The expansion of the space-time continuum of our universe begs the questions of where it is expanding into
I understand the question, but I think it reposes on a category error. Space *itself* is what is expanding. It isn’t space expanding into some vacant space. There is no where before there is space. When space expands it isn’t expanding into a “where” it is making the “where”. That is the part I struggle wrap my head around.
People have been trying to model it mathematically but nobody understands it.
You may be right that no one understands it; I know I don’t. But my understanding is that they *can* model it mathematically without invoking any extra dimensions.
what was or is still causing, limiting, or otherwise controlling the expansion of the time-space continuing?
Well, the math works, but the math to account for the observed rate of expansion implies things that we haven’t directly observed yet (dark energy).
Comment 29
Robert
The more fundamental question, however, is how to relate the prime and other unmoved movers to the final cause. Aristotle likely and Thomas certainly identified them with each other in reality. Despite Newton’s religiosity, this is decidedly NOT Newtonian physics. But you probably already knew this, and presumably you’re not so much trying to understand the actual thoughts of Aristotle, Thomas, and Einstein in their contemporary historical contexts. Perhaps you’re just trying to build your own new construction of a scientific metaphysics inclusive of your spiritual belief in God.
Steefen
I do not understand what you are saying.
Unmoved Mover = First Cause
is NOT Newtonian Physics ? ? ?
It is not Quantum Physics.
Then you group Aristotle, Aquinas, and maybe Newton with Einstein as if there aren’t dividing lines of Classical Physics and Quantum Physics.
Comment 44
Porphyry
I do not understand what you are saying. Unmoved Mover = First Cause is NOT Newtonian Physics ? ? ?
Robert didn’t speak of a first cause. He spoke of a final cause. That is certainly Aristotelian rather than Newtonian.
Steefen
The topic is arguments for God’s existence. What’s the First Cause: the Creator-God.
I went back and checked the discussion: Aquinas > First Mover > First Cause
Comment 29 by Robert
how to relate the prime and other unmoved movers to the final cause.
Steefen
Well I interpreted that as the ultimate cause: the first cause.
Well I interpreted that as the ultimate cause: the first cause.
Yes, but you misinterpreted him. Final cause is a concept from Aristotelian physics, which was used by some subsequent philosophers in the Aristotelian tradition (like Aquinas) to demonstrate the existence of God.
Whether Robert was right that the relationship of the final cause to the first mover is the real question is itself its own question, but final cause has its own meaning and it is not part of the vocabulary of Newtonian physics.
I do think Robert is on to something insofar as there is a yawning gap between the strongest proofs of “God’s existence” and the divine attributes. I think, for example, that one can make a very compelling proof for a necessary being. But whether that necessary being is anything like what people call “God” is another issue altogether.
Comment 44
I do not understand what you are saying. Unmoved Mover = First Cause is NOT Newtonian Physics ? ? ?
Robert didn’t speak of a first cause. He spoke of a final cause. That is certainly Aristotelian rather than Newtonian.
Steefen
What comes before Newtownian/Classical Physics? Aristotle’s Physics? What is that? You’re saying it’s not Newtonian Physics.
Science cannot disprove the existence of God.
There are scientific explanations such as Big Bang and Evolution that explain how things came to exist without a creator God manipulating and forming everything. The Laws of Nature did it all.
The counter-argument would be that God did a wild throw of the dice before the Big Bang to watch what happened. The Final Casualty was just that. God wanted something to look at. 👀
Aristotle talked about “final cause.” Why?
Chat:
Aristotle introduced the concept of final cause (telos) as part of his broader theory of causation, which sought to explain why things exist and behave as they do. He identified four causes:
Material Cause – What something is made of (e.g., a statue is made of marble).
Formal Cause – The structure or essence of a thing (e.g., the design of the statue).
Efficient Cause – The force or agent that brings something into existence (e.g., the sculptor chiseling the marble).
Final Cause – The purpose or goal for which something exists (e.g., the statue exists to honor a deity or a person).
Why did Aristotle emphasize final cause?
Teleology: He believed that nature and human action are goal-directed. For example, an acorn grows into an oak tree because its nature aims at that end.
Critique of Atomism: Democritus and other early materialists saw the universe as random interactions of atoms, but Aristotle thought that this was inadequate to explain order and purpose in nature.
Ethics & Politics: In human life, he saw happiness (eudaimonia) as the final cause of human existence—everything we do is ultimately directed toward achieving a fulfilling life.
Biology: He applied final causation to living organisms, arguing that their structures exist for specific functions (e.g., eyes exist for seeing).
Aristotle’s idea of final cause deeply influenced medieval philosophy and Christian theology, especially in arguments for divine purpose in nature. However, modern science has largely moved away from teleological explanations in favor of mechanistic ones—except in certain areas like biology (e.g., evolutionary function).
Porphyry
Aristotelian physics
Steefen
Never heard of that.
Chat, help me out.
Chat:
OK
Why Was Aristotelian Physics Replaced?
It could not explain projectile motion or why objects keep moving after being thrown.
It assumed that objects require continuous force to stay in motion.
It was based on observation but not experimentation.
Galileo and Newton showed that motion follows different principles, such as inertia and gravitational force.
Although Aristotelian physics was eventually disproven, it shaped scientific thought for nearly 2,000 years. It was also deeply integrated into medieval philosophy and theology.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)