Something an atheist said which made me think

[zro_x]

Or another way - if a being ‘outside of time’ can look at the timeline and see only one possible narrative, like the film reel, then that means that only that one narrative is possible and we have determinism (‘future events’, as seen by me, are determined). If he/she/it sees a branching tree of possible timelines, like the adventure game book, we have a non-deterministic universe.

All right, let’s take your tree analogy. God can see the whole tree of possibilities, and* you * have some say in which branch become actualized. While there are many different possible branches, there is only one branch that actually happens, and God knows which one. The tree from the trunk to the end of this actual branch is the movie reel I was talking about.

you have the choice to drink a latte tomorrow. So there are two branches here: one where you do decide to drink the latte and one where you don’t. The choice is completely yours, but from our perspective, God watches you make that decision before you actually make it.

 

[empther]

Originally Posted by empther
Or does he claim the universe has always existed through an infinite past? No. He can’t claim that. He’d have to be insane.

That’s the claim that Aristotle made. In fact, Aquinas also deferred to the possibility that it was true…

We’ve already been over this a couple of times in other threads, and I showed that Aquinas rejected the idea of a universe existing in an infinite past in his short treatise On the Eternity of the World. How many times do we have to go over this?

 

[Gorgias]

We’ve already been over this a couple of times in other threads

Hmm… perhaps you have a better memory than I, since I don’t recall us discussing this particular issue.

, and I showed that Aquinas rejected the idea of a universe existing in an infinite past in his short treatise On the Eternity of the World.

That would be quite the trick, as Aquinas, in precisely this work, concludes, “Thus it is clear that there is no contradiction in saying that something made by God has always existed.”

How many times do we have to go over this?

Perhaps, as it were, one more time?

 

[empther]

Quote:
, and I showed that Aquinas rejected the idea of a universe existing in an infinite past in his short treatise On the Eternity of the World.

That would be quite the trick, as Aquinas, in precisely this work, concludes, “Thus it is clear that there is no contradiction in saying that something made by God has always existed.”

Ah, me! Why do I even bother wasting my time on this forum?

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/aquinas-eternity.asp

Thomas Aquinas:
On The Eternity of the World

I am numbering the paragraphs and giving the first words of each paragraph, except for giving the critical paragraphs in toto:

**No, 1 - ** Let us assume, in accordance with the Catholic faith,

**No, 2 - ** If it be impossible that something caused by God has always existed, it will be so either because God could not .

**No, 3 - ** If such a thing cannot be made, the impossibility will arise for one of two reasons: either because of an absence of a passive potentiality or because of some contradiction between the ideas involved.

**No, 4 - ** In regard to the second, someone may hold that something that has

**No, 5 - ** We thus ought to determine whether there is any contradiction between these two ideas, namely, to be made by God and to have always existed.

**No, 6 - ** That they are not contradictory can be shown as follows.

**No, 7 - ** First, we should show that it is not necessary that an agent cause, in

**No, 8 - ** For, at whatever instant a thing exists, at that instant it can begin to act,

**No, 9 - ** Nor can the conclusion be avoided by saying that God is an

**No, 10 - ** Further, a cause that produces the whole substance

**No, 11 - ** Further, if, granted a cause, its effect does not immediately exist as well,

**No, 12 - ** Further, the will of the voluntary agent in no way diminishes his power, and this is

No, 13 - **** It remains to be seen, then, whether there is a contradiction in saying that something made has always existed, on the grounds that it may be necessary that its non-being precede it in time**,

**No, 14 - ** Further, let us even suppose that the preposition “out of” imports some affirmative order of non-being to being, as if the proposition that the creature is made out of nothing meant that the creature is made after nothing. Then this expression “after” certainly implies order, but order is of two kinds: order of time and order of nature. If, therefore, the proper and the particular does not follow from the common and the universal, it will not necessarily follow that, because the creature is made after nothing, non-being is temporally prior to the being of the creature. Rather, it suffices that non-being be prior to being by nature. Now, whatever naturally pertains to something in itself is prior to what that thing only receives from another. A creature does not have being, however, except from another, for, considered in itself, every creature is nothing, and thus, with respect to the creature, non-being is prior to being by nature. Nor does it follow from the creature’s always having existed that its being and non-being are ever simultaneous, as if the creature always existed but at some time nothing existed, for the priority is not one of time. Rather, the argument merely requires that the nature of the creature is such that, if the creature were left to itself, it would be nothing. For example, if we should say that the air has always been illuminated by the sun, it would be right to say that the air has always been made lucid by the sun. Thus, since anything that comes to be such-and-such comes to be such-and-such from being not such-and-such, we say that the air is made lucid from being non-lucid, or opaque, not because the air was once non-lucid or opaque, but because the air would be opaque if the sun did not illuminate it. This is clearly the case with the stars and those celestial bodies that are always illuminated by the sun.

**No, 15 - ** Thus it is clear that there is no contradiction in saying that something made by God has always existed.

**No, 16 - ** How remarkable it would be that even the most noble of philosophers failed to see a contradiction in the idea that something made by God has always existed.

**No, 17 - ** Still, since certain authorities seem to argue on the side of such men, we ought to show that they base themselves on a weak foundation. Damascene says (I De Fide Orthodoxa cap. 8), “What is made out of nothing is by nature not such that it is coeternal to what has no causal principle and always exists.” [PG 94, 814B] Likewise, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacramentis I-1 cap. 1), “The ineffable omnipotent power could not have anything coeternal beyond itself that would help it in making.” [PL 176, 187B]
( continued in next post )

 

[empther]

**No, 18 - ** But the position of these and similar authorities is made clear by Boethius, who says (V De Consolatione prosa 6), “When some people hear that Plato thought this world neither had a beginning in time nor will ever have an end, they mistakenly conclude that the created world is coeternal with the Creator. However, to be led through the endless life Plato attributes to the world is one thing; to embrace simultaneously the whole presence of endless life is quite another, and it is this latter that is proper to the divine mind.” [PL 63, 859B] Thus it does not follow, as some people object, that a creature, even if it had always existed, would be equal to God in duration. For, if “eternal” be understood in this sense, nothing can in any way be coeternal with God, for nothing but God is immutable. As Augustine says (XII De Civitate Dei cap. 15), [10]] “Time, since it passes away by its mutability, cannot be coeternal with immutable eternity. Thus, even if the immortality of the angels does not pass away in time (it is neither past, as if it did not exist now; nor is it future, as if it did not yet exist), nevertheless, the angels’ motions, by which moments of time are carried along from the future into the past, pass away. Therefore, angels cannot be coeternal with the Creator, in whose motion there is nothing which has been that is not now, nor anything which will later be that is not already.” [PL 41, 364-365] Likewise, Augustine says (VIII Super Genesis ad Litteram cap. 23), “Since the nature of the Trinity is wholly unchangeable, it is eternal in such a way that nothing can be coeternal with it,” [PL 34, 389] and he uses words to the same effect in XI Confessionum as well. [11]]

**No, 19 - ** Those who try to prove that the world could not have always existed even

**No, 20 - ** There are other arguments adduced as well, but I refrain from answering them at present, either because they have been suitably answered elsewhere, or because they are so weak that their very weakness lends probability to the opposing view.

 

[Gorgias]

Ah, me! Why do I even bother wasting my time on this forum?

Good question. Maybe you don’t have any better way to waste your time?

Thomas Aquinas:
On The Eternity of the World

Umm… well… thanks? For reproducing the text of the document here…?

Yet, I don’t see how this helps your case, since you’re demonstrating that Aquinas wrote:

We thus ought to determine whether there is any contradiction between these two ideas, namely, to be made by God and to have always existed. …

That they are not contradictory can be shown as follows. …

Thus it is clear that there is no contradiction in saying that something made by God has always existed.

To recap: Aquinas asks whether it’s contradictory that the universe, created by God, might have always existed. His answer? “There is no contradiction.” In other words, it may be said, as a possibility, that the universe always existed.

I’m not certain how you think that you’ve made your case, since the text plainly contradicts your assertion that “Aquinas rejected the idea of a universe existing in an infinite past.”

Since you highlighted the quote from Boethius in your post, I can only assume that you seem to think that we’re talking about the claim that the universe is “coeternal with God.” However, if you read the quote, you’ll see that Aquinas is identifying this as a mistaken notion: that is, those who hear “the world neither had a beginning in time nor will have an end” are in error when they think that this means that the “created world is coeternal with God.” You made the first claim in your earlier post, not that “Aquinas rejected the claim that the universe is co-eternal with God.” Therefore, unless you’re attempting to demonstrate that you, too, hold the mistaken notion that Boethius pointed out, you haven’t proven your case; as it were, you’ve managed to thoroughly disprove your own assertion!

 

[empther]

---

All right.
Notice that in paragraph 13, Aquinas plays the devil’s advocate and introduces the idea that something could have the potential to be actualized. That is, something was always there to be changed, or created “out of” a potential thing, so that “out of nothing” means “form something”.

In chapter 14, Aquinas continues being the devil’s advocate for this idea.

In chapter 15, he presents the devil’s advocate conclusion to this idea: Thus it is clear that there is no contradiction in saying that something made by God has always existed.

In chapter 17, Aquinas begins to attack this idea by giving quotations of other philosophers.

In chapter 18, Aquinas pounds the last nail into the coffin of this idea. It’s clear where he stands.

In chapter 20, Aquinas says there are other devil’s advocate ideas that could be discussed but it’s not worth his time.

He threw this treatise together over the weekend in response to somebody’s question he saw on the internet and he didn’t organize it as well as he usually did, such as in the Summa Theologica. In fact, he did a rather poor job. The first line of paragraph 15, “Thus it is clear that there is no contradiction in saying that something made by God has always existed.” is very misleading.
But we can’t blame Aquinas for doing a poor job on this occasion. He wrote an enormous amount of material with nothing but pen and ink ( try writing a hundred good pages with pen and ink, you’ll go crazy) and he died at fifty. Augustine live to seventy-five and had a staff to help him.

 

[empther]

You posted something while I was writing my explanation of what Aquinas was doing.

Since you highlighted the quote from Boethius in your post, I can only assume that you seem to think that we’re talking about the claim that the universe is “coeternal with God.” However, if you read the quote, you’ll see that Aquinas is identifying this as a mistaken notion: that is, those who hear “the world neither had a beginning in time nor will have an end” are in error when they think that this means that the “created world is coeternal with God.” You made the first claim in your earlier post, not that “Aquinas rejected the claim that the universe is co-eternal with God.” Therefore, unless you’re attempting to demonstrate that you, too, hold the mistaken notion that Boethius pointed out, you haven’t proven your case; as it were, you’ve managed to thoroughly disprove your own assertion!

Are you talking about paragraph 18 ?

I didn’t highlight the Boethius quote, and anyways, Boethius is opposing the idea that the universe could have always existed, or existed through an infinite past, or be co-eternal with God, or is eternal, or in any way that it can be expressed, the universe did not begin.
So Aquinas uses the Boethius quote to begin paragraph 18 in which he pounds the last nail in the coffin of this idea and all similar ideas.

 

[Gorgias]

You posted something while I was writing my explanation of what Aquinas was doing.

Whoops! I waited a bit, to see if you’d post anything additional. Let me take a look at what you’re saying, then…!

 

[sw85]

i enjoy debating with atheists on forums and youtube. and most of the time i find them easy to handle. but, every now and then i do encounter a challenge. last weekend was one of those times. i was wondering what you guys on here would have said to him.

so i used the cosmological argument as i always do in those debates, but he said that the reason the cosmological argument fails is because if God is outside of time or (timeless) then how could he have made the decision to create the universe, since a decision takes time. i found myself in a tough spot.
so im just wondering, what should have i responded? this has actually been nagging me for this past week , because he did have a point, how can God make decisions, if he is outside of time? how can he make decisions to act?

Eternity subsumes time, not the other way around.

 

[Gorgias]

Notice that in paragraph 13, Aquinas plays the devil’s advocate and introduces the idea that something could have the potential to be actualized.

Actually, that’s not what’s going on here. It’s not that, beginning with “It remains to be seen”, Aquinas starts playing the devil’s advocate. Rather, he’s continuing the project that he began at the start of the document and which he explicitly announced with “We thus ought to determine” (your #5). From the beginning of the document, he rules out any arguments that would force him to abandon the effort before he’s even begun. Having disposed of these arguments, then, he begins (in your #5) to address directly the case he wants to make. It’s not a “devil’s advocate” argument – it’s his argument.

In chapter 15, he presents the devil’s advocate conclusion to this idea: Thus it is clear that there is no contradiction in saying that something made by God has always existed.

Rather, in “#15”, he concludes his proof: he’s successfully accomplished what he set out to do!

In chapter 17, Aquinas begins to attack this idea by giving quotations of other philosophers.

Actually, no. Aquinas first demonstrates that Augustine had no problem with the notion that there’s no contradiction here (although, he admits, Augustine’s final answer was that an eternal world wasn’t possible). Then, Aquinas notes that “those who so subtly perceive the contradiction” and “certain authorities” argue that there is a contradiction, and therefore, Aquinas decides “to show that they base themselves on a weak foundation.”

You see, it isn’t that Aquinas is proposing his own argument here: he’s destroying his rivals’ arguments against what he’s just proven!

In chapter 18, Aquinas pounds the last nail into the coffin of this idea. It’s clear where he stands.

It’s quite clear! Aquinas asserts that those who would confuse the proposition “this world neither had a beginning in time nor will ever have an end” as meaning that “the created world is coeternal with the Creator” are mistaken: to prove that the latter is a mistaken idea, he draws upon Boethius and Augustine.

In chapter 20, Aquinas says there are other devil’s advocate ideas that could be discussed but it’s not worth his time.

No, he’s saying that there are other arguments that attempt to show a contradiction, but they fail: “those who try to prove that the world could not have always existed even adduce arguments that the philosophers have considered and solved… There are other arguments adduced as well, but… they have been suitably answered elsewhere or… they are so weak that their very weakness lends probability to the opposing view.”

He threw this treatise together over the weekend in response to somebody’s question he saw on the internet and he didn’t organize it as well as he usually did, such as in the Summa Theologica. In fact, he did a rather poor job.

LOL! Cute.

However, you need to understand the context here, so that you realize what Aquinas is up against. In Paris, theologians were attempting to quash the Averroists by attacking Aristotle. One of the propositions of Aristotle that they had in their sights was his notion of an eternal world. (In fact, in the Condemnation of 1270, they managed to get the bishop of Paris to condemn exactly this proposition, as well as a number of others.)

So, Aquinas was between a rock and a hard place: should he defend Aristotle, and risk being labeled a heretic? Or should he defend Scripture, and allow Aristotle to be condemned as false? In the De aeternitati mundi, Aquinas shows his genius: he proves that there is no contradiction in thinking that an eternal world is possible (i.e., he defends Aristotle); yet, he manages to bring this into harmony with Christian teaching “that the world had a beginning in time” (i.e., he avoids heresy). Aquinas’ position, then, is that an eternal world is possible, but cannot be proven or disproven – rather, the answer is found in faith, not in philosophy.

In other words, he really is proving that the ‘eternal world’ notion isn’t self-contradictory.

 

[empther]

Aquinas’ position, then, is that an eternal world is possible, but cannot be proven or disproven – rather, the answer is found in faith, not in philosophy.

In other words, he really is proving that the ‘eternal world’ notion isn’t self-contradictory.

No 1… Aquinas did not make references to Scripture and did not use the word faith.

No 2… from what you say, Aquinas held mutually contraditory beliefs. that an eternal world is possible, but cannot be proven or disproven – rather, the answer is found in faith, not in philosophy. ]

No 3… I reproduced paragraph 17 in toto in my earlier post for a purpose. It is here that Aquinas turns his back on the idea of an eternal world.

No, 17 - Still, since certain authorities seem to argue on the side of such men, we ought to show that they base themselves on a weak foundation. Damascene says (I De Fide Orthodoxa cap. 8), “What is made out of nothing is by nature not such that it is coeternal to what has no causal principle and always exists.” [PG 94, 814B] Likewise, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacramentis I-1 cap. 1), “The ineffable omnipotent power could not have anything coeternal beyond itself that would help it in making.” [PL 176, 187B]

**And in paragraph 18 **:

But the position of these and similar authorities is made clear by Boethius, who says (V De Consolatione prosa 6), “When some people hear that Plato thought this world neither had a beginning in time nor will ever have an end, they mistakenly conclude that the created world is coeternal with the Creator. However, to be led through the endless life Plato attributes to the world is one thing; to embrace simultaneously the whole presence of endless life is quite another, and it is this latter that is proper to the divine mind.” [PL 63, 859B] Thus it does not follow, as some people object, that a creature, even if it had always existed, would be equal to God in duration. For, if “eternal” be understood in this sense, nothing can in any way be coeternal with God, for nothing but God is immutable. As Augustine says (XII De Civitate Dei cap. 15), [10]] “Time, since it passes away by its mutability, cannot be coeternal with immutable eternity. Thus, even if the immortality of the angels does not pass away in time (it is neither past, as if it did not exist now; nor is it future, as if it did not yet exist), nevertheless, the angels’ motions, by which moments of time are carried along from the future into the past, pass away. Therefore, angels cannot be coeternal with the Creator, in whose motion there is nothing which has been that is not now, nor anything which will later be that is not already.” [PL 41, 364-365] Likewise, Augustine says (VIII Super Genesis ad Litteram cap. 23), “Since the nature of the Trinity is wholly unchangeable, it is eternal in such a way that nothing can be coeternal with it,” [PL 34, 389] and he uses words to the same effect in XI Confessionum as well. [11]]

**… he clearly says that nothing can be co-eternal with God because only God is immutable. So there is a contradiction after all.
He should have pointed this out earlier, or more clearly than he did, but, there it is finally. **

 

[someperson555]

uestion:

If God is outside of time or (timeless) then how could he have made the decision to create the universe, since a decision takes time.​

Answer:

He could not make a decision for the very reason given, i.e., God is outside of time.

Explaination:

A decision is a thought which of itself has an existence of its own apart from the decision maker. And a decision takes time and is made in time. But God is outside of time, therefore God cannot make decisions.

Next idea:

If God cannot make a decision to create the world, and the world exists, then the world came into being without God. Ergo God does not exist.

Answer:

Before the universe existed, there was no time because there was nothing except God.
Space did not exist. Time did not exist. Movement did not exist. Light did not exist.
Clouds did not exist. Nothing of anything, even a speck of dust, did not exist. Even a vacuum did not exist. Can we imagine nothing, including darkness which did not exist.
We can’t.

Neither can we imagine God who is pure act and yet is motionless.
As Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry, “A man has got to know his limitations.”

ow ow owww, my head.

 

[Gorgias]

No 1… Aquinas did not make references to Scripture and did not use the word faith.

First sentence of the document: “Let us assume, in accordance with the Catholic faith”. No, he didn’t use the word ‘Scripture’, but from whence does the doctrine of God’s creation of the universe proceed?

No 2… from what you say, Aquinas held mutually contraditory beliefs. that an eternal world is possible, but cannot be proven or disproven – rather, the answer is found in faith, not in philosophy. ]

Not really. In order to make it ‘safe’ to study Aristotle, all Aquinas has to do is demonstrate that his teachings are possible to believe – that is, he just has to show that there are no internal inconsistencies (i.e., ‘contradictions’) in Aristotle’s assertions. He successfully does this, proving that there are no contradictions; therefore, if, through the lens of faith, one comes to a greater wisdom, then that’s fine by Aquinas. (After all, Aristotle didn’t have the opportunity to believe in Christianity, so he’s off the hook on that account, and can only use reason. Once Aquinas shows that reason can lead to the ‘eternal universe’ conclusion, he’s made the world safe for Aristotelianism… )

No 3… I reproduced paragraph 17 in toto in my earlier post for a purpose. It is here that Aquinas turns his back on the idea of an eternal world.

With all due respect, you are completely misunderstanding this passage. Let’s have at it, one more time:

“Still since certain authorities seem to argue on the side of such men, we ought to show that they base themselves on a weak foundation.”

Go back to the prior sentence: the ‘such men’ are the ones who ‘subtly perceive contradiction’, despite the fact that Augustine praises the philosophers who ‘saw no contradiction between these two ideas.’ Aquinas is drawing a line in the sand: on one side are himself, Augustine and the Platonists who ‘surpassed the rest in nobility and authority’ – these all see no contradiction in the proposition that the world may be eternal; and, on the other side, ‘solitary men’ and ‘certain authorities’ who hold the mistaken notion that ‘eternal world’ is false because they think that it means ‘coeternal with God’.

In your previous message, you too conflate the two descriptions ‘eternal world’ and ‘coeternal with God’. Aquinas is being very careful to be precise here, and to note that these two are distinct propositions, and not the same at all! Just to beat the dead horse: ‘eternal world’ is a proposition that Aquinas supports; ‘coeternal with God’ is one that he does not support (and one that he says does not follow from ‘eternal world’).

**… he clearly says that nothing can be co-eternal with God because only God is immutable. So there is a contradiction after all.
He should have pointed this out earlier, or more clearly than he did, but, there it is finally. **

Yes, Aquinas says that ‘coeternal with God’ is a proposition that is in error. However, he also cites Boethius: “some people hear that … this world neither had a beginning in time nor will ever have an end, they mistakenly conclude that the created world is coeternal with the Creator”.

However, his denial that ‘eternal world’ and ‘coeternal with God’ are equivalent is Aquinas’ way to deflect the criticism of contradiction: if ‘coeternal with God’ is false, it does not affect the proposition ‘eternal world.’

 

[someperson555]

No… God isn’t ‘prudent’, He is Wisdom itself! He does not need to consider, in order to discern whether He is being prudent; He embodies prudence, and so all that He does is prudent! Important distinction…

I don’t think so. From outside the framework of time, God is pure actuality: he is, and so is always action and never potential. However, from within the framework of time, we perceive things as happening at specific times, and other things as not happening at specific times. From within this framework, then, God appeared to be ‘acting’ in the creation of the world, and ‘resting’ upon its creation. This doesn’t mean that the appearance of our framework is the reality of God’s existence…

but this is what im having trouble with.

1. there was a time when nothing but God existed. no time, no space, no matter. not even angels…
2. after an act of creation, these things began existing.

so this baffles me. since God existed before his creation, that would still imply a timeline. but that would again make us fall into the error of infinite regression…

im just so confused

and top that all off, heres yet another conundrum! in our apostolic creed it says that christ was “born of the father before all ages”. this seems to contradict the teaching that God is eternal, if one of the persons began to exist, and yet this person is God, then wouldnt that mean that God is not eternal?

 

[Linux]

but this is what im having trouble with.

1. there was a time when nothing but God existed. no time, no space, no matter. not even angels…

God is simultaneous with the universe, which is a natural consequence of being non-physical. From Gods point of view, there has never been a time before the universe. There is no time “before” time. God created time.

 

[Gorgias]

empther,

If you’re interested in reading up on this topic, I encourage you to take a look at the following: * The Eternity of the World: In the Thought of Thomas Aquinas and His Contemporaries, by J.B. Wissink

• Fakhr Al-Din Al-Razi and Thomas Aquinas on the Question of the Eternity of the World, by Muammer Iskenderoglu* I would draw your attention especially to p 125ff, and the quote on p 132: “For Aquinas the arguments put forward for the eternity of the world or for its temporal beginning do not demonstrably prove either of these positions. Consequently, although he accepts the temporal beginning of the world on the basis of faith, Aquinas does not think that the notion of an eternally created world is a self-contradiction. Hence he leaves this possibility open.” (emphasis mine)* Also see p. 154: “Whether Aquinas defended the possibility of an eternally created world in all his writings or only later in his De Aeternitate Mundi, is a matter of dispute.” and again on p. 155: "n the Scriptum, II, 1.1.2, Aquinas implies that an eternally created world is possible, although he does not say so openly. What [Aquinas] does in the De Aeternitate Mundi is rather to defend this position explicitly." Finally, on pp 158-9: “Aquinas’ conclusion is that there is no logical contradiction in holding that something was made by God and yet was never without existence. … For Aquinas, the arguments raised against the possibility of an eternal world, such as that in that case the world would be co-eternal with God, are baseless. By appealing to Boethius and Augustine, he argues that such a conclusion does not follow.”
• The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas: From Finite Being to Uncreated Being, by John Wippel. * On p 580, Wippel states: “Thomas … defends what would be one of his most controverted positions, that it cannot be demonstrated that the world (meaning the universe) ever began to be. This can only be accepted on the strength of religious belief. … [T]hroughout his career Thomas defended the view (1) that the noneternity of the world has not been demonstrated; and (2) that it cannot be demonstrated. Only in a very late discussion of this issue in his De aeternitate mundi did he explicitly defend an even stronger view (3) that an eternally created world is possible.”

Blessings,

G.*

 

[empther]

I’m not really interested in the writings of

J.B. Wissink ( who? )
Muammer Iskenderoglu ( who? )
or John Wippel ( who? ) .

In paragraph 18, Aquinas showed that only that which is immutable can be eternal. Therefore, there cannot be an eternal world.
That settles it.

 

[Gorgias]

1. there was a time when nothing but God existed. no time, no space, no matter. not even angels…

Whoops! Hang on, there! You’re already presuming the existence of ‘time’ when only God existed. Don’t do that…!

God exists, timelessly. In this timeless existence, the universe comes into being. ‘Time’, as we know it, exists only within the framework of the universe. So, it’s not that God exists ‘before’ or ‘after’ time: He exists outside of it. So, you can’t describe God in terms of time.

Trying to line up ‘God’ and ‘time’ is like asking the following question in the context of the ‘movie-reel’ example:

In the context of the Star Wars saga, the story takes place “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away”. In that context, Alderaan is blown up. Now, here’s your question: Did George Lucas exist before Alderaan blew up? I mean, Alderaan blew up “a long time ago”, right? But, if George Lucas didn’t exist in order to make the Star Wars movies, then how could Alderaan blow up at all? It’s a trick question, of course: George Lucas doesn’t exist within the context of the Star Wars time frame. So, it doesn’t make any sense to ask ‘before’ or ‘after’ questions with respect to Lucas and anything in Star Wars.

Does that help?

and top that all off, heres yet another conundrum! in our apostolic creed it says that christ was “born of the father before all ages”. this seems to contradict the teaching that God is eternal, if one of the persons began to exist, and yet this person is God, then wouldnt that mean that God is not eternal?

Not really. Remember, the ‘ages’ are part of the framework of time; so, Jesus existed outside of them – in a casual way, Jesus existed ‘before’ them.

Your question, though, has to do with eternity, vis-a-vis the Trinity. Since there is no time in eternity, then we say that Jesus proceeded eternally from the Father. (Yeah, I know, it’s difficult to wrap your head around that one, isn’t it? Yet, that’s the difficulty in trying to describe the Trinity. )

 

[Gorgias]

I’m not really interested in the writings of

J.B. Wissink ( who? )
Muammer Iskenderoglu ( who? )
or John Wippel ( who? ) .

I know. The only person capable of properly interpreting Aquinas is empther, eh?

In any case, of the three, the one I’d most highly hold in esteem is Wippel, due to his academic credentials. What he says about Aquinas, one is well advised to take as truth.

In paragraph 18, Aquinas showed that only that which is immutable can be eternal. Therefore, there cannot be an eternal world.
That settles it.

Well, then, I guess we’re done. I’ve demonstrated twice to you that your interpretation is faulty. I’ve also provided a number of scholarly references to back up my assertions. If you still refuse to see what Aquinas is really saying here, then I’ll leave you to your preferred haunts with the rest of the murmurantes . (Just don’t run around saying that you “showed that Aquinas rejected the idea of a universe existing in an infinite past”, since you’ve done no such thing. )