Something an atheist said which made me think

  • Thread starter Thread starter someperson555
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To the OP:

(1) The cause of the existence of the universe is simultaneous with the effect of the existence of the universe;
(2) There can be no temporal duration between causally simultaneous events;
(3) The effect of the existence of the universe occurred at time=0;
(4) Therefore, the cause of the existence of the universe occurred at time=0.

This is the argument I’ve used to defend against the contention that God couldn’t have created time since the act of creation must have occurred inside of time. God as eternal is timeless. His act (cause) of the creation of the universe (and thus, time) may have occurred simultaneously or concurrently with the existence (effect) of the universe.

The opposition may object that there is no such thing as a simultaneous cause and effect, but within the theist’s metaphysic I see no reason why this couldn’t be possible. Even then, there are experiments in the realm of quantum mechanics that posit simultaneous cause and effect.
 
Gorgias …
From your post #43…
Quote: ( empther wrote; )
, 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.”

You gave that quote out of context. You gave it as being Aquinas’s position, which it is not.
I showed that Aquinas was playing the devil’s advocate at that point and speaking in the voice of the opposition. It was the devil’s advocate’s conclusion.
I showed that in paragraph 18 he clearly contradicted the devil’s advocate conclusion by saying the eternity of a mutable thing is impossible, something which anybody should instantly see for himself is obvious and irrefutable without reams of philosophizing.

Admit it, Gorgias. Admit you were dead wrong and move on. :D.
 
You gave that quote out of context. You gave it as being Aquinas’s position, which it is not.
says you. 😉

seriously, though: i cannot strongly enough recommend that you read the Wippel citation that I provided yesterday. You should be able, at least, to find a preview of it on Google Books, and there, read the context of the quotes I provided. If you read that, and still honestly hold that your interpretation is correct and the rest of the world’s interpretation is in error, then I’ll drop it.
Admit it, Gorgias. Admit you were dead wrong and move on. :D.
LOL. When I’m wrong, I’m able to admit it.
 
i cannot strongly enough recommend that you read the Wippel citation that I provided yesterday
If anybody wants to waste their time looking up that citation they’re free to do so,

but before they do that I suggest they give a quick glance at the Summa Theologica where Aquinas flatly states only God is eternal…
newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm#article1

If that isn’t good enough to convince you, see the tons and tons of stuff Aquinas wrote on this subject in his earlier “summa” the Summa Contra Gentiles…

dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles.htm
  1. That it is not necessary for creatures to have always existed
    32…Arguments of those who wish to demonstrate the world’s eternity from the point of view of God
  2. Arguments of those who wish to prove the eternity of the world from the standpoint ofcreatures
  3. Arguments to prove the eternity of the world from the point of view of the making of things
  4. Solution of the foregoing arguments, and first of those taken from the standpoint of God
  5. Solution of the arguments proposed from the point of view of the things made
  6. Solution of the arguments taken from the point of view of the making of things
  7. Arguments by which some try to show that the world is not eternal
Links for above chapters…

dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles2.htm#31

dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles2.htm#32

dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles2.htm#33

dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles2.htm#34

dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles2.htm#35

dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles2.htm#36

dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles2.htm#37

dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles2.htm#38
 
but before they do that I suggest they give a quick glance at the Summa Theologica

If that isn’t good enough to convince you, see the tons and tons of stuff Aquinas wrote on this subject in his earlier “summa” the Summa Contra Gentiles
Right… 'cause, if you want to know what Thomas meant in the De aeternitate, the logical place to look isn’t in scholarly works dealing with the De aeternitate – it’s in altogether different primary sources! :rolleyes:
 
Sorry - to be clearer the movie reel analogy implies a deterministic universe. However many times I watch the Twilight films they will always end the same way - there is no way for one of the characters to make a different decision (such as dumping the whiny glittery vampire for the werewolf with actual life skills and better abs). It is therefore deterministic. And so so wrong. 😉

The idea that God has in some way already decided how to react to anything I may do can be seen as implying determinism (e.g. if he knows what he is going to reply to me in a conversation, does that mean that I have no choice about what I am going to ask him?), but doesn’t have to do so. i.e. If God knows all the possible decisions I may make, he could have a response ready for each possibility - like those books where you guide the protagonist’s story by turning to paragraph X if you choose one option or paragraph Y if you choose the other. The book you buy is written and immutable, but you choose the story you actually read from it.
As a creature within time, it seems likely to me you would appear to a being not limited by it to all exist at once. Our consideration of this to be deterministic may be due to our ability to only experience one slice of it at a time.

Bear with me, as I am terribly tired and well aware of the holes in this notion, but:

Imagine an intelligent worm-like creature that lacks the ability to perceive life in 3 dimensions plus moving along in a fourth (time) as we do.

Instead it perceives life in only two dimensions, and its universe appears to move along in the third (it calls this movement “time”). Throughout its life it thinks it is a two dimensional disc (a cross-section of its actual 3 dimensional body) living in a two dimensional universe (a plane), and as its “life” moves along the thing-that-thinks-it-is-a-disc appears to change shape and size and move around on that plane.

You watching it with a greater level of perception can see that it looks like a worm, but it will never be aware of this through its own perception.

Now if it did find out, the worm might see the revelation that it has a beginning, a middle and an end (that you as a higher being can see all at once) - as disappointing evidence of its life being predetermined and you being able to see what it does with its life at all points.

In reality however, you looking at this creature can see not only that it has a body with a beginning, middle and end (you can see “all of time at once”), but you can also see how that body wriggles around in all three dimensions, over time - you can see that worm’s movement in a still further “dimension” which it moves in through its own efforts, but is totally unaware of, which it could not perceive and probably could not understand if you explained it.

In a sense, you can see this worm’s “decisions happening”.

Now if we look at our own perception of time and what we think the universe is, and surmise the possible differences between our level of perception and God’s given what we have been told about Him (and frankly the I think the difference between our intellect/perceptions and God’s would have to be immeasurable) it is fair to say that in all likelihood our concept of what is “deterministic”, and what “possibilities” look like is probably nonsense to a being that can truly comprehend everything that is happening at once and hold it all in mental context.

On a more frivolous note, this kind of view of the universe might actually mean that while we perceive ourselves walking around in life in this shape, that might just be a limitation of our ability to perceive what we actually are - even if we were to take time seriously as a dimension and no others we might quite possibly extrude along it and look like a kind of mess of flesh-coloured spaghetti to a higher being who perceived it all at once - and if there were more dimensions we extruded in, perhaps our true nature is more like a kooshball or stickle-brick than an upright monkey, and we just don’t know it. Anyway, this is what staying til 4 am does for you. Adieu.:cool:
 
If that isn’t good enough to convince you
Actually, something just came to mind: you know what would convince me? Find me a reputable, scholarly source that says that Thomas means what you say that he means in the De aeternitate mundi. (Not what he argues elsewhere, because we both agree that he makes different points elsewhere. However, we’re discussing what he means in this particular document.)

If you’re unwilling to look at my scholarly source, then please provide some of your own – not your own personal interpretation of any Thomistic primary source, but a scholarly secondary source.

Thanks!

G.
 
Gorgias wrote:
Actually, something just came to mind: you know what would convince me? Find me a reputable, scholarly source that says that Thomas means what you say that he means in the De aeternitate mundi. (Not what he argues elsewhere, because we both agree that he makes different points elsewhere. However, we’re discussing what he means in this particular document.)
If you’re unwilling to look at my scholarly source, then please provide some of your own – not your own personal interpretation of any Thomistic primary source, but a scholarly secondary source.
This reminds me of Richard III, Act V, Scene III
The many ghosts of the people Richard murdered appear to him in a dream, Heaven’s last attempt to turn him around. Richard then encourages his generals for the last battle, saying:
Let not our babbling dreams affright our souls:
Conscience is but a word that cowards use,
Devised at first to keep the strong in awe:
Conscience bother you? No problem! Just deny the legitimacy of conscience. It’s somebody’s plot to cower the strong. 😃

Summa Theologica:
newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm#article1
I answer that, Nothing except God can be eternal.
Does anybody need some obscure “scholar” with an ax to grind to explain the meaning of that? 🤷
 
Summa Theologica:
newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm#article1

Does anybody need some obscure “scholar” with an ax to grind to explain the meaning of that? 🤷
You know what – you’re right! So, please, then – find me a scholar who’s not ‘obscure’, and who agrees with you, with respect to Thomas’ point in the De aeternitate! 😃

(Actually, it’s funny that you bring up the Summa, because the scholarly debate isn’t whether Thomas advocated for an eternal world in the De aeternitate – since all agree that he does! No, the debate is whether he always asserted that an eternal world was possible, or if he only came to this thought late in his life. (After all, the question hinges, also, on the way you date the De aeternitate, early or late, with respect to Thomas’ career.) Clearly, he has particular things to say in his commentary on the Sentences, and in the ST and elsewhere; but the question becomes “given what he said in the De aeternitate, did he come to a change in the way he saw things? If not, does this enlighten us about what in particular he was trying to say in the DA (that is, are the other statements theological and this one philosophical)?”

Again, find me anyone reputable who says what you say about the DA, and I’ll let you off the hook. Otherwise, it’s “empther vs the world” again… (and you have to admit, as compared to the world of Thomistic scholarship, you’re only an “obscure” layman posting on the internet, n’est-ce pas? 😉 )
 
Gorgias again:
You know what – you’re right! So, please, then – find me a scholar who’s not ‘obscure’, and who agrees with you, with respect to Thomas’ point in the De aeternitate!
(Actually, it’s funny that you bring up the Summa, because the scholarly debate isn’t whether Thomas advocated for an eternal world in the De aeternitate – since all agree that he does! No, the debate is whether he always asserted that an eternal world was possible, or if he only came to this thought late in his life. (After all, the question hinges, also, on the way you date the De aeternitate, early or late, with respect to Thomas’ career.) Clearly, he has particular things to say in his commentary on the Sentences, and in the ST and elsewhere; but the question becomes “given what he said in the De aeternitate, did he come to a change in the way he saw things? If not, does this enlighten us about what in particular he was trying to say in the DA (that is, are the other statements theological and this one philosophical)?”
Again, find me anyone reputable who says what you say about the DA, and I’ll let you off the hook. Otherwise, it’s “empther vs the world” again… (and you have to admit, as compared to the world of Thomistic scholarship, you’re only an “obscure” layman posting on the internet, n’est-ce pas? )
Not a word of this is legitimate. It’s all bluster to draw people’s attention away from the critical point.

As I’ve already pointed out a half dozens times,
in paragraph 18,
Aquiinas said only something that is immutable can be eternal, which rules out the angels and the world.
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 amount of devious argumentation can get around this.

And so, goodby Gorgias. Admit you lost.
 
Not a word of this is legitimate. It’s all bluster to draw people’s attention away from the critical point.

As I’ve already pointed out a half dozens times
When one’s argument reduces to “my adversary is lying” and then a simple repetition of one’s own case, it is clear that this person has nothing left to say. 😉
in paragraph 18,
Aquiinas said
nothing can in any way be coeternal with God, for nothing but God is immutable.
“Since the nature of the Trinity is wholly unchangeable, it is eternal in such a way that nothing can be coeternal with it,”
You keep quoting these two lines regarding coeternity with God, forgetting that just two sentences earlier, Thomas points out that such debaters “mistakenly conclude that the created world is coeternal with the Creator.” If you cannot see this, then you’re right: we’re done here.
And so, goodby Gorgias. Admit you lost.
You’re right, of course. In the sense that I failed to help you see what Aquinas is saying here, I have failed. Have a nice day… :rolleyes:
 
You keep quoting these two lines regarding coeternity with God, forgetting that just two sentences earlier,** Thomas points out that such debaters “mistakenly conclude** that the created world is coeternal with the Creator.” :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes: If you cannot see this, then you’re right: we’re done here.
Isn’t that my position on what Aquinas’s position is ? 🤷

You’re either hopelessly confused, or still trying to confuse readers.
 
Isn’t that my position on what Aquinas’s position is ?
No: you’re claiming that, since the created world isn’t coeternal with God, it is impossible to say that the world is eternal. That’s the error Aquinas is denying. Rather, Aquinas asserts the opposite, referring to Augustine’s approval of Platonists who held the “position that the world has always existed, [and] nevertheless thought that it was made by God, and they saw no contradiction between these two ideas.”

So, you see a contradiction between “eternally created” and “not coeternal with God”; Aquinas, Augustine, and Boethius say ‘no contradiction exists.’
 
This is a thoroughly amusing conversation.
I know, I know… 😊

I have to admit – empther’s right about this, though: I just can’t let it go.

(If it were just a misunderstanding, that’d be one thing. But… this? It’s just too much for my geeky brain to deal with… :o )

sigh oh, well…

perhaps… back to the original conversation?
 
No: you’re claiming that, since the created world isn’t coeternal with God, it is impossible to say that the world is eternal. That’s the error Aquinas is denying. Rather, Aquinas asserts the opposite, referring to Augustine’s approval of Platonists who held the “position that the world has always existed, [and] nevertheless thought that it was made by God, and they saw no contradiction between these two ideas.”

So, you see a contradiction between “eternally created” and “not coeternal with God”; Aquinas, Augustine, and Boethius say ‘no contradiction exists.’
There are two types of eternity. One is the timelessness of God, and the other is a temporal chain of infinite events.Your opponent is wrong. Aquinas did not believe the world was temporally infinite because of his faith, but he did not think that it was logically impossible, at least he didn’t think that it had been sufficiently proven to be impossible. It is clear that Aquinas held this position on philosophical grounds, at least its clear to those capable of discerning the fact. Aquinas clearly disputed claims to contrary; he was not in agreement with Bartholomew. However it would be incorrect to say that the universe is timeless like God, which is something Aquinas rejected.
 
Originally Posted by dshix
This is a thoroughly amusing conversation.
In my last post I was tempted to say “This is fun”, but that would have ruined the tone of that post, and the fun. 😃 You’ve seen me play games with the atheists. It’s so fun to point out their errors.

However, a joke can only last so long. So I’ll just leave it with Aquinas’s statement
in Summa Theologica which should cover everything:

I answer that, **Nothing except God can be eternal. **
 
It’s not surprising that Linus showed up…with his usual list of errors. :mad:
There are two types of eternity. One is the timelessness of God, and the other is a temporal chain of infinite events.
An infinite chain of temporal events is impossible and meaningless.
There is no use reading the rest of his post. It’s similarly wrong, wrong, wrong.
 
I’ll just leave it with Aquinas’s statement
in Summa Theologica which should cover everything:

**I answer that,Nothing except God can be eternal. **
… and, apparently, this thread. :tiphat:

(I’m here all week. Try the veal. Please tip your waitress.) 😉
 
It’s not surprising that Linus showed up…with his usual list of errors. :mad:

An infinite chain of temporal events is impossible and meaningless.
There is no use reading the rest of his post. It’s similarly wrong, wrong, wrong.
Its irrelevant whether its possible or not. The point is Aquinas did not agree with you that it is impossible. Aquinas did not reject an infinite series stretching into the past; but rather, he rejected an infinite regress of efficient causes, which is something entirely different. Anybody who truly understands Aquinas would know that. Clearly you don’t.

Perhaps you should read F. Copleston: Aquinas: An Introduction to the Life and Work of the Great Medieval Thinker.

books.google.co.uk/books?id=4xzFWwBWg_YC&pg=PT142&lpg=PT142&dq=Aquinas+never+rejected+an+infinite+regress&source=bl&ots=_837y_paJ7&sig=Zr-aZj42lVVA9IxZ7x7nGpvcuZ4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=F6YpUcH-CcGl0AWZ6oHQBg&redir_esc=y

I am tired of people on Catholic answers acting like they understand Aquinas when in fact they have a superficial conception of what he said. You should feel embarrassed.

You and Linus both fall into the category of big egos defending something they really don’t understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top