Something an atheist said which made me think

  • Thread starter Thread starter someperson555
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Linux said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am unfamiliar with the development of St. Thomas’ thought on the matter - but doesn’t he reject here newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm#article1 in article 2 the notion that it is possible to demonstrate that the world (though created by God) began to exist? (“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”).
 
MilesVitae said:
I am unfamiliar with the development of St. Thomas’ thought on the matter - but doesn’t he reject here newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm#article1 in article 2 the notion that it is possible to demonstrate that the world (though created by God) began to exist? (“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”).
Click to expand...
He does not reject it as a logical impossibility. He rejects it according to the revelation that the world had a beginning. That is clearly not the same thing.
 
Linux said:
The first mover argument is not the Kalam cosmological argument.
Click to expand...
Thank you, 🙂 although I did know this and I’m not entirely sure why you’re pointing this out in response to my frustration…
 
tdgesq said:
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.
Click to expand...
Even outside the theistic metaphysic there would be simultaneous cause and effect; the foot and the footprint?

Anyways my answer is basically the same. God causes all things simultaneously in an everlasting “now”. If you think of the scholastic idea of time as a measure of change between things, then this solution becomes more plausible since simultaneous changes between all things is like saying nothing changed in relation to another and as such, no time elapsed.
 
Linux said:
He does no reject it as a logical impossibility. He rejects it according to the revelation that the world had a beginning. That is clearly not the same thing.
Click to expand...
Okay - I understood that to be St. Thomas’ position (and that seemed the obvious meaning of that article from the summa), but I was left a little confused by some earlier comments concerning the development of Thomas’ thought - so I wanted to make sure I wasn’t mistaken in my interpretation of the article I posted.
 
MilesVitae said:
Huh?
Thank you, 🙂 although I did know this and I’m not entirely sure why you’re pointing this out in response to my frustration…
Click to expand...
Because it is the kalam cosmological argument that rejects an infinite number of past events. Aquinas’ first mover argument specifically relates to the impossibility of an infinite series of efficient causes, which has no relation to whether or not there can be an infinite past. Aquinas said there cannot be an infinite past without God. He did not say that an infinite past was impossible.
 
Linux said:
Because it is the kalam cosmological argument that rejects an infinite number of past events. Aquinas’ first mover argument specifically relates to the impossibility of an infinite series of efficient causes, which has no relation to whether or not there can be an infinite past. Aquinas said there cannot be an infinite past without God. He did not say that an infinite past was impossible.
Click to expand...
Okay, I’ve got that. I read On the Eternity of the World and the relevant sections of the ST - it seems obvious that this is his position.

When you say an infinite series of efficient causes is impossible, I’ve always heard this explained with the qualification that what Thomas has in mind is a series of causes order per se or essentially ordered - where the intermediary causes depend upon prior causes for their causal power in the series. Isn’t this qualification necessary since a series of fathers begetting sons is a series of efficient causes, but ordered “per accidens” as I’ve heard it called - i.e. the members of the series do not depend here and now upon prior causes for their own causal power in the series?
 
Linux stuff:
Originally Posted by empther
It’s not surprising that Linus Linux ] showed up…with his usual list of errors.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Its irrelevant whether its possible or not. The point is Aquinas did not agree with you that it is impossible.
Click to expand...

Sigh! 🤷 One more time.

In Summa Theologica Aquinas said:

**I answer that, Nothing except God can be infiniite. **

therefore, an infinite past or infinite chain, or infinite anything in the natural order is impossible.

Linux will now try to crawl around Aquinas’s statement…

:whistle::hey_bud:
 
empther said:
Linux will now try to crawl around Aquinas’s statement…

:whistle::hey_bud:
Click to expand...
Your interpretive assertions are not worth my time. I gave you a link to F. Copleston. You can read it if you are interested in anything more than you super-ego.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top