Why does Aquinas say infinity can't exist?

[Chris_W]

JimG:

As to temporal causes, at the moment, physics and cosmology would trace everything back to the big bang. Before that, was there God’s fiat, “Let there be light.”? Possibly. But some cosmologists may surmise that the big bang was preceded by a big crunch: The universe collapsing in on itself only to bounce back out again into another big bang. An infinite series.

Sorry to revert back farther into the thread, but all this is occupying my mind right now.

This argument (an ever expanding and contracting universe) is refuted by a very similar argument to the contingency argument isn’t it? I am speaking of an argument of the first mover. Movement cannot occur in and of itself any more than a contingent existence could occur in and of itself. Movement is contingent…the result of outside influence which causes it to move (yet another side of that same coin).

Additionally, an ever expanding and contracting universe is also subject to the contingency argument because even if it exploded out of some tiny mass, that tiny mass is contingent in its existence. To say the mass explodes and contracts infinitely does not answer the question of the cause of the Possible Existence of those particles that are expanding and contracting.

Those cosmologists are merely putting off the inevitable by extending it out over a longer period of time.

 

[JimG]

It’s been awhile since I studied philosophy; I think that the argument from contingency is still called that, at least in traditional - Thomist circles. But I also think I’ve heard Kreeft call it something like the argument for “sufficient cause.” But maybe he doesn’t mean quite the same thing.

You are right–all beings are contingent, in that they have no necessary reason for being. “Being” is not essential to their nature. Only God is a necessary–non-contingent being.

The argument I guess is that a universe populated solely by contingent beings is not sufficient to explain itself. There needs to be a non-contingent being.

 

[JimG]

Chris W:

Those cosmologists are merely putting off the inevitable by extending it out over a longer period of time.

Yes, I think the oscillating universe theory would still be subject to the contingency argument, since the universe itself is not sufficient to account for its own existence.

The “first mover” argument would also apply. Although there are some who do not see a problem with an infinite temporal series of movers.

In any case, the oscillating universe theory seems to be somewhat out of favor now. Cosmologists can only get back to a few microseconds after the Big Bang. And the Big Bang is quite satisfying from a theological perspective.

(Not only that, but using the physics of the Big Bang and cosmological expansion, the calculated quantity of the elements to be expected turns out to be exactly what is observed. So it’s a satisfying physical theory too.)

On the subject of mathematical infinities: George Gamow wrote a book–which is probably out of print now–called One, Two, Three, Infinity. In it he points out that there are different degrees of infinity.

e.g.: The infinite series of ALL numbers is exactly equal to the infinite series of only EVEN numbers (or of odd numbers).

But the infinite series of possible decimals is larger than the infinite series of integers!

 

[JimG]

JimG:

On the subject of mathematical infinities: George Gamow wrote a book–which is probably out of print now–called One, Two, Three, Infinity. In it he points out that there are different degrees of infinity.

I have to correct myself. Although Gamow died in 1956, the book remains in print. It is not outdated with respect to infinities, or the concept of an expanding universe, but is of course not up to date in other areas of cosmology and physics. (And of course, he deals with mathematical, not ontological, infinities.)

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello mcliffor,

I think the problem lies with people confining God to physical time. God is the Prime Mover but He exists spiritually outside of physical time. Big Bang scientists fail to account for mass, energy and empty space allready existing before the Big Bang to cause the Big Bang. Wait a minute! God created mass, energy and empty space from nothing.

God is Omni-Present to the whole of physical time which He created. God’s desire in creation is to make a free-willed being who has the capacity to love Him. From the focus point of free-willed Adam, physical creation flowed out into infinite past and infinite future, God created, physical time. This is how in a universe only thousands of years created, scientists can see billions of years of physical past time.

If God wanted to destroy Nineveh with meteorites then meteorites are headed toward Nineveh for tens of thousands of years physical past time. If Nineveh repents, then God can make past physical time where there were never any meteorites headed toward Nineveh.

Scriptures prophesised about Jesus and scriptures were correct. This is because God is outside of physical time and Omni-Present to the whole of physical time.

God made a covenant with Noah and put rainbows in the sky to verifty His covenant. Do scientists think that there were no rainbows before Noah? No. This is because, like creation, both past and future physical time must bend to the awesome power of our, Omni-Present to the whole of physical time, spiritual God.

God was the prime mover on the creation of infinite physical past and infinite future physical time, but He did so outside of physical time in the era of Adam. God is way to Powerful to be confined by physical time which He created.

Please visit Jesus Loves God and Creation which compare physical and spiritual existance.