What is the point of St. Thomas's 5 proofs for the existence of God if he believed the universe could have existed eternally?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Today’s science allows us to know the exact moment when time began, and that would include all that is within the bubble of time. Anyway that is what I heard because I’m not a scientist nor acquainted with that technique.

It has to do with the expansion of creation and the speed of objects in space. From this fact, scientists can count back to the exact moment when time started. In this way they know how old time is. This points out the fact that there was nothing before time started. So from the cutting edge of science we now know the universe could not have existed eternally.
 
fred_conty said:
Today’s science allows us to know the exact moment when time began, and that would include all that is within the bubble of time. Anyway that is what I heard because I’m not a scientist nor acquainted with that technique.

It has to do with the expansion of creation and the speed of objects in space. From this fact, scientists can count back to the exact moment when time started. In this way they know how old time is. This points out the fact that there was nothing before time started. So from the cutting edge of science we now know the universe could not have existed eternally.
Click to expand...
I think that science can tell us approximately when the Big Bang occurred, which is roughly 13.7 billion years ago. However, it is not clear if that is the moment when time began, because it is unknown factually as to what occurred before the Big Bang. For example, there is one theory, called the cyclic theory of the universe, which claims that the collapse and expansion of the universe occurs cyclically, and forever. In the past this theory was discredited. However, recently it has arisen in a revised form. For example there is the work of the Princeton physicist, professor Paul J. Steinhardt. But there are others also, who have been supporting this idea.

physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/vaasrev.pdf
 
Tomdstone said:
I think that science can tell us approximately when the Big Bang occurred, which is roughly 13.7 billion years ago. However, it is not clear if that is the moment when time began, because it is unknown factually as to what occurred before the Big Bang. For example, there is one theory, called the cyclic theory of the universe, which claims that the collapse and expansion of the universe occurs cyclically, and forever. In the past this theory was discredited. However, recently it has arisen in a revised form. For example there is the work of the Princeton physicist, professor Paul J. Steinhardt. But there are others also, who have been supporting this idea.

physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/vaasrev.pdf
Click to expand...
In dealing with time, we have those two little words “to be” which science will never fully uncover. Being is the stuff of faith.
 
Tomdstone said:
I think that science can tell us approximately when the Big Bang occurred, which is roughly 13.7 billion years ago. However, it is not clear if that is the moment when time began, because it is unknown factually as to what occurred before the Big Bang. For example, there is one theory, called the cyclic theory of the universe, which claims that the collapse and expansion of the universe occurs cyclically, and forever. In the past this theory was discredited. However, recently it has arisen in a revised form. For example there is the work of the Princeton physicist, professor Paul J. Steinhardt. But there are others also, who have been supporting this idea.

physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/vaasrev.pdf
Click to expand...
That theory of habitual bouncing to make another cycle of time still doesn’t explain why the very first bounce happened. Because the whole bounce theory had to be setup before the first bounce could take place. I scanned the article but as far as I could tell, there is nothing said about why/how this happened in the first place. All it showed was a circular event to make it perpetual, but not how it all started or why it all started.

To me it seems as tho they are saying this bounce theory implies that there had to be a big bang, or something comperable, to start the engine of perpetual bounces. They don’t say this, but then isn’t that the logical conclusion?
 
fred_conty said:
That theory of habitual bouncing to make another cycle of time still doesn’t explain why the very first bounce happened. Because the whole bounce theory had to be setup before the first bounce could take place. I scanned the article but as far as I could tell, there is nothing said about why/how this happened in the first place. All it showed was a circular event to make it perpetual, but not how it all started or why it all started.

To me it seems as tho they are saying this bounce theory implies that there had to be a big bang, or something comperable, to start the engine of perpetual bounces. They don’t say this, but then isn’t that the logical conclusion?
Click to expand...
There was no first bounce according to the cyclical theory.
 
e_c said:
No. The angels are “aeviternal,” just as the saints. The “aevum” is a half-temporal half-eternal mode of being.
Click to expand...
Is there a cite from Aquinas on this? I have a problem understanding a mode of being that is half-temporal half-eternal.

Human beings begin at a definite point in time but then stay in being forever after. So you could say that they are half-temporal, half-eternal.

But, since time is intrinsically bound up with matter according to Aristotle (and, I guess, Aquinas), immaterial beings such as angels exist “outside time” - so what is half-temporal about them?
 
Tomdstone said:
There was no first bounce according to the cyclical theory.
Click to expand...
Which is why it is only a hypothesis rather than a theory.

There’s no evidence there was no first bounce. Nor could there ever be any such evidence.
 
Tomdstone said:
I think that science can tell us approximately when the Big Bang occurred, which is roughly 13.7 billion years ago. However, it is not clear if that is the moment when time began, because it is unknown factually as to what occurred before the Big Bang. For example, there is one theory, called the cyclic theory of the universe, which claims that the collapse and expansion of the universe occurs cyclically, and forever. In the past this theory was discredited. However, recently it has arisen in a revised form. For example there is the work of the Princeton physicist, professor Paul J. Steinhardt. But there are others also, who have been supporting this idea.
Click to expand...
And I’ll bet you even money they are atheists to a man. 😉
 
Ben_Sinner said:
I have heard that St. Thomas Aquinas believed that it is possible for the universe to have existed for ever. This argument would mean that there is a possibility that there is no God, which would be contrary to the 5 PROOFS of God’s existence (Especially his First Cause argument)

Am I misunderstanding what the St. Thomas was asserting?
Click to expand...
Since the universe or creation depends on God and his will and God and his will are eternal, he could have produced an eternal effect if he had so willed. But he didn’t will from all eternity that creation should be eternal. This we have from divine revelation. Accordingly, we hold as an article of faith that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). St Thomas held that it could not be demonstrated philosophically either way whether the universe is eternal or had a beginning. That the universe had a beginning as I said is a matter of divine revelation and divine faith in the word of God. If God had willed from all eternity that creation should be eternal, God would still be the cause of creation and its being created out of nothing.

If one reads the 5 proofs that St Thomas offers for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica, one will find that he doesn’t mention anything about the eternity or non-eternity of the universe. This is because St Thomas is not concerned in these proofs about philosophically proving or demonstrating the eternity or non-eternity of the universe which as I have just mentioned above St Thomas did not believe the eternity or non-eternity of the universe could be philosophically demonstrated. In the 5 proofs, St Thomas is concerned about the here and now, the present moment or the present moment when anyone considers the arguments in establishing the existence of God. For example, if considering the arguments for the first unmoved mover or the first efficient cause, God is the first mover and the first efficient cause of what is happening or taking place in the universe right now, at the present moment. This does not mean of course that God was not the first mover or the first efficient cause of what took place in the past. But again, St Thomas is not concerned so much with finding a first mover or first efficient cause sometime in the past but right now in the present. The world exists right now and events are taking place in the world because God is active. The universe exists right now because of God’s causal activity without which it would fall back into nothingness.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Half-eternal or half-immortal? :confused:
Click to expand...
Half-immortal - yes.

This assumes that “eternity” has no temporality, i.e., if “eternity” means something other than existing on an infinite time line.

But the distinction between an infinite time line and an “eternity” is subtle.

You have to be able to think of a “now” that does not structurally have a past or a future.

A presence without any absences of any sort whatsoever.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
I have heard that St. Thomas Aquinas believed that it is possible for the universe to have existed for ever. This argument would mean that there is a possibility that there is no God, which would be contrary to the 5 PROOFS of God’s existence (Especially his First Cause argument)

Am I misunderstanding what the St. Thomas was asserting?
Click to expand...
I think he said that (I answer that) “By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist,”
ST First part Question 46, article 2.
 
Tomdstone said:
I think he said that (I answer that) “By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist,”
ST First part Question 46, article 2.
Click to expand...
Seven centuries later the demonstration arrived in the Big Bang theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top