Aquinas & Pure Act

  • Thread starter Thread starter Veritas6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I will agree that his #3 argument is interesting but not foolproof. #1 just goes to show how little he understands Aquinas’ argument.

Aquinas does go deeper into the authors problem in #5 in Aquinas’ Summa Contra Gentiles.

I’m no Thomist and it’s been a while since I’ve read Aquinas but I find the author’s lack of understanding of Aquinas unfortunate.
 
“He is unchangeable and therefore cannot act, which necessitates multiple, differing sequential states”

What does this mean? My first reply would be God is outside of time, but I’m not sure.
 
Just a random thought from me on the topic of “pure actuality”…

In my reading of philosophy blogs it seems there are some atheists who argue that the universe itself is in a state of pure actuality (block universe/Minkowski spacetime) and all points of time are equally real.

Concerning the arrow of time, these atheists must necessarily claim it to be an illusion. Wikipedia states the arrow of time is an unsolved problem in physics. Yet it would also seem from the classical theist perspective that God (being pure Actuality) has an overarching view of all points in time (“an eternal Now” as Karl Keating puts it).

So could it be possible that the arrow of time is some kind of illusion if the underlying source of all reality is timeless?
 
Last edited:
It means the very same thing he has a problem with only serves to highlight the fact that the first cause cannot be a natural cause, a sequence of physical events, and the only way around that is to posit an intellect of pure-actuality as the first cause.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top