Aquinas disagrees with you and Pacwa in
ST 1, P1, Q46, A2:
Objection 6. Further, if the world always was, the consequence is that infinite days preceded this present day. But it is impossible to pass through an infinite medium. Therefore we should never have arrived at this present day; which is manifestly false.
Reply to Objection 6. Passage is always understood as being from term to term. Whatever bygone day we choose, from it to the present day there is a finite number of days which can be passed through. The objection is founded on the idea that, given two extremes, there is an infinite number of mean terms.
**Whether St. Thomas Aquinas is ever Wrong?
**
Objection 1: It would seem the Angelic Doctor is never wrong, because I really like him.
Objection 2: Further, everything I’ve read by him so far is right.
Objection 3: Further, the Church says he’s a really cool guy.
On the Contrary: St. Thomas Aquinas falsely claims that the argument of Objection 6 is not demonstrative in Article 2 of Question 46 when, in fact, it is demonstrative. He does this because
he misunderstands an objection to his position that it cannot be demonstrated the world has a beginning in time. Instead, he maintains the clearly absurd notion that it is possible to have an infinite regress in time (an infinite past).
I Answer That: The original objection to St. Thomas’ position is “…if the world always was, the consequence is that infinite days preceded this present day. But it is impossible to pass through an infinite medium. Therefore we should never have arrived at this present day; which is manifestly false.” The Angelic Doctor answers “…passage is always understood as being from term to term. Whatever bygone day we choose, from it to the present day there is a finite number of days which can be passed through. The objection is founded on the idea that, given two extremes, there is an infinite number of mean terms.”
However,
the objection is not founded on the idea that, given two extremes, there is an infinite number of mean terms. Rather, it is founded on the fact that to be in the present day means all days in the past have, well, passed. And even though it is indeed true that for any given day in an infinite past there is only a finite amount of time between it and the present,
it is also true that there yet remains an infinite amount of time prior to any given day in an infinite past that must have passed before that day. This leads us to conclude that an infinite past is self-contradictory, because assuming the present day is here, and it is indeed here, means an infinite number of days have indeed passed, or rather an infinite amount of time has terminated. But an infinite amount of time by definition cannot terminate.
Further, the first extreme (the present day being the second extreme) is missing, so there can be no passage to the present in the first place. Why? Because present conditions depend on past conditions for their existence, and an infinite past would necessitate an infinite regression in efficient cause which Aquinas has properly demonstrated as nonsensical (ironically, by using the exact same logic underlying the objection to his position on the possible infinite nature of the past).
Further, time is the measure of the motion of something moved relative to the motion of something else moved. Thus, the speed of a car is measured relative to the rotation of the earth (miles per hour). If there was an infinite past, it would require infinite regression in things moved since time is their measure of motion relative to one another. Once again, this has been demonstrated by Aquinas to be nonsensical. In order to attain the present state of motion, there must be a First Mover which is unmoved. Therefore, time must not have an infinite past duration.
**Reply to Objection 1: ** I really like him too, but he’s wrong sometimes. More often than you would think, actually.
**Reply to Objection 2: ** But now you’ve read even further, and found him to be wrong on occasion.
Reply to Objection 3: Yes, but he’s not infallible, and his philosophy needs to be revised and excised of its mistakes.
Ok, that’s not my own, I have quoted it from here, but it’s really well stated and I agree with it. -
anothertheologyblog.stblogs.com/
“To say the universe is infinitely old is to say that it had no beginning–not a beginning that was infinitely long ago.” - Keith Parsons in J.P. Moreland and Kai Neilson, Does God Exist? The Debate between Theists and Atheists (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1993), p. 187.
Yet, time is the measure of change. The universe has been constantly changing. Therefore, if the universe had no beginning, and at the same time was constantly changing, then it means an infinite amount of time has elapsed.
