Porphyry can probably tell us to what extent Thomas may have misunderstood Aristotle, or to what extent he understood Aristotle and simply preferred to adapt his system and terminology as a philosophical and linguistic substrate for his Catholic theology.

Truth be told, I can’t really. I have not spent nearly enough time studying Aristotle in his own right to draw any general conclusions. I’ve always found Aristotle very challenging to make sense of.

I will say, Aquinas had read Aristotle very, very deeply: if you read his commentaries on Aristotle, this is not a half-wit with a cursory knowledge of Aristotle (though he was accessing the texts, principally, in translation). These are the comments of someone very intelligent, and very deep in the text (and in the Islamic commentaries on the text), who has spent a lot of time wrestling with the material. That isn’t to say he never misunderstood or distorted Aristotle, but his mistakes were not childish.

I will also say that he was happy to use Aristotle as a springboard and to expand his philosophy in directions that Aristotle did not envision, or to give him the most Christian reading the text could suffer.

And you do remember correctly that Aquinas agreed with Aristotle that–philosophically, naturally–it is not possible to know that the world had a beginning in time, but (by revelation) Christians know it was created in time.

I also think that whatever way of thinking about science and God helps the individual to create good is a good way to think.

Electrical engineers don’t always agree on the science but yet they can still design, build, and repair electrical equipment based on how they understand how it all works.

The Electromagnetic Field becomes like a commercial business property of the Electron particle.

It runs away really fast because the Field does not allow it to be there.
Old man Electromagnetic Field is drunk, grumpy, and has a shotgun.
No Tresspassing.

This is supposed to be a discussion “what do you think”; it’s in the title. I say something and the cannon is pointed at me demanding sources and references already.

The whole forum is meant for discussion.

It is not meant for making wild, factually inaccurate assertions unchecked.

Just as a reminder, here is what you claimed, and what I asked to see a source for:

The infamous Double Slit Experiment was a magic trick. The test strip was timed to oscillate back and forth, up and down like a figure 8 and the slits were timed to open and close to recreate a wave interference pattern. They’re not really shooting one particle:wave of light or electron at a time. That’s all ridiculous magic trick stuff.

This is pure and unadulterated BS.

You may be entitled to your opinions, but I don’t see how you can take umbrage if you make ludicrous factual claims and someone then asks you to substantiate those claims.

And I don’t see how, after the source you do provide gives no support to your ridiculous claims, you can blame me.

If you find it uncomfortable to be asked to substantiate wild and baseless claims, don’t make up nonsense and try to pass it off as fact.

I said in the very first mention of it that we’re not actually shooting individual electrons. And it says that in the very first paragraph of the research paper. THE ELECTRONS ARE FIRST COLLIMATED……BLAH BLAH. ELECTRONS is plural.

Yes, of course, electrons is plural. You can’t get an interference pattern with just on electron. That doesn’t mean that there is more than one fired at a time. It just means that there is more than one fired over the course of each run of the multi-hour experiment.

If someone believes that Human Consciousness observing the experiment really changes the electron state of matter from being a wave into a particle; how could they deny the existence of God?

They are moving the detection slit and the deflection plates during the experiment to deflect the laser beam a new direction. They won’t show a video of the equipment doing the experiment because what they’re writing in the research paper is not really what they’re doing. They won’t even provide a real picture of the test equipment in the paper.

They are moving the detection slit and the deflection plates

I don’t feel like explaining the purpose of the deflection plates and the detection slit, neither do I need to.

The paper you cited notes that they conducted the experiment without using either of them, and the interference pattern still showed up.

Do you admit you were wrong?

I thought the Double Slit experiment would be enough to convince people that God exists. Science says that human consciousness decides whether or not the electron is a wave or particle.

I’m obliged (legally required) to disagree with anything science says without providing proof beyond a shadow of a doubt as required in a court of law

Do you think it is responsible for a member of a discussion to assert as fact that an entire class of frequently repeated experiments that stand at the foundation of modern physics were faked, while having zero evidence to support that denial?

Do you consider that sort of wild bullshitting to be respectful of your interlocutors?

And on that last note, will you admit that you were bullshitting when you wrote:

The infamous Double Slit Experiment was a magic trick. The test strip was timed to oscillate back and forth, up and down like a figure 8 and the slits were timed to open and close to recreate a wave interference pattern. They’re not really shooting one particle:wave of light or electron at a time. That’s all ridiculous magic trick stuff.