Calling Thomists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matthias123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Matthias123

Guest
On the contrary, The articles of faith cannot be proved demonstratively, because faith is of things “that appear not” (Hebrews 11:1). But that God is the Creator of the world: hence that the world began, is an article of faith; for we say, “I believe in one God,” etc. And again, Gregory says (Hom. i in Ezech.), that Moses prophesied of the past, saying, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”: in which words the newness of the world is stated. Therefore the newness of the world is known only by revelation; and therefore it cannot be proved demonstratively.
Click to expand...
I answer that, By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist, as was said above of the mystery of the Trinity (32, 1). The reason of this is that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself. For the principle of demonstration is the essence of a thing. Now everything according to its species is abstracted from “here” and “now”; whence it is said that universals are everywhere and always. Hence it cannot be demonstrated that man, or heaven, or a stone were not always. Likewise neither can it be demonstrated on the part of the efficient cause, which acts by will. For the will of God cannot be investigated by reason, except as regards those things which God must will of necessity; and what He wills about creatures is not among these, as was said above (Question 19, Article 3). But the divine will can be manifested by revelation, on which faith rests. Hence that the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science. And it is useful to consider this, lest anyone, presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, should bring forward reasons that are not cogent, so as to give occasion to unbelievers to laugh, thinking that on such grounds we believe things that are of faith.
Click to expand...
I need help understanding this. I don’t understand the connection between the universal of “newness” and what we can discover about it in the “here and now”.

Also this should mean that we cannot know if anything begins to exis the light of human reason, unless it is known through experience. So I cannot know for sure that the rocks in my front lawn did not always exist, because I cannot know if they had the universal of newness from what I have abstracted from the here and now.
 
Eh, he’s just saying no one can know the beginning of the world except through divine revelation. It’s just his opinion.
 
Hi Matthias,

Thomas was responding to Bonaventure’s argument against the eternity of the world. Thomas agreed that the universe was finite in age, but that this could only be shown by divine revelation. Bonaventure’s argument was that an actual infinite could not be formed by successive addition; so, if the universe were infinite, the present would have never arrived. Given that the present has arrived, the universe must therefore be finite.

Thomas’ response was that the universe’s past could be potentially infinite, with one moment of the past being added successively. This reply leaves much to be desired, however, because time moves forward, and not backward. No moment of the past is merely potential; they have all been actualized.

This is one of the few issues in which I disagree with the Angelic Doctor.
 
punkforchrist said:
Hi Matthias,

Thomas was responding to Bonaventure’s argument against the eternity of the world. Thomas agreed that the universe was finite in age, but that this could only be shown by divine revelation. Bonaventure’s argument was that an actual infinite could not be formed by successive addition; so, if the universe were infinite, the present would have never arrived. Given that the present has arrived, the universe must therefore be finite.

Thomas’ response was that the universe’s past could be potentially infinite, with one moment of the past being added successively. This reply leaves much to be desired, however, because time moves forward, and not backward. No moment of the past is merely potential; they have all been actualized.

This is one of the few issues in which I disagree with the Angelic Doctor.
Click to expand...
Are you sure this is the case? Because I have heard William Lane Craig explain that this cannot be the case because the potential will not form a set.

Also, does the prime mover argument break down with current big bang cosmology? As far as I know it doesn’t – I just know that you are an expert on the argument and I wanted to get your opinion.
 
Thanks for the kind words, but I’m a student just like everyone else. 🙂
40.png
Matthias123:
Are you sure this is the case? Because I have heard William Lane Craig explain that this cannot be the case because the potential will not form a set.
Click to expand...
Craig actually made the same reply to Thomas’ objection that I did. Thomas’ reasoning was that we could conceptualize backward in time with infinity as a limit: -1, -2, -3 . . . -n. This would act as a potential infinite, with moments of the past being created. What Craig points out is that such a model doesn’t take into account that past time isn’t merely potential, since each moment of past time has been traversed, e.g., has been actualized.

Notice that this isn’t the same as the present being added to the past. It is in this latter case that the past can be added to, but we cannot do the former. That would be like hearing a gun shot, then adding the event of the trigger-pull so that the trigger-pull precedes the gun shot in time.
Also, does the prime mover argument break down with current big bang cosmology? As far as I know it doesn’t
Click to expand...
I’d say your assessment is correct. Whether the universe began to exist or not doesn’t have any effect on whether the motion of the universe is grounded in a sustaining First Mover. This is one of the reasons I’m so partial to the First Way.
 
punkforchrist said:
Thanks for the kind words, but I’m a student just like everyone else. 🙂

Craig actually made the same reply to Thomas’ objection that I did. Thomas’ reasoning was that we could conceptualize backward in time with infinity as a limit: -1, -2, -3 . . . -n. This would act as a potential infinite, with moments of the past being created. What Craig points out is that such a model doesn’t take into account that past time isn’t merely potential, since each moment of past time has been traversed, e.g., has been actualized.

Notice that this isn’t the same as the present being added to the past. It is in this latter case that the past can be added to, but we cannot do the former. That would be like hearing a gun shot, then adding the event of the trigger-pull so that the trigger-pull precedes the gun shot in time.

I’d say your assessment is correct. Whether the universe began to exist or not doesn’t have any effect on whether the motion of the universe is grounded in a sustaining First Mover. This is one of the reasons I’m so partial to the First Way.
Click to expand...
Partial? Isn’t it an advantage for it to not depend on the contigency of the universe?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top