St. Thomas Aquinas & A Beginning-less World

[roman7]

Hello, newbie here.

I thought I’d start by posting a question that has been on my mind lately.

St. Thomas Aquinas believed that we can’t demonstrate the world had a beginning through reason alone. For him, the concept of a beginning-less world was not unreasonable in itself. But I’ve always understood that an infinite regress was illogical…

For example, say you have an infinite series of people passing a single book. Ask the person in the first line where he got the book from, and he responds “that person next to me”, and ask “that person” next to him where he got the book from, and he responds, “that person next to me right here” and on and on it goes without a beginning, the book should not exist. For how can the book get to this end-point, if the book had no beginning to start with in a succession?

So how are we to understand Aquinas’ view that it’s logical to have a world without a beginning?

 

[Chiral]

Aquinas could conceive of a necessary being - one without beginning.
If the universe necessarily exists, it also has no beginning. Eternal existence requires only the existence of some necessary thing. The book in your scenario must exist necessarily - it cannot have an author for that would imply a time prior to its existence as a book. The line of people passing the book must be at least an emanation from a necessarily existing entity, like numbers on a number line stretching to infinity in both directions.
Infinite regression is absurd to us because it flies in the face of experience and causality - but we cannot logically prove that it is impossible, for indeed the world, like the Son, could be “eternally begotten of the Father” and so “beginning-less”.
Current scientific theory, however, suggests that the universe did indeed have a beginning.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Aquinas could conceive of a necessary being - one without beginning.
If the universe necessarily exists, it also has no beginning. Eternal existence requires only the existence of some necessary thing. The book in your scenario must exist necessarily - it cannot have an author for that would imply a time prior to its existence as a book. The line of people passing the book must be at least an emanation from a necessarily existing entity, like numbers on a number line stretching to infinity in both directions.
Infinite regression is absurd to us because it flies in the face of experience and causality - but we cannot logically prove that it is impossible, for indeed the world, like the Son, could be “eternally begotten of the Father” and so “beginning-less”.
Current scientific theory, however, suggests that the universe did indeed have a beginning.

You are confusing the eternity of God with an infinity number of events.:nope:

You cannot count to an infinite, so in principle an infinite cannot be made up of any number of events. An infinite is not made up of events.

 

[roman7]

I thought the only thing that necessarily existed was God himself. But the universe (at least to Aquinas) could have existed “along-side” of God from all eternity?

 

[MindOverMatter]

I thought the only thing that necessarily existed was God himself. But the universe (at least to Aquinas) could have existed “along-side” of God form all eternity?

This is true regardless of whether or not the universe is finite or infinite. There is a difference between infinite duration and eternity.

 

[roman7]

This is true regardless of whether or not the universe is finite or infinite. There is a difference between infinite duration and eternity.

God would still be the only necessary being even if the universe was infinite in duration?

Well I can see how the universe would be infinite in duration from point-A to unward. But not infinite in the sense of having no beginning.

See, the reason why I’m asking all this is because I’m currently reading Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s book Providence, and he mentions how,

St. Thomas holds that reason alone can never demonstrate that the world had a beginning (Ia, q. 46, a. 2). And why does this truth transcend the natural powers of our intellect? Because that beginning depended on the free will of God. Had He so willed, He might have created the world ten thousand years, a hundred thousand years, millions of years before, or at a time even more remote, without there having been a first day for the world, but simply a dependence of the world on its Creator, just as a footprint in the sand is due to the foot that makes it, so that, had the foot always been there the footprint would have had no beginning.

Although revelation teaches that the world did in fact have a beginning, it does not seem impossible, says St. Thomas, for the world always to have existed in its dependence on God the Creator.

I’m just not seeing how God could create something “ten thousand years, a hundred thousand years, millions of years before, or at a time even more remote” without there having been a beginning to the created thing. It doesn’t seem to make sense.

 

[hatsoff]

Hello, newbie here.

I thought I’d start by posting a question that has been on my mind lately.

St. Thomas Aquinas believed that we can’t demonstrate the world had a beginning through reason alone. For him, the concept of a beginning-less world was not unreasonable in itself. But I’ve always understood that an infinite regress was illogical…

For example, say you have an infinite series of people passing a single book. Ask the person in the first line where he got the book from, and he responds “that person next to me”, and ask “that person” next to him where he got the book from, and he responds, “that person next to me right here” and on and on it goes without a beginning, the book should not exist. For how can the book get to this end-point, if the book had no beginning to start with in a succession?

So how are we to understand Aquinas’ view that it’s logical to have a world without a beginning?

The short answer is, for any position in the line, the book only has to pass through a finite number of hands to get to any other position. The thought experiment may be counter-intuitive, but it does not demonstrate that an infinite series is impossible.

 

[hatsoff]

You are confusing the eternity of God with an infinity number of events.:nope:

You cannot count to an infinite, so in principle an infinite cannot be made up of any number of events. An infinite is not made up of events.

(emphasis added)

One does not follow from the other.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hello, newbie here.

I thought I’d start by posting a question that has been on my mind lately.

St. Thomas Aquinas believed that we can’t demonstrate the world had a beginning through reason alone. For him, the concept of a beginning-less world was not unreasonable in itself. But I’ve always understood that an infinite regress was illogical…

For example, say you have an infinite series of people passing a single book. Ask the person in the first line where he got the book from, and he responds “that person next to me”, and ask “that person” next to him where he got the book from, and he responds, “that person next to me right here” and on and on it goes without a beginning, the book should not exist. For how can the book get to this end-point, if the book had no beginning to start with in a succession?

So how are we to understand Aquinas’ view that it’s logical to have a world without a beginning?

good question.

lets examine the nature of the existence of beings. it would seem that there are only 2 possible states for a being to exist,

1. contingent beings, things that might not have been and therefore require a cause
2. necessary beings, that which must exist in order for those contingent beings exist.

there is no third category, and they are mutually exclusive categories. this is the logical basis of the division of existence in that manner.

assume then that we have a universe composed of an infinite chain of contingent beings, does the infinite nature of this universe then justify its own existence? no.

here is why

every contingent being is simply a possibility until it has a cause that brings it into existence nor can a contingent being bring itself into existence. therefore it cannot exist to cause another contingent being even in an infinite chain. therefore, if you have such an infinite chain of contingent beings they do not justify their own existence and as such require a first cause.

all arguments for an eternal or temporally infinite universe are essentially claims that the universe is a necessary being. obviously, as the universe is nothing more than the sum of contingent beings, and has no existence apart from them, the universe as that collection cannot be necessary, therefore the universe in any configuration then requires a first cause in order to exist.

 

[roman7]

good question.

lets examine the nature of the existence of beings. it would seem that there are only 2 possible states for a being to exist,

1. contingent beings, things that might not have been and therefore require a cause
2. necessary beings, that which must exist in order for those contingent beings exist.

there is no third category, and they are mutually exclusive categories. this is the logical basis of the division of existence in that manner.

assume then that we have a universe composed of an infinite chain of contingent beings, does the infinite nature of this universe then justify its own existence? no.

here is why

every contingent being is simply a possibility until it has a cause that brings it into existence nor can a contingent being bring itself into existence. therefore it cannot exist to cause another contingent being even in an infinite chain. therefore, if you have such an infinite chain of contingent beings they do not justify their own existence and as such require a first cause.

all arguments for an eternal or temporally infinite universe are essentially claims that the universe is a necessary being. obviously, as the universe is nothing more than the sum of contingent beings, and has no existence apart from them, the universe as that collection cannot be necessary, therefore the universe in any configuration then requires a first cause in order to exist.

I can see what you’re saying about a hypothetically infinite universe requiring a first cause. I guess my mind is trying to grasp the ‘‘beginningless-ness’’ of a thing other than God himself.

When I think of God’s eternity with no start or finish, I try to think of it as something completely transcendent of time. For God, his eternity is not the same as if we were to imagine a line stretching from left to right without end. There is no succession in God, but a forever “now”, as some put it, that complete transcends the concepts we have of before and after.

With created things like the universe, I just don’t see how it can logically have no beginning, even though it would logically necessitate a first cause.

 

[roman7]

The short answer is, for any position in the line, the book only has to pass through a finite number of hands to get to any other position.

Interesting. How can you say that it passes through a finite number of hands though, when it would actually have had to have passed an infinite series of points in order to get to any point at all, which is kind of the point (no pun intended) of why it seems illogical.

 

[Matthias123]

The short answer is, for any position in the line, the book only has to pass through a finite number of hands to get to any other position. The thought experiment may be counter-intuitive, but it does not demonstrate that an infinite series is impossible.

An actual infinity is philosophically impossible.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I can see what you’re saying about a hypothetically infinite universe requiring a first cause. I guess my mind is trying to grasp the ‘‘beginningless-ness’’ of a thing other than God himself.

When I think of God’s eternity with no start or finish, I try to think of it as something completely transcendent of time. For God, his eternity is not the same as if we were to imagine a line stretching from left to right without end. There is no succession in God, but a forever “now”, as some put it, that complete transcends the concepts we have of before and after.

With created things like the universe, I just don’t see how it can logically have no beginning, even though it would logically necessitate a first cause.

i dont see it as a logical position either, but it is the standard “set piece” refutation to first cause. instead of wasting time explaining and then defending things like the BGV theory or why its not a logical possibility for actual infinities to exist, i simply accept the refutation as true and then show that even if it is true, it doesnt avoid the need for a first cause.

 

[nkbeth]

St. Thomas says, explaining the arguments of philosophers:
St. Thomas Aquinas:

Summa Theologica I, Q46 a2, reply to objection 1

…if the foot were always in the dust from eternity, there would always be a footprint which without doubt was caused by him who trod on it, so also the world always was, because its Maker always existed.

…we must consider that the efficient cause, which acts by motion, of necessity precedes its effect in time; because the effect is only in the end of the action, and every agent must be the principle of action. But if the action is instantaneous and not successive, it is not necessary for the maker to be prior to the thing made in duration as appears in the case of illumination. Hence they say that it does not follow necessarily if God is the active cause of the world, that He should be prior to the world in duration; because creation, by which He produced the world, is not a successive change,

God does not cause the world by standing at the beginning of time “before” all the rest. He causes all things and each change instantaneously, simultaneous with their own existence and coming to be. Time itself (if it is a being as such) is created and begun and sustained by Him at each moment.

Our minds can’t count infinity - our minds can’t reach an actual infinity. But there is the reality of things being unlimited. The number of points in a line is unlimited. Had God so chosen, there could have been an unlimited time in the past.

However St. Thomas in the above quote is only explaining the reasonable arguments of philosophers who didn’t have the Catholic faith. As Catholics we know that God chose to create the world at a finite time in our past.

 

[hatsoff]

Interesting. How can you say that it passes through a finite number of hands though, when it would actually have had to have passed an infinite series of points in order to get to any point at all, which is kind of the point (no pun intended) of why it seems illogical.

The book would have had to have passed an infinite series of hands in order to get to some point, from where?

If you’re saying that the scenario is “illogical,” and you really mean that literally, then you’re saying that somewhere the scenario involves a logical contradiction. That is to say, the scenario implies two claims, A and not-A. You’re welcome to try to find such a contradiction, but I’m almost positive none such exists.

Try chewing on another hopefully helpful reminder: For any point in the series, the book has already passed through an infinite series of hands.

 

[hatsoff]

An actual infinity is philosophically impossible.

If by “actual infinity,” you mean to include examples like an infinite past, then you’re going to have to back up your claim with some kind of justification in order to be persuasive. For it is by no means self-evidently true that past-infinite time is impossible.

 

[roman7]

hatsoff:

The book would have had to have passed an infinite series of hands in order to get to some point, from where?

Well, that’s precisely why it seems illogical. There’s really no starting point in the succession in order to say where the book actually came from…

hatsoff:

If you’re saying that the scenario is “illogical,” and you really mean that literally, then you’re saying that somewhere the scenario involves a logical contradiction. That is to say, the scenario implies two claims, A and not-A. You’re welcome to try to find such a contradiction, but I’m almost positive none such exists.

The contradiction as I see it is between these two claims:

(1) the book got to “this point” (2) but in order to get to “this point” it had to pass through an infinite series of hands.

To put it another way, that’s as illogical as telling a guy to drive to point X on a never ending road – though telling him he has to make an actual infinite number of pit stops through an infinite number of gas stations – you assure him he will eventually get there.

But he will never get there - not if the distance to point X involves an actual infinite number pit stops through an infinite number of gas stations. For if there’s an actual last pit stop before point X, the number of pit stops would be finite, however unimaginable the total amount may be.

hatsoff:

For any point in the series, the book has already passed through an infinite series of hands.

But the book could not have gotten to “this point”, or any point for that matter, if it had to go through an infinite series of hands; just like the guy in the above scenario could never get to point X if he had to go through an infinite series of stops.

 

[roman7]

God does not cause the world by standing at the beginning of time “before” all the rest. He causes all things and each change instantaneously, simultaneous with their own existence and coming to be. Time itself (if it is a being as such) is created and begun and sustained by Him at each moment.

Our minds can’t count infinity - our minds can’t reach an actual infinity. But there is the reality of things being unlimited. The number of points in a line is unlimited. Had God so chosen, there could have been an unlimited time in the past.

However St. Thomas in the above quote is only explaining the reasonable arguments of philosophers who didn’t have the Catholic faith. As Catholics we know that God chose to create the world at a finite time in our past.

I guess I just don’t see how any created thing can not have a starting point somewhere in the past (time itself included). Perhaps my fallacy is seeing God creating time as if he stood “before” it, whereas he could create something without a beginning from all eternity depending on him?

 

[Chiral]

Well, that’s precisely why it seems illogical. There’s really no starting point in the succession in order to say where the book actually came from…

The contradiction as I see it is between these two claims:
(1) the book got to “this point” (2) but in order to get to “this point” it had to pass through an infinite series of hands.

To put it another way, that’s as illogical as telling a guy to drive to point X on a never ending road – though telling him he has to make an actual infinite number of pit stops through an infinite number of gas stations…
…But he will never get there… …for if there’s an actual last pit stop before point X, the number of pit stops would be finite, however unimaginable the total amount may be…

The “guy driving” scenario is part of Xeno’s paradox - to get to any destination, we must travel through an infinite number of midway points, and if there is are infinite midpoints, how can we ever reach the destination? And yet we do, everyday!
But this is different from the no-beginning question, which has the guy already having driven for eternity.
For the book to pass through infinite hands, both the hands and the book must be either necessary in themselves or the emanation of a necessary cause - eitherway the eternal existence of the necessary cause sustains them in eternity as well.

I guess I just don’t see how any created thing can not have a starting point somewhere in the past (time itself included). Perhaps my fallacy is seeing God creating time as if he stood “before” it, whereas he could create something without a beginning from all eternity depending on him?

“Creating” is an activity, and all activities require time, if only a mere instant. If the universe is not necessary in itself then its existence must be caused, i.e. created. If creation requires time, then either time existed prior to the universe being created or was simultaneously generated out of necessity by the activity of a necessary cause/creating force. The cause cannot not exist - it is necessary. If the universe is not in itself necessary, and if time did not exist prior to the creative act which generated the universe, then the universe is both created and beginning-less, a seeming contradiction in terms.
If this is a contradiction, then either the universe is necessary in itself and was not “created” (although perhaps it can be said to be “eternally begotten”) as so is beginning-less, OR the existence of time precedes that of the universe such that the universe is not beginning-less.

 

[nkbeth]

… [God] could create something without a beginning from all eternity depending on him?

Only God exists in God’s eternity (at least before heaven)

St. Thomas again says:

S.T. I 46 A2
*Obj. 5. Further, it is certain that nothing can be equal to God. But if the world had always been, it would be equal to God in duration. Therefore it is certain that the world did not always exist.

Reply Obj. 5. Even supposing that the world always was, it would not be equal to God in eternity, as Boëthius says (De Consol. v. 6); because the divine Being is all being simultaneously without succession; but with the world it is otherwise.*

The world always proceeds through time, one thing after another (succession). If there were no beginning of the succession God outside the succession would still cause it.

I don’t understand this entirely myself. But when in doubt I tend to trust St. Thomas.