Eternalism Destroys Thomistic Metaphysics

[Neithan]

That’s impossible to define comprehensively without imaginative speculation, but at least we can know it is eternally out of nothing (not out of any necessity). As for eternity of creation, Aquinas answered that best in his argument from change.

But you’re still begging the question I notice: "If God was … "

 

[STT]

That’s impossible to define comprehensively without imaginative speculation, but at least we can know it is eternally out of nothing (not out of any necessity).

This I agree. This is not answering my question though? Again. If the act of creation is an eternal act out of nothing then there must be a point at which only God exists.

As for eternity of creation, Aquinas answered that best in his argument from change.

Block universe does not change.

 

[Neithan]

I did answer but you don’t accept it and repeat the same question assuming that God is in time. God creates out of nothing as pure act; not “one act”’ but “all at once” because there is no measure of change in eternity.

Does the block universe necessarily exist? Change is one way of demonstrating contingency, but not the only way.

We’re going back and forth on this. If you want to start a new thread, that’s probably better. But communication breakdown is pretty common on the Internet, especially with philosophical debates.

 

[STT]

I did answer but you don’t accept it and repeat the same question assuming that God is in time. God creates out of nothing as pure act; not “one act”’ but “all at once” because there is no measure of change in eternity.

Does the block universe necessarily exist? Change is one way of demonstrating contingency, but not the only way.

We’re going back and forth on this. If you want to start a new thread, that’s probably better. But communication breakdown is pretty common on the Internet, especially with philosophical debates.

I am afraid that you did not take my point. You did not offer a proper definition for act of creation from God’s perspective yet. If you wish we can stop the discussion.

Moreover, I think we can agree that his argument from change fails.

 

[Neithan]

No, we definitely do not agree. I think I got your point (dilemma: God is either subject to time or creation is eternal), and you’re assuming some kind of answer before asking, then rejecting any answer that doesn’t fit the assumption.