Finite past proves God exists

[Katholish]

Katholish,

To anybody who reads Question 46, Article 1
it should be crystal clear that Aquinas is saying the universe did not exist from eternity, but it had a beginning.

I said as much. The question is how we know that. Whether it is from reason alone or from revelation. That the universe had a beginning in time is not in question.

It’'s the basis of this thread’s point.

Actually, the basis of this thread is to take the premise that the universe had a beginning in time and use that to prove God’s existence. Yes God exists. Yes the universe had a beginning in time. St. Thomas, however, makes it clear that the universe’s beginning in time cannot be used to prove God’s existence because we could not know that the universe had a beginning in time without accepting God’s revelation as a premise.

This is at least the third time I’ve seen you make conclusions that are obviously wrong or negligent of critical pieces of the subject.
At this point I have to be suspicious about motive.

Try not to get mad, I think you are merely misunderstanding what my points are. That isn’t to say that we agree on everything, because we do not. The question is whether or not we can know that the world is not eternal without revelation. Aristotle and St. Thomas clearly say no. I am trying to support that claim.

 

[empther]

Katholish,

To anybody who reads Question 46, Article 1
it should be crystal clear that Aquinas is saying the universe did not exist from eternity, but it had a beginning.

I said as much. The question is how we know that. Whether it is from reason alone or from revelation. That the universe had a beginning in time is not in question

Apparently it can be known by reason alone, because we can demonstrate God’s existence by reason, although nobody can see God.

In Q 2 A 2
newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article2
Aquinas says God’s existence can be demonstrated by reason.

He then proceeds to do so in article 3. ( same link as for A 2 )

But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

In the tradition of Plato and Aristotle who used a single word to represent many things,
for example “music” referred to every kind of cultural pursuit,
Aquinas uses the word “motion” not just to refer to the motion of a thrown ball or arrow, but to all change. Or would you have him repeat Q 1 A3 for thrown objects, running animals, melting ice, plant growth, rising and setting suns, and every other kind of change?

Aquinas says universal activity, the changes that occur in nature, in other words everything that happens cannot go back to infinity. It is not necessary to explain it. It’s axiomatic. If you know the definition of the terms you understand the statement.

So the basic idea of this thread is confirmed by Aquinas: the impossibility of motion, change, activity, whatever you want to call it,
going back to infinity,
proves by reasoned demonstration that God exists, although it is not self-evident that God exists because we can’t see him.
　
In your Q 46 A2 Aquinas writes:** newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself.**
So we cannot demonstrate the age of the world by just seeing it
which is one thing

but we can know the world couldn’t have existed from infinity because of the impossibility of infinite motion ( etc )
which is another thing.

Well, Aquinas died at age 50 before finishing the Summa. Maybe if he had lived to age 80 he might have cleaned it up. What do you expect? He didn’t have a computer.

 

[kama3]

It is like scientists, they have ascribed the name “dark matter” to a phenomenon they don’t fully understand. Just giving it a name doesn’t help them understand or measure it, all it does is make talking about it easier.

Errr… We can measure dark matter. Not directly of course, but amount of dark matter can be inferred from other measurements. So although we don’t know what dark matter is, we can quantify it.

 

[kama3]

In your Q 46 A2 Aquinas writes:** newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself.**
So we cannot demonstrate the age of the world by just seeing it

And cosmology does just that. Galaxy observation => spectral lines => redshift => Hubble constant => age of Universe.

I just don’t see any point in trying to mix Aquinas and modern cosmology. Aquinas was a great philospher, but he was a 13th century philosopher, firmly locked in a 13th century worldview.

 

[empther]

Errr… We can measure dark matter. Not directly of course, but amount of dark matter can be inferred from other measurements. So although we don’t know what dark matter is, we can quantify it.

Well, this is a first !
I have an interest in common with an atheist !

My novel is about a girl who gets control of a thing made out of dark matter…:extrahappy:

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

The universe could not have existed through an infinite past. Therefore, God had to start it.

Did any event happen an infinitely long time ago? Obviously not.

Now the atheists will try to talk about “non-linear time” or “imaginary time” or some nonsense like that. What they can’t do is say how this takes the place of the linear time we experience. In fact it’s nonsense.

The atheists will try to say there was some other cause of the universe. But another cause would in fact be part of the universe. Perhaps before the Big Bang there was something else. What? We can’t imagine. And before that there may have been something else. And so on. But we can’t go back to infinity. At some point we must arrive at a time when there was absolutely no universe in whatever form we want to think of it.

Therefore, there had to be a God to start it all.

Notice that Aquinas’s Summa Theologica,
after discussing the nature of theology and why it’s worth studying,
BEGINS BY DISCUSSING GOD’S EXISTENCE.

sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum005.htm

**Later, **
he discusses other subjects such as the nature of evil and all those things.

But the athesits jump over the question of God’s existence and try to confuse you with tons and tons of deceiving verbiage about the other issues such as the existence of evil, and things like that that understandably bother people.

We should follow Aquinas’s example. First determine if God exists. Then work out the later problems later.

There had to be a God to start it all because a universe composed totally of “inanimate” substance could not possibly create itself. Energy and matter do not have the intelligence to create itself out of nothing. Even the big bangs singularity theory does not explain this. A singularity cannot create itself either. Neither does an infinite vacuum of space account for any of this. Only an intelligent being could have set all of this in motion.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Errr… We can measure dark matter. Not directly of course, but amount of dark matter can be inferred from other measurements. So although we don’t know what dark matter is, we can quantify it.

Perhaps I should have said detect then, but I believe you understand my point.

 

[Biblepoe]

The universe could not have existed through an infinite past. Therefore, God had to start it.

This is a non-sequitur. Even if you somehow established that something outside the universe created the universe, you still have all of your work in front of you to demonstrate that this thing is a god.

Now the atheists will try to talk about . . .]

Actually, most atheists I know are willing to say, “We don’t know what caused the universe exists, but we don’t have evidence that a disembodied intelligence created the universe.”

Perhaps before the Big Bang there was something else. What? We can’t imagine.

One’s inability to think of alternative hypotheses is not validation of the one hypothesis that a disembodied intelligence created the universe.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

This is a non-sequitur. Even if you somehow established that something outside the universe created the universe, you still have all of your work in front of you to demonstrate that this thing is a god.

Indeed. Because of all the connotations that “god” carries, I suggest we call the “prime mover” PM until it is established that the PM must be a god (or the God.)

 

[Katholish]

Apparently it can be known by reason alone, because we can demonstrate God’s existence by reason, although nobody can see God.

In Q 2 A 2
newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article2
Aquinas says God’s existence can be demonstrated by reason.

He then proceeds to do so in article 3. ( same link as for A 2 )

The existence of God is demonstrable by reason. That is a different issue. Now, it seems that you are trying to use Aquinas’s First Proof, that from Motion, and apply it to the question of the eternity of the universe. I can see why such an attempt would seem logical, but I think that there is an aspect of St. Thomas’s argument from motion (and incidentally also his second proof from causality which I mentioned in my first post) which you are missing. Thomas is defining motion as the progression from potency to act. He is not defining motion strictly in physical terms. For St. Thomas, it is possible to create a closed system which is infinite.

I am going to offer an analogy. Imagine the surface of a soccer ball, a normal one composed of black pentagons and white hexagons bound together to make a sphere. Normally it would be correct to say that when making a soccer ball, you have to start with one piece, maybe a white hexagon, onto which you sew another piece, and so forth. Each piece is added to another one. When looking at the whole finished soccer ball, it would be possible to argue since the ball is made by adding each piece to another piece, that process could not have gone in infinitely and there must have been one piece that was the original piece which was not attached to anything – the “unattached attacher” if you will. Normally that would be valid. However, God has the power to bring the soccer ball into existence all at once, whole and entire. It wouldn’t have to have a physical starting point or original piece.

I wanted to use the example of something spherical because the surface of a sphere (or indeed any simple circle, has an infinity within it. It is like a closed system infinity. St. Thomas is arguing that God could have created the world the same way he could make a soccer ball, he can be the cause of a closed system infinity without that infinity needing an origin point. St. Thomas’s proof for the existence of God does not really on their having been a beginning in time. Even if the world were eternal (which it is not), St. Thomas’s proof would still be valid. That is true of the proof form motion and also the proof from causality. Both are actually much stronger proofs than people give them credit for.

So the basic idea of this thread is confirmed by Aquinas: the impossibility of motion, change, activity, whatever you want to call it, going back to infinity, proves by reasoned demonstration that God exists, although it is not self-evident that God exists because we can’t see him.
　
In your Q 46 A2 Aquinas writes:** newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself.**
So we cannot demonstrate the age of the world by just seeing it
which is one thing

but we can know the world couldn’t have existed from infinity because of the impossibility of infinite motion ( etc )
which is another thing.

If something is self-evident, it does not require demonstration. In fact, demonstration would not even be possible. St. Thomas says that the existence of God is not self-evident, but is demonstrable through reason. On this we agree.

We also agree that newness of the earth is not self-evident. You, however, claim that the newness of the earth is demonstrable through reason. I certainly cannot dogmatically deny this, but St. Thomas does disagree, explicitly saying in simple terms that the newness of the earth is not demonstrable. When Thomas says, “on the part of the world itself.” He means from creation itself, which includes reason. He says that God’s existence is demontrable on the part of the world itself. This has nothing to do with “seeing” and should not be confused with being self-evident.

Well, Aquinas died at age 50 before finishing the Summa. Maybe if he had lived to age 80 he might have cleaned it up. What do you expect? He didn’t have a computer.

Hey, you are perfectly free to disagree with St. Thomas on this one. He did not have access to our modern understanding of Physics, and perhaps that would have changed his mind. This isn’t a question of the Church’s doctrine, and it is certainly not a matter the Church has tried to settle definitively (nor do I think she ever will). I tend to think that St. Thomas might be right on this, and I have not seen an argument so far that would convince me that the newness of the earth is demonstrable from reason alone.

 

[empther]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biblepoe forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
This is a non-sequitur. Even if you somehow established that something outside the universe created the universe, you still have all of your work in front of you to demonstrate that this thing is a god.

Granted that the universe could not have existed for ever but had a start…
The first cause of the universe must belong to one of two classes:
Class one: a natural thing
Class two: a supernatural thing

But it is impossible that a natural thing could be the cause of the universe without itself being part of the universe! Something may have caused the universe in the form we see it now. But this natuiral ‘something’ would have been the universe before that which we see now. You can’t go back to infinity.

Therefore, the first cause has to be supernatural.

 

[empther]

katholish wrote:

St. Thomas is arguing that God could have created the world the same way he could make a soccer ball, he can be the cause of a closed system infinity without that infinity needing an origin point. St. Thomas’s proof for the existence of God does not really on their having been a beginning in time. Even if the world were eternal (which it is not), St. Thomas’s proof would still be valid. That is true of the proof form motion and also the proof from causality. Both are actually much stronger proofs than people give them credit for.

I can imagine God created a solid ball. This ball would have absolutely nothing going on inside of it. No electrons spinning around nuclei. No waves of heat or other forms of energy going through it. No spinning of the ball itself. No drifting of the ball through space, because there is no space. In other words, there is nothing going on. No change. And where there is no change there is no time.

Could this ball have existed from eternity? I don’t know.
But could this ball have existed through an infinite past? No. Because, “when” ( sic ) the ball was not changing in any way there “was” ( sic ) no time.

Now at some point in his eternity God may have grown bored with this ball and changed it into the universe. But then that would be the beginning of time. It happened a finite time ago.

---

I will now throw a monkey wrench into the machinery. :bigyikes: Atheists do it all the time. I claim the same privilege.

I just said I didn’t know whether such an absolutely nothing going on ball could exist eternally. But I’m thinking it can’t.
Doesn’t Aquinas say something could exist eternally only if it is a necessary being?
If the ball is a necessary being, then did God have no choice about creating it?
Doesn’t a necessary being also have to have intinity of existence, omnipotence and all the rest that we say of God?
Wouldn’t this necessary ball still exist "somewhere: besides the universe?
Would this necessary ball be pure actuality and have no potentiality so that not even God could change it?

If you’re looking for a subject for a doctoral thesis,
here it is !

 

[Biblepoe]

Granted that the universe could not have existed for ever but had a start…

That’s a very important if. For all we know, a previous universe may have started this universe as part of a chain of universes.

Granted that the universe could not have existed for ever but had a start…
The first cause of the universe must belong to one of two classes:
Class one: a natural thing
Class two: a supernatural thing

It’s either natural or it’s not. If by “supernatural” you mean “not natural”, than this would be a true dichotomy. Otherwise, it may be a false dichotomy.

But it is impossible that a natural thing could be the cause of the universe without itself being part of the universe!

But a hypothetical “supernatural” thing doesn’t have this very same problem?! It seems you want to say that a natural thing cannot be the cause of its own existence, yet a supernatural thing can. This is special pleading. Don’t expect this to impress anyone who doesn’t already believe that a god exists.

All of this cosmological stuff boils down to, “We don’t know.”

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Granted that the universe could not have existed for ever but had a start…
The first cause of the universe must belong to one of two classes:
Class one: a natural thing
Class two: a supernatural thing

But it is impossible that a natural thing could be the cause of the universe without itself being part of the universe! Something may have caused the universe in the form we see it now. But this natuiral ‘something’ would have been the universe before that which we see now. You can’t go back to infinity.

Therefore, the first cause has to be supernatural.

Only if you define supernatural as “not part of this universe.” I don’t believe that is a sufficient definition. For example, I propose that the PM is random chance. I.e. there has always existed an incredibly small chance that something will spring into existence. Since this chance always exists, incredibly improbable events do eventually happen, including spontaneous ordering events like the big bang. Therefore, we can say that our observable universe is simply something which happens from time to time.

Would you say that this chance is a part of our universe? No, I don’t believe that is the case. Would you say that it is supernatural? No, I don’t think it could be described that way either.

 

[empther]

Another atheist rears its head:

Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Granted that the universe could not have existed for ever but had a start…

Biblepoe replied:
That’s a very important if. For all we know, a previous universe may have started this universe as part of a chain of universes.

Un hunh!

Can this chain of universes go back to infinity? No.

That’s the basic idea of this thread.

 

[empther]

Another atheist’s impossible supposition:

Only if you define supernatural as “not part of this universe.” I don’t believe that is a sufficient definition. For example, I propose that the PM is random chance. I.e. there has always existed an incredibly small chance that something will spring into existence.

Chance events only happen to something that exists.
There is no possibility that something will spring into existence from absolutely nothing.
There is no ‘from’.
You can’t get there from here.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Chance events only happen to something that exists.
There is no possibility that something will spring into existence from absolutely nothing.

Prove it.

 

[empther]

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Chance events only happen to something that exists.
There is no possibility that something will spring into existence from absolutely nothing.

Prove it.

Ask anybody who can think.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

There is no possibility that something will spring into existence from absolutely nothing.
There is no ‘from’.
You can’t get there from here.

But that’s just the thing. I claim that the possibility exists, therefore something (i.e. the possibility) exists; it is very similar to your claim God always existed.

 

[empther]

Another atheist’s deception: :banghead: :takethat:

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
There is no possibility that something will spring into existence from absolutely nothing.
There is no ‘from’.
You can’t get there from here.

But that’s just the thing. I claim that the possibility exists, therefore something (i.e. the possibility) exists; it is very similar to your claim God always existed.

God did not always exist. He is outside of time and eternal.

This has been said countless times on these forums.

---

Friends, you must wonder how I can put up with these clowns.
I learned something from Bishop Sheen.

One day, a leper visited Sheen in his New York office. New drugs had come on line just in time to save the man’s life, but he was permanently disfigured. Sheen counseled him.

The next person who came in was a rich New York socialite who was there for religious instruction. She told Sheen what he said on his television program wouldn’t do with her. She wanted really intellectual religious instruction.

Sheen said, “Do you know the last person who sat in that chair was a leper?”

The woman ran out of the office.

Bishop Sheen couldn’t waste his valuable time with somebody like that.