The Aristotelian proof might or might not be refuted by a Steady-State model though act and potency might still be real as the reason new matter is created is because the laws of physics are such that it happens. The Rationalist proof might or might not work, as we would have matter constantly popping into existence though the reason that happens is because the laws of nature are such that it happens. The Augustinian argument might be untouched by a Steady-State model of the universe, as it's appeal to universals seems to make the cosmology of any universe irrelevant. So what I am really interested in is in knowing mostly whether or not the Thomistic or existential proof of Aquinas would still suffice to ground God even in such a scenario. Such a universe isn't just proposed my contemporary steady-state proponents cosmologists who believe in the multiverse theory say that the multiverse could end up creating a variety of different universes with different laws, including one where matter is constantly created out of nothing. Would any of the proofs for the existence of God work in such a universe where the laws of nature do indeed describe the creation of matter out of nothing without God, as well as it's conservation? It would also be able to explain the constant conservation of matter without appealing to God for it. Such a model of the universe would explain the appearence of new matter out of nothing by stating a new law of physics that removes the laws of thermodynamics from acting on a global scale, and would thus explain how something could come from nothing without appealing to God as an explanation. One situation that really interests me is a Steady-State model of the universe where matter is constantly created out of nothing in order to keep the universe stable. Hmmm.one interesting thing that I've been thinking about is how powerful the classical arguments for God really are.
0 kommentar(er)
