospels came much later.
That's mainly presumed because of things like the Gospels foretelling the Destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. There isn't really any solid reason to believe the Gospels were written *generations* after Christ, except the Gospel of John since Papias said John wrote that when he was like a hundred years old, and John was only a teenager during Christ's ministry.

No, there are many more reasons biblical scholars have reached this conclusion.

>There isn't really any solid reason to believe the Gospels were written *generations* after Christ,

take it up with biblical scholars,most of whom are christians.

>except the Gospel of John since Papias said John wrote that

No. None of the gospels was written by it's putative author, this has been known for over a century.

Do you have any evidence to make a case, or are you just appealing to authority?