H
Hamlet123
Guest
Ok, are you saying that “…from time eternal God willed the existence of the Cosmos; therefore, the Cosmos had no existance.”?
POVERTYCURE.ORG
- Status
POVERTYCURE.ORG
E
Evan
Guest
More like “…from time eternal God willed the existence of the Cosmos; therefore, the Cosmos has existance.”
except our concept of eternal is for all time. And God is not bound by time as that is something God created. God existed when time did not.
H
Hamlet123
Guest
So time was created by God
The Cosmos can not exist without God
Therefore:God created the cosos
Anything that is/was created had a beginning
Time had a beginning
So: The Cosmos had a beginning
A
aspirant
Guest
St. Thomas Aquinas made this argument:
Summa Theologica I.46 (esp. 2)
On The Eternity of the World
Brief summary: St. Thomas argued that reason alone was unable to demonstrate that the universe (world) had no beginning in time. He likewise argued that reason alone was unable to demonstrate that the universe did have a beginning in time. For this reason, none of Thomas’ arguments for the existence of God depend on the universe having a beginning in time. Instead, he argues that even if the universe does not have a beginning in time it must nevertheless have a Creator. That the universe has a beginning in time, he says, is an article of faith: As with the doctrine of the Trinity, we know it not by unaided reason but because it is revealed.
He may be right, he may be wrong, but that’s what Thomas argued.
Thomas would say that Christians are obligated by revelation to believe that the universe has a beginning in time. Some understand Vatican I to teach the same:
"Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith:
Not according to St. Thomas (though some have disagreed with him!). Check out what he has to say through the links above.
S
snarflemike
Guest
Another thing that seems contradictory is this: Take an event, any event (like me typing this message). That event did not happen over an infinity of time, and yet it is happening now. How can an event not happen for infinity, and then happen? It seems perilously close to saying A and not A.
E
empther
Guest
Interesting how the same error keeps getting passed along from one poster to another.
By “demonstrate”, Aquinas meant something could be examined. Clearly the universe’s past could not be demonstrated. It’s in the past!
But reason could prove that the universe couldn’t be from an infinite past, and Aquinas does so.
A
aspirant
Guest
No, he did not. Demonstration is a form of reasoning that yields conclusions from premises. For example:
First premise: The world contains instances of efficient causation.
Second premise: Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
Third premise: So, every efficient cause seems to have a prior cause.
Fourth premise: But we cannot have an infinite regress of efficient causes.
Conclusion: So there must be a first efficient cause “to which everyone gives the name God.”
E
Evan
Guest
I disagree with 4. Beginning implies a point in time. If time is a creation, how can it be a point in time.
Even our present theory of the universe, posits time did not exist before the beginning of the universe. The universe began, and there was no before.
Time is a difficult concept. I believe there are 4 theories (perhaps 3) on what is time. I have a book containing essays concerning what is time.
H
Hamlet123
Guest
How about summarizing these four or three theories. It would be a good basis for an extension of this topic. I am vaguely aware of what you are talking about. Looking forward to your summary.
E
Evan
Guest
As I recall one wasHow about summarizing these four or three theories. It would be a good basis for an extension of this topic. I am vaguely aware of what you are talking about. Looking forward to your summary.
Time is the change in things. So we define time so that periodic things happen in the same amount of time (sunrise-sunrise, swinging pendulum) etc. If NOTHING in the universe changes, no time passes.
Another was
Time is a marking of different spacial universes. Each universe is a separate space, with little change (like a movie) and our mind links them together. There is no actual movement, but we create time by assigning the different spaces, different time coordinates.
Another is a extra universal time.
This we cannot exactly experience. If all things froze in place and another universe was substituted, then space is alternated Universe A for a week, Universe B for a week and so on. WE only know of one… our clocks may be wrong, but time continues even when we are frozen.
Another is the quantum theory time.
Actions only occur when quantum linear super positions are realized by an intelligent observer (see, for example, schrodinger’s cat). (For the universe, bereft of man, the observer would be God).
E
empther
Guest
You missed the point.
Summa Theologica question 2: Existence of God…
newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article2
In article one Aquiinas says:
In article two he says:Therefore I say that this proposition, “God exists,” of itself is self-evident, Watch it!]
for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (3, 4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects.
The universe and the things in it are self-evident to us. They can be examined. Just take a look. There they are.
But God’s essence cannot be known to us, although we can deduce some things about it after we affirm God exists, as Aquinas does.
Sp we can only prove God exists from his effects which we do know because we have examined them, and we can see they can’t exist without God.
H
Hamlet123
Guest
Which of these support the claim that time has always existed?
A
aspirant
Guest
In other words, because God’s existence is not self-evident to us (we are incapable of comprehending it), knowledge of God’s existence must be acquired through a posteriori demonstrations. The premises are facts about the world, the conclusion is that God exists. This is exactly what I have been saying. Demonstration is not mere observation, it’s a form of reasoning.
E
empther
Guest
… based on observable, self-evident facts.
A
aspirant
Guest
Not all premises are established in this manner. They may also be established, for example, by prior reasonable demonstration. In any case, what is demonstrated is the conclusion, via reason.
And this is one of the reasons you are quire wrong about Thomas, and have been for some time. He argues (rightly or wrongly) that the universe having a beginning in time cannot be logically demonstrated (concluded from established premises), but can only be known to us via revelation (i.e. Genesis). Reason alone, Thomas says, can establish that the universe has a First Cause, but simply cannot reach the conclusion that the universe has a beginning.
(Your second mistake, on the other thread, at least, was reading the term “eternal” univocally, despite the fact that Thomas does not use it that way.)
C
Classicist
Guest
May I just give a simple answer to the OP question?
The reason the Universe can’t be eternal is because you exist. There is an infinite gap in the very makeup of the Universe between 1. When You Were Not and 2. When You Were. One second before you were conceived, You Were Not. One second after you were conceived, You Were. It is not the same universe before and after. A change has occurred.
The very fact that two different universes exist between a split millisecond is evidence of the fact that the Universe is not eternal. Eternity absolutely must be a flat plane or time, without even the tiniest shadow of change. The Universe can’t be eternal because it’s physical.
The reason the Universe can’t be eternal is because you exist. There is an infinite gap in the very makeup of the Universe between 1. When You Were Not and 2. When You Were. One second before you were conceived, You Were Not. One second after you were conceived, You Were. It is not the same universe before and after. A change has occurred.
The very fact that two different universes exist between a split millisecond is evidence of the fact that the Universe is not eternal. Eternity absolutely must be a flat plane or time, without even the tiniest shadow of change. The Universe can’t be eternal because it’s physical.
E
empther
Guest
This is a classic example of putting a string of words together that sound good if you don’t think deeply about them.
Aquinas begins by demonstrating the existence of God from his effects, that is, from the observable universe.
After doing that,
he deduces many other things about God, without demonstrating them from the universe or at least not always,
but it all begins with demonstration of God’s existence from his effects.
So saying “Not all premises are established in this manner” while it sounds good is really meaningless.
A
aspirant
Guest
And, as I said, the demonstration is in deriving the conclusion from premises, not the mere fact of observing anything. God cannot be observed, nor is his existence self-evident to us (though the statement “God exists” is self-evident in itself), but his existence can be demonstrated from his effects, and this Thomas sought to do.
Here is a simpler example of demonstration:
Premise one: All humans are mortal.
Premise two: All sages are human.
Conclusion: All sages are mortal.
He demonstrates other things about God through the use of premises, as above.
As I said, through a posteriori demonstrations: from effects to cause.
Not at all. After demonstrating the existence of God from his effects, for example, the existence of God may be used as a premise in a subsequent demonstration. This would be an example in which not all premises are established through observation or truths which are self-evident to us, but through prior demonstration.
A
Anthony_V
Guest
I’m skeptical about the universe being created infinitely in the past. I can understand the concept, but it seems to rival the eternal procession of Logos in the Trinity, by which all things are made. If someone can make those two ends fit, I will give credence to the possibility.
Note: Eternal and infinite are not synonymous. Eternal concerns the nature of God as existence (the divine being/to-be), while infinite concerns the expanse of a particular existent.
Note: Eternal and infinite are not synonymous. Eternal concerns the nature of God as existence (the divine being/to-be), while infinite concerns the expanse of a particular existent.
A
aspirant
Guest
St. Thomas sometimes used the word “eternal” both for a created world without a beginning in time* and for God. When you read what he wrote on the subject, however, it becomes clear that he is not using the term univocally. For example: “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,” ( I.46.2, Reply to Objection 5Summa Theologica).
- For clarity: Thomas believes the world does have a beginning in time. He argues that it would be possible for a created world without a beginning in time to exist, not that it does exist.
- Status