St. Thomas Aquinas and the Eternity of the World

[empther]

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.

:bigyikes: :banghead: :takethat:

I guess** “I answer that, Nothing except God can be eternal”** means nothing to you?

I give up.

 

[aspirant]

I guess “I answer that, Nothing except God can be eternal” means nothing to you?

Why do you keep replying if you’re not actually reading my posts? Are you just trolling me?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.”

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.)

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.”

That an actual beginning of the universe in time cannot be demonstrated was Thomas’ conclusion. However, that conclusion has not been universally accepted by Catholic and non-Catholic thinkers. Who is right? Who knows, that is why it is such a blessing that we have the Church to guarantee the facts of Revelation. This makes the Truth available to all equally, the learned and unlearned alike. Linus2nd

 

[empther]

That an actual beginning of the universe in time cannot be demonstrated was Thomas’ conclusion.

…but only that it can’t be demonstrated by the universe itself,
as I’ve abundantly explained above.

Similarly, God’s existence can’t be demonstrated by God himself,
as I’ve abundantly explained above.

So are we condemned to doubt about God’s existence? No.
All explained above.

But people can’t hold more than one idea in their heads at a time.
You have to juggle ten ideas at once to understand a topic like this.

 

[Love4All]

:bigyikes: :banghead: :takethat:

I guess** “I answer that, Nothing except God can be eternal”** means nothing to you?

I give up.

empther, that means something to me, and it also means something to me that he added, “this can be proved logically.”

I think it cannot, I think, rather, that Catholic Doctrine clearly states that Wisdom was created in eternity, and is thus eternal with God.

I asked you for a logical demonstration, but perhaps you missed my request. I am advancing it again, here. Please demonstrate the logic that leads you to conclude, or Saint Thomas to conclude if he gave it, that “Nothing except God can be eternal.”

Thanks.

 

[empther]

Please demonstrate the logic that leads you to conclude, or Saint Thomas to conclude if he gave it, that “Nothing except God can be eternal.”

I gave you the link to Aquinas’ Summa article. That should do it.
I’m not going to comb through his voluminous writings line by line,
while somebody nips at my heels all along the way.

 

[Love4All]

I gave you the link to Aquinas’ Summa article. That should do it.
I’m not going to comb through his voluminous writings line by line,
while somebody nips at my heels all along the way.

Really, you see me as “nipping at your heels?”

That’s an insult. You think I’m an annoying dog or something?

Is it because I had to ask you twice for an answer?

And now you refer me to Saint Thomas. That is fine, I love Saint Thomas. Nonetheless, if I do not find the demonstration that Wisdom cannot be created in eternity in Saint Thomas, it would appear that Scripture can remain intact after all, and created Wisdom is from eternity, as Scripture says, despite Saint Thomas’s doubts while he was still in Church Militant. Most Christians do in fact hold Scripture as a higher authority than any Saint. But let us see what Saint Thomas actually said.

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. "

He refers us to elsewhere in the Summa.

newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm#article4

newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm#article3

But these are merely for reference. He makes the case for what he is actually saying in Q. 46, Art. 1, quoted above. He says, first, that the will of God is the cause of all things. I say that God willed Wisdom into existence in eternity, so I do not contradict Saint Thomas there. Then He says that it is not absolutely necessary that God should will anything except Himself. It it not necessary that God should have created a world at all. I do not contradict Saint Thomas here either, since created Wisdom is not a necessary creature. God could have remained by Himself, the Holy Trinity, for all eternity, and never created anything.

What Saint Thomas is saying is that it is impossible to prove the world is eternal because the world is not necessary, and that which is not necessary can at some time not exist. I am not contradicting any of that. But none of that leads to the conclusion that “Nothing except God can be eternal.” If nothing except God can be eternal, then it is impossible for God to create Wisdom in eternity before He created His Creation. Yet, Holy Scripture plainly states that Wisdom was created first, before all things else. Proverbs 8:22-31, Sirach 1:1-8.

If Wisdom was created in eternity, then Wisdom is eternal with God, and it is not God alone who is eternal; Wisdom, also is.

 

[empther]

Yet, Holy Scripture plainly states that Wisdom was created first, before all things else. Proverbs 8:22-31, Sirach 1:1-8.

One cannot expect Old Testament writers to use the precise theology terms of 13th century Aquinas.
When Sirach 1:4 says: “Before all other things wisdom was created;
and prudent understanding, from eternity.” …we understand a doctrine of the Church right there in the Nicene Creed that the Son proceeds from the Father, but this is not creation. The Father does not create the Son. Of course, the Old Testament did not know about the Trinity, but sensed that Wisdom, known to us as the Son, the Word, is an active agent in some way. ( How he sensed this would be an interesting thing to know, I think. ) He did the best he could.

Likewise, throughout the “wisdom books” of the Old Testament, “Wisdom” is sometimes treated as a separate agent. Sometimes they refer to Wisdom as being female. In their confusion they did the best they could.

If Wisdom was created in eternity, then Wisdom is eternal with God, and it is not God alone who is eternal; Wisdom, also is.

So Wisdom is another God? What are you saying?

 

[Love4All]

One cannot expect Old Testament writers to use the precise theology terms of 13th century Aquinas.
When Sirach 1:4 says: “Before all other things wisdom was created;
and prudent understanding, from eternity.” …we understand a doctrine of the Church right there in the Nicene Creed that the Son proceeds from the Father, but this is not creation. The Father does not create the Son. Of course, the Old Testament did not know about the Trinity, but sensed that Wisdom, known to us as the Son, the Word, is an active agent in some way. ( How he sensed this would be an interesting thing to know, I think. ) He did the best he could.

Likewise, throughout the “wisdom books” of the Old Testament, “Wisdom” is sometimes treated as a separate agent. Sometimes they refer to Wisdom as being female. In their confusion they did the best they could.

So Wisdom is another God? What are you saying?

I am saying, for one thing, Wisdom is created, not God. Thus, God and Wisdom is not two Gods, no. It is God and His created Wisdom.

Additionally, I am saying that God’s Word is inerrant.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

You are really, really reaching, calling the human authors of Holy Scripture “confused.” Have you never heard that God is not a God of confusion, but of peace?

One cannot exalt the writings of a mere Doctor of the Church above God’s Word in Holy Scripture. Saint Thomas would rebuke you to your face.

 

[Love4All]

Anyway, empther, I asked you to produce the logical argument that God alone can ever be eternal, and you referred me to Saint Thomas. I clearly demonstrated that Saint Thomas in no way contradicts the doctrine that God created Wisdom in eternity. I notice you didn’t even have an answer for that.

So what I am saying is that,

1. Saint Thomas Aquinas’ statement that God alone can be eternal was not meant to contradict the Catholic Doctrine of the created Wisdom,
2. None of Saint Thomas’ arguments contradicts that doctrine, and
3. EVEN IF he did, which as it turns out he didn’t he would have been wrong. Saint Thomas was neither a human author of Scripture nor a Pope speaking infallibly. He himself would have always insisted that his intent was to conform in every way to the mind of the Church. He would be appalled to see his name trotted out to contradict Catholic Doctrine.

 

[empther]

So what I am saying is that,

1. Saint Thomas Aquinas’ statement that God alone can be eternal was not meant to contradict** the* Catholic Doctrine*** of the created Wisdom,

:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes:

I love this forum. It makes me feel good knowing that I have at least learned something all these years.

 

[aspirant]

That an actual beginning of the universe in time cannot be demonstrated was Thomas’ conclusion. However, that conclusion has not been universally accepted by Catholic and non-Catholic thinkers.

I agree. Thomas’ conclusion is not necessarily correct.

 

[empther]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
That an actual beginning of the universe in time cannot be demonstrated was Thomas’ conclusion. However, that conclusion has not been universally accepted by Catholic and non-Catholic thinkers.

I agree. Thomas’ conclusion is not necessarily correct.

---

:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes:

Any ideas on how it could be demonstrated?


:coffeeread:

 

[Love4All]

:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes:

I love this forum. It makes me feel good knowing that I have at least learned something all these years.

You say you are loyal to the Pope. Ask the Pope about the Children of Love.

 

[Love4All]

:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes:

Any ideas on how it could be demonstrated?


:coffeeread:

Hubble’s Law comes immediately to mind. The figure, 13-1/2 billion years, isn’t arbitrary.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes:

Any ideas on how it could be demonstrated?


:coffeeread:

Not conclusively. The theory of the " Big Bang " would seem to give weight to that conclusion. But I have no idea how it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Linus2nd

 

[empther]

From post 54:

Hubble’s Law comes immediately to mind. The figure, 13-1/2 billion years, isn’t arbitrary.

From post 55:

Not conclusively. The theory of the " Big Bang " would seem to give weight to that conclusion. But I have no idea how it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Linus2nd

From the present distribution and motions of the galaxies, we can deduce the Big Bang,
but that is not necessarily the first existence of a universe, physical reality, whatever you want to call it. In fact, we can’t know anything about what preceded the Big Bang, if anything.

So it can’t be demonstrated.

 

[empther]

Love4All’s post 53…

Originally Posted by empther
:bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes:

I love this forum. It makes me feel good knowing that I have at least learned something all these years.

You say you are loyal to the Pope. Ask the Pope about the Children of Love.

I recently listed my Young Adult novel Empress Theresa on Amazon KINDLE. It is the product of 19 years of hard thinking.

Most YA novels are about teenagers with problems: drugs, drinking, bad friends, bad parents, school bullying etc. Well that’s fine, but what about a story for kids who don’t have personal problems? Where is their hero?

Theresa is just an average Catholic girl with common sense. She has good parents. She doesn’t get in trouble. She studies hard in school.

At eighteen she acquires global power. The British Prime Minister tells the House of Commons, “I understand your fears. What do we do if a child leads us? And make no mistake, Theresa is younger than many children and grandchildren of the members of this House. Who are we dealing with? Will she change?”

Theresa is courageous. Government agents seize her and haul her off to what she is sure is her certain death. She doesn’t plead, complain, or cry. She goes without a fight.

She gives up the quiet life she wanted and does enormous good to everybody in the world. She is every parent’s dream come true daughter and an exceptional exemplar for the young. She is a thrilling inspiration for the young, especially girls. Millions will be positively influenced by her.

Here’s your opportunity to toot your horn, Love3All. What have you done for love of neighbor?

 

[Love4All]

Here’s your opportunity to toot your horn, Love3All. What have you done for love of neighbor?

Thanks, I’ll pass. Thanks for the opportunity of passing up tooting my own horn, those are rare.

However, my request of you, to ask Pope Francis about the Children of Love, stands. He undoubtedly knows about it, he knows what you would be asking him.

“Holy Father, who are the Children of Love?”

This is in response to your implication, above, that the Created Wisdom is not Catholic Doctrine. I pointed you to the Scripture that says it is, and Holy Scripture is part of the Deposit of Faith, public revelation. So it seems to me there should be no question, but apparently there is. Since the only one who can definitively settle a dispute regarding the content of the Deposit of Faith is the Pope, that is why I refer you to him.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

From post 54:

From post 55:

From the present distribution and motions of the galaxies, we can deduce the Big Bang,
but that is not necessarily the first existence of a universe, physical reality, whatever you want to call it. In fact, we can’t know anything about what preceded the Big Bang, if anything.

So it can’t be demonstrated.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves that any universe that has been, on average, expanding in it’s past can’t be past eternal. Vilenkin himself has stated “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning” (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).