D
Dr.Bonnette
Guest
Dear Dameedna,
You write: “The problem is, what if the universe is not finite? What if it is in fact infinite?”
The claim of naturalism has always been that Nature simply IS, or explains itself.
As I have said, the point of any valid proof for God is to show that the finite world does not explain itself, but has need of a transcendent Cause.
Part of the problem in understanding all this is the meaning of the term, “infinite.” “Infinite” basically means “not finite” or “not measurable” – meaning not limited (from the Latin, “finis”).
But a thing can be “not limited” in many different respects. It may, for example, mean without beginning, or without end, or without either beginning or end – in temporal duration. It may mean, as in the case of a simple ring, having no point of beginning or end. It may mean spatially without boundaries. Or, any other formal aspect of a thing which has no limit.
Hypothetically, the Universe could be without temporal beginning, and, in that sense, be infinite in duration. Or, it could be without boundaries spatially… On the other hand, the Universe appears finite spatially, since we can give a measurement of its ever-expanding size. Or, the Cosmos might be considered infinite if the number of celestial bodies is without measure.
But all these meanings of “infinite,” when applied to the Universe are understood in respect to some particular formal aspect. Conversely, the concept of “Infinite Being,” as applied to the traditional notion of God means “that which contains every possible aspect or perfection of reality.” God is infinite in EVERY respect, not merely some particular aspect.
Moreover, the physical Universe is itself limited inherently by reason of being a physical entity (or composed of myriad physical entities). Now every physical entity expresses itself as extended in, and thereby limited to, definite co-ordinates of space and time (or space-time for Einsteinians). Hence, even in physical dimensions, it is finite. Thus, while the Cosmos might be infinite in temporal duration, it would still not be the Infinite Being, but rather a myriad of finite beings infinite in duration or infinite in number.
The proofs for God’s existence aim at these very limitations found in finite beings, and offer arguments to show that their limited natures – which are subject to change and varying perfection and coming into being and out of being and ordered to certain specific outcomes – all demand as a sole adequate explanation something which transcends (goes beyond) the limited horizon of the finite Universe itself.
Each of St. Thomas’ Five Ways starts with some limited aspect of being or beings, and shows that that phenomena demands an explanation beyond themselves. In seeking that explanation we discover that no other limited being or beings can provide an adequate total explanation for them, and that we must ultimately come to a First Unmoved Mover or Uncaused Cause or Necessary Being, and so forth, in order to find an adequate explanation.
St. Thomas is well aware of the need to prove Nature inadequate unto itself. In objection 2, of the Five Ways (S.T. I, 2, 3, ob. 2), he entertains the claim that "…all natural things can be reduced to one principle, which is nature…" In the reply to that same objection, he writes: “Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must be traceed back to God as to its first cause. …for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as has been shown.”
Again, I am not offering the actual proofs here, but simply showing why Nature or the Universe itself is not the same thing as the Infinite Being which is God.
You write: “The problem is, what if the universe is not finite? What if it is in fact infinite?”
The claim of naturalism has always been that Nature simply IS, or explains itself.
As I have said, the point of any valid proof for God is to show that the finite world does not explain itself, but has need of a transcendent Cause.
Part of the problem in understanding all this is the meaning of the term, “infinite.” “Infinite” basically means “not finite” or “not measurable” – meaning not limited (from the Latin, “finis”).
But a thing can be “not limited” in many different respects. It may, for example, mean without beginning, or without end, or without either beginning or end – in temporal duration. It may mean, as in the case of a simple ring, having no point of beginning or end. It may mean spatially without boundaries. Or, any other formal aspect of a thing which has no limit.
Hypothetically, the Universe could be without temporal beginning, and, in that sense, be infinite in duration. Or, it could be without boundaries spatially… On the other hand, the Universe appears finite spatially, since we can give a measurement of its ever-expanding size. Or, the Cosmos might be considered infinite if the number of celestial bodies is without measure.
But all these meanings of “infinite,” when applied to the Universe are understood in respect to some particular formal aspect. Conversely, the concept of “Infinite Being,” as applied to the traditional notion of God means “that which contains every possible aspect or perfection of reality.” God is infinite in EVERY respect, not merely some particular aspect.
Moreover, the physical Universe is itself limited inherently by reason of being a physical entity (or composed of myriad physical entities). Now every physical entity expresses itself as extended in, and thereby limited to, definite co-ordinates of space and time (or space-time for Einsteinians). Hence, even in physical dimensions, it is finite. Thus, while the Cosmos might be infinite in temporal duration, it would still not be the Infinite Being, but rather a myriad of finite beings infinite in duration or infinite in number.
The proofs for God’s existence aim at these very limitations found in finite beings, and offer arguments to show that their limited natures – which are subject to change and varying perfection and coming into being and out of being and ordered to certain specific outcomes – all demand as a sole adequate explanation something which transcends (goes beyond) the limited horizon of the finite Universe itself.
Each of St. Thomas’ Five Ways starts with some limited aspect of being or beings, and shows that that phenomena demands an explanation beyond themselves. In seeking that explanation we discover that no other limited being or beings can provide an adequate total explanation for them, and that we must ultimately come to a First Unmoved Mover or Uncaused Cause or Necessary Being, and so forth, in order to find an adequate explanation.
St. Thomas is well aware of the need to prove Nature inadequate unto itself. In objection 2, of the Five Ways (S.T. I, 2, 3, ob. 2), he entertains the claim that "…all natural things can be reduced to one principle, which is nature…" In the reply to that same objection, he writes: “Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must be traceed back to God as to its first cause. …for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as has been shown.”
Again, I am not offering the actual proofs here, but simply showing why Nature or the Universe itself is not the same thing as the Infinite Being which is God.