Thomas was not convinced the creation of the universe was a matter of Faith.empther;11100240]From Linus2nd:
Thomas was not convinced the creation of the universe in time was strictly a matter of Faith. He merely said it could not be scientifically demonstrated:
?? You follow with a quote which contradicts what you just said!!!
Q 46 Art 2: “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.”
That is, the universe itself cannot prove or disprove its eternity because all we can look at is the universe at the present time.
This does not mean Aquinas thought an eternal universe was possible. He didn’t.
And I never said he did. I said he held it as a matter of Faith that the universe was created in time. He simply designed his proofs so they would be valid either way.
Q 46 Art 1: “I answer that, Nothing except God can be eternal.”
You omitted the rest of the quote, " Nothing except God can be eternal. And this statement is far from impossible to uphold: ." Thomas is speaking from faith here he is not offering a philosophical demonstration.;
And this is logically derived from what he said earlier in ST when he discussed the Five Ways: “we can’t go back to infinity”
Q 46, Art 2 " . 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.
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. "
It is an Article of Faith that God created the universe in time. The truth of this article cannot be demonstrated. This is what Thomas taught.
This is impossible. In the Five Ways, Aquinas’s argument is “we can’t go back to infinity, therefore …”
All I can tell you is that all competent commentators of Thomas agree that what I said is true. Heri Renard, a classic commentator, says that " …This proof does not reject the possibility of a world existing from eternity; it transcends this possibility, because it is an existential proof…" ( Philosophy of God, pg 35). Thomas Gilby in his translation of S.T., Part 1, Ques 2-11, comments that, “…What we should not look for is the first mover within a series of things each giving and receiving the same sort of movement…In the meantime let us refer to the question of a series of items stretching endlessly backwards…( even here we must stop )…at a first mover of the world in process of change…the concept of an infinite series is admissible…So in the prima via he is not attempting to follow chain of movers-in-motion to the end. The first mover he arrives at is not number one of the series, but outside it…the first cause is seen to be immediately operative in every effect…” ( Blackfriars translation of the S.T., Appendix 6, The First Way, pg 193,194)
Linus2nd
