St. Thomas Aquinas and the Eternity of the World

[aspirant]

newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm#article1

At the same time:
newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm#article2

…the newness of the world is known only by revelation; and therefore it cannot be proved demonstratively… By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist… that the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science… Even supposing that the world always was, it would not be equal to God in eternity, as Boethius says (De Consol. v, 6); because the divine Being is all being simultaneously without succession; but with the world it is otherwise.

 

[empther]

At the same time:
newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm#article2

Quote:
…the newness of the world is known only by revelation; and therefore it cannot be proved demonstratively… By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist… that the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science… Even supposing that the world always was, it would not be equal to God in eternity, as Boethius says (De Consol. v, 6); because the divine Being is all being simultaneously without succession; but with the world it is otherwise.

---

The present existence of the universe can be demonstrated by simply looking at it. There it is, folks!
But it’s existence in some eternal past cannot be demonstrated.

Nevertheless,
logic can be used to prove that “I answer that, Nothing except God can be eternal” as Aquinas says in article one
and earlier, Aquinas used the impossibillity of an infinite regress to demonstrate the existence of God.

 

[empther]

atwakins post 15

St. Thomas did not believe the world was eternal; he believed as the Church teaches that it had a beginning in time. All he was saying was that it could not be proved philosophically that the world had a beginning in time. :bigyikes:

No quite.

It could not be “demonstrated” that the universe had a beginning in time, because “demonstration” is about looking at something and defining what it is. It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, therefore, it’s a duck.

But logic can be used to prove “I answer that, Nothing except God can be eternal” as I said in my last post.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Oh no! Not this again.

Every few months somebody “finds” that Aquinas article, misunderstands what it says, and then starts a thread on it.
We refute what the OP says. We’ve done this several times.
But a few months later somebody “finds” that Aquinas article, misunderstands what it says, and then starts a thread on it.

I’m not going to analyze that article again because in a few months somebody will “find” it and start a new confused thread.

Instead, I’ll give you this link to the Summa Theologica where Aquinas pounds the last nail in the coffin of the eternal world idea:
newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm#article1

I answer that, Nothing except God can be eternal.

Thank you. That’s all somebody had to do was post this article and I would have understood. No need to be grouchy. Thank you.

 

[empther]

No need to be grouchy.

It would be pretty dull around here without a little grouchiness.

 

[Love4All]

. . . there was a moment before which, nothing existed except God.

This may be nitpicking, and the point is VERY subtle, but, here goes:

The First Creature is Wisdom. Wisdom was created in eternity, before time and space, thus, there was no “moment” — i.e. a moment in time — “before” which, nothing existed except God. From eternity, Wisdom has been with God, as the First Creature, i.e. prior to time and space.

 

[paduard]

Come on Belorg, you know that isn’t true. Thomas never taught the world always existed, he said that, as an intellecutual exercise, it could not be demonstrated that it had an absolute beginning in time. As a matter of faith, he held that the world had an actual beginning in time, in which it was created from nothing.

But Thomas did teach that, given its creation in time, the universe, as far as its matter is concerned, was inherently eternal. This does not preclude the general destruction of the world at the end of time. It just means that the existing eternal matter would become the substrait of the " …New heaven and the New earth…" Or perhaps the general destruction of the world at the end of time is much less universal than once supposed.

The Church has remained silent on this issue. So until it speaks with authority, we may hold that the universe, once created, will continue to exist in some form. Linus2nd

I agree.

Last paragraph seems logical to me.

God Bless

 

[Love4All]

But logic can be used to prove “I answer that, Nothing except God can be eternal” as I said in my last post.

I don’t think so. I am loth to disagree with the great Angelic Doctor on anything, but, he was incorrect in his assertion that nothing except God can be eternal. God’s created Wisdom is also eternal. Wisdom was created first, i.e. before time and space.

 

[empther]

I don’t think so. I am loth to disagree with the great Angelic Doctor on anything, but, he was incorrect in his assertion that nothing except God can be eternal. God’s created Wisdom is also eternal. Wisdom was created first, i.e. before time and space.

:bigyikes:

God is Wisdom. He didn’t create it, any more than He could create himself. He is the necessary being.

 

[Love4All]

:bigyikes:

God is Wisdom. He didn’t create it, any more than He could create himself. He is the necessary being.

Sirach 1:
1
All wisdom comes from the LORD and with him it remains forever.
2
The sand of the seashore, the drops of rain, the days of eternity: who can number these?
3
Heaven’s height, earth’s breadth, the depths of the abyss: who can explore these?
4
Before all things else wisdom was created; and prudent understanding, from eternity.
5
To whom has wisdom’s root been revealed? Who knows her subtleties?
6
There is but one, wise and truly awe-inspiring, seated upon his throne:
7
It is the LORD; he created her, has seen her and taken note of her.
8
He has poured her forth upon all his works, upon every living thing according to his bounty; he has lavished her upon his friends.

Note that according to Holy Scripture, which cannot be broken, Wisdom is created. I am not denying that God is Wisdom, indeed, Wisdom is the Logos, but that is the Uncreated Wisdom that is God. There is also God’s created Wisdom, who was created first, before all things else, and in whom God designed the Universe. Our Blessed Mother is the image of this created Wisdom, indeed one of her titles is “Seat of Wisdom.” In a certain sense, this passage prefigures her, but the reality of Our Blessed Mother is that she is a human creature, and was created at the moment of the Immaculate Conception in the womb of Saint Anne. Wisdom, by contrast, was created in eternity, before God created His Creation.

 

[aspirant]

But logic can be used to prove “I answer that, Nothing except God can be eternal” as I said in my last post.

I agree with this, but Thomas also argues that (a) reason alone cannot prove the world is without beginning (versus the ancients) and (b) reason alone cannot prove the world has a beginning (this is revealed, not known by reason alone).

The difficulty is that Thomas sometimes uses “eternal” equivocally, as seen in the statement: “Even supposing that the world always was, it would not be equal to God in eternity, as Boethius says; because the divine Being is all being simultaneously without succession; but with the world it is otherwise.”

Thomas speaks of both the philosophically possible (but not consistent with revelation) eternity of the world and the eternity of God, but the same thing is not meant by “eternity.”

Thus, “nothing except God can be eternal” does not philosophically rule out “the world is without beginning.” That, Thomas says, is only ruled out by revelation.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t think so. I am loth to disagree with the great Angelic Doctor on anything, but, he was incorrect in his assertion that nothing except God can be eternal. God’s created Wisdom is also eternal. Wisdom was created first, i.e. before time and space.

Thomas would answer that there is a difference between Wisdom, Who is also One with God and therefore was Pure Act, and therefore Unlimited and Infinite and equal to the Godhead in every aspect except His Personhood, cannot be compared to beings whose existence is created. Linus2nd

 

[empther]

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther
But logic can be used to prove “I answer that, Nothing except God can be eternal” as I said in my last post.

I agree with this, but Thomas also argues that (a) reason alone cannot prove the world is without beginning (versus the ancients) and (b) reason alone cannot prove the world has a beginning (this is revealed, not known by reason alone).

---

No.
Reason alone can prove that the world is not eternal, but the world’s beginning can’t be demonstrated through itself. ( what can you look at? )

In Article 1 Aquinas says:
newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm#article1

I answer that, Nothing except God can be eternal. And this statement is far from impossible to uphold: for it has been shown above (Question 19, Article 4) that the will of God is the cause of things. Therefore things are necessary, according as it is necessary for God to will them, since the necessity of the effect depends on the necessity of the cause (Metaph. v, text 6). Now it was shown above (Question 19, Article 3), that, absolutely speaking, it is not necessary that God should will anything except Himself. It is not therefore necessary for God to will that the world should always exist; but the world exists forasmuch as God wills it to exist, since the being of the world depends on the will of God, as on its cause. It is not therefore necessary for the world to be always; and hence it cannot be proved by demonstration.

In other words, since God is the Necessary Being he must be eternal. But nothing else can be necessary to exist. Rather, anything else must be created by God. Therefore, nothing is eternal but God.

In article 2:
newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm#article2
Aquinas points out that the eternity of finiteness of the world can’t be demonstrated, an idea he already suggested above:

On the contrary, The articles of faith cannot be proved demonstratively, because faith is things “that appear not” (Hebrews 11:1). that is, if you can’t see it *you can’t demonstrate it * ]
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 (32, 1). see comments below ] The reason of this is that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself.

“comments below”
This is an interesting remark by Aquinas.
Earlier in the Summa, Aquinas pointed out that the existence of God can’t be demonstrated though God himself who is invisible, but the existence of God can be proved by his effects, that it, the universe. This is the basic idea of his five proofs of God.

So we have this situation:

1. God’s existence can be demonstrated through his effects, but not through himself.
2. The universe’s eternity or beginning can’t be demonstrated through itself but can be proven logically because it’s non-necessity requires a beginning.
3. The Trinity cannot be demonstrated through itself ( visually ) or proven by its effects. We can only know the Trinity by Revelation.

I hope this is enough to show the difference between demonstration of something that can be seen or otherwise detected directly,
something that can’t be demonstrated but can be logically proven,
and something that can neither be demonstrated not logically proven.

Have a nice day.

 

[aspirant]

Reason alone can prove that the world is not eternal

But reason alone cannot, according to Thomas, prove that the world did not always exist. St. Thomas explicitly says: “The articles of faith cannot be proved demonstratively… that the world began, is an article of faith… the newness of the world is known only by revelation; and therefore it cannot be proved demonstratively. 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.”

And in reply to the objection: “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.” Thomas replies: “Even supposing that the world always was, it would not be equal to God in eternity, as Boethius says; because the divine Being is all being simultaneously without succession; but with the world it is otherwise.”

since God is the Necessary Being he must be eternal. But nothing else can be necessary to exist. Rather, anything else must be created by God. Therefore, nothing is eternal but God.

I agree with all of this. That is exactly why I said “Thomas speaks of both the philosophically possible (but not consistent with revelation) eternity of the world and the eternity of God, but the same thing is not meant by ‘eternity.’ Thus, ‘nothing except God can be eternal’ does not philosophically rule out ‘the world is without beginning.’ That, Thomas says, is only ruled out by revelation.”

This is not at all contrary to the assertion that “anything else must be created by God.” Thomas clearly says elsewhere: “If someone holds that something besides God could have always existed, in the sense that there could be something always existing and yet not made by God, then we differ with him: such an abominable error is contrary not only to the faith but also to the teachings of the philosophers, who confess and prove that everything that in any way exists cannot exist unless it be caused by him who supremely and most truly has existence. However, someone may hold that there has always existed something that, nevertheless, had been wholly caused by God, and thus we ought to determine whether this position is tenable.” (And he concludes “there is no contradiction in saying that something made by God has always existed,” though as a matter of faith we do believe the world had a beginning in time.)

non-necessity requires a beginning

This is your assertion, not Thomas’. He says “that there could be something always existing and yet not made by God {is} an abominable error,” but “there is no contradiction in saying that something made by God has always existed.”

 

[empther]

Interesting how some people insist on their right to remain in confusion…

Re post 33…

This is your assertion, not Thomas’. He says “that there could be something always existing and yet not made by God {is} an abominable error,” but “there is no contradiction in saying that something made by God has always existed.”

Something that is eternal has always existed,
but Aquinas says “I answer that, Nothing except God can be eternal” as I pointed out several times above with the link.

---

 

[aspirant]

Something that is eternal has always existed

It does not follow, however, that something that has always existed must be equal with God in eternity, as Thomas himself has argued: “Even supposing that the world always was, it would not be equal to God in eternity, as Boethius says; because the divine Being is all being simultaneously without succession; but with the world it is otherwise.” Thus, “nothing except God can be eternal” does not philosophically rule out “the world is without beginning.” The latter, Thomas clearly says, is only ruled out by revelation, because “there is no contradiction in saying that something made by God has always existed.”

 

[Love4All]

Thomas would answer that there is a difference between Wisdom, Who is also One with God and therefore was Pure Act, and therefore Unlimited and Infinite and equal to the Godhead in every aspect except His Personhood, cannot be compared to beings whose existence is created. Linus2nd

Your sentence seems incomplete. You were going to say there is a difference between Wisdom and. . .what?

Anyway, the created Wisdom is created, that much is clear from Scripture, so it is incorrect to say that it is equal to God. The creature is always infinitely less than the Creator. Wisdom is one with God, that is true, but Mystical Union with God is a characteristic of everyone in heaven, and some on earth. Being one with God does not make one equal to God, nor does it make one Pure Act, unless you are saying that everyone in heaven is Pure Act. But that cannot be, since in heaven they continually increase in love, whereas there is no increase in Pure Act — God already is Infinite Love.

 

[Love4All]

Interesting how some people insist on their right to remain in confusion…

Re post 33…

Something that is eternal has always existed,
but Aquinas says “I answer that, Nothing except God can be eternal” as I pointed out several times above with the link.

---

Saint Thomas also said, “this can be proved logically.” I don’t think it can.

So go ahead.

 

[empther]

Confusion from post 35

Thus, “nothing except God can be eternal” does not philosophically rule out “the world is without beginning.” The latter, Thomas clearly says, is only ruled out by revelation, because “there is no contradiction in saying that something made by God has always existed.”

The Aquinas quote you give, “there is no contradiction” etc is the first sentence in a large paragraph of fordham.edu/halsall/basis/aquinas-eternity.asp In that position, it looks like that’s Aquinas’ position if you don’t read the entire article very carefully.

But look at the first sentence of the paragraph before that:

Further,** let us even suppose that the preposition “out of” imports some affirmative order of non-being to being, :bigyikes: as if the proposition that the creature is made out of nothing meant that the creature is** made after nothin****g :bigyikes: .

Aquinas is playing the devil’s advocate, entertaining the suppositions of early philosophers who thought there could be an eternal world.
From these suppositions, considered only by themselves, “there is no contradiction…etc”

But in the third from last paragraph, Aquinas rejects the eternal world idea:

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]]

And after saying above I wouldn’t analyze this article again,
I did anyways.
But that’s the end of my involvement.
I you still can’t read Aquinas’s article correctly at this point,
I can’t help you.

 

[aspirant]

Aquinas is playing the devil’s advocate, entertaining the suppositions of early philosophers who thought there could be an eternal world.
From these suppositions, considered only by themselves, “there is no contradiction…etc”

Yes. Revelation teaches us that the world has a beginning in time. According to Thomas, reason does not rule out the possibility of a world without beginning.

But in the third from last paragraph, Aquinas rejects the eternal world idea

He rejected it in the first paragraph, because it’s an article of faith that the world has a beginning! What Thomas does not claim, however, is that this can be known by reason alone.

The passage you quoted reiterates what I’ve been saying all along, that a world without beginning (if it existed) would nevertheless be a contingent creation of God and not his equal in eternity. The mistake you keep making is thinking that Thomas uses the term “eternal” univocally. Thomas doesn’t use the term univocally, but equivocally. Only God is eternal in the strict sense (“all being simultaneously without succession”), but a creature could be eternal in a looser sense of having no beginning or end. The two are not equal: “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.”

By assuming that the term “eternal” is used univocally, you appear to be claiming “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.” This is an argument Thomas himself rejects and refutes.