What do you think? How do you interpret Aquinas' argument? I am interested to hear from both critics as well as supporters of Aquinas' Third Way argument. — NotAristotle
An objection to Aquinas' argument, in my opinion, is that, while there could have been a time when nothing was in existence, there also could have been "possible beings" in existence at all times. — NotAristotle
At the same time, I think Aquinas is a really smart dude, so I'm like "what am I missing about his argument?" — NotAristotle
We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not.
Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now, if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing.
Does he say 'there could have been a time when nothing existed?' or are you imputing that to him. The argument, as you've provided, and which is a fair paraphrase, doesn't claim that.
We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not.
He's simply observing that all things 'found in nature' are temporally de-limited, i.e. they have a beginning and an end in time. They don't exist 'by necessity' but only as a matter of contingency. He goes on:
Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now, if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. — Wayfarer
f god is the creator and sustainer of our reality then it must be that case that before creation, before existance and causality, there was nothing but god. — Tom Storm
(I'm bracketing this response as I don't want to derail the conversation about the OP. — Wayfarer
But something to consider is that, if the Universe had existed eternally, and everything in it has a finite lifespan, then again, nothing would exist now, as everything that could have existed, would have already perished, as the amount of time involved is infinite, and no addition of finite durations can add up to an infinite sequence of time. (This is not stated explicitly in the argument, but it is part of the background to the family of arguments). — Wayfarer
If god is the creator and sustainer of our reality then it must be that case that before creation, before existance and causality, there was nothing but god.
Creation is not the sort of making that is properly speaking a change, but is rather a certain receiving of being. Hence it need have no essential relation except to the giver of being, and in this way it is not ‘out of’ non-being, except insofar as it is after non-being, as night is ‘out of’ day.”
(I'm bracketing this response as I don't want to derail the conversation about the OP. The popular image of God as a kind of cosmic director or literal sky-father is deeply entrenched in culture and is typically the target of athiest polemics. — Wayfarer
If god is the creator and sustainer of our reality then it must be that case that before creation, before existence and causality, there was nothing but god. — Tom Storm
My intuition about Aquinas is that at the end of his career, when he fell into an ecstatic state and declared 'compared with that I have seen, all I have written seems as straw', it was because of direct realisation of that reality. — Wayfarer
From our perspective, there are things existing. From the perspective of us "now" those things must exist; there existence is necessary. Therefore, it is false that it is possible for the things that exist "now" to not exist (as they would if everything ceased to exist at the time of "now" or earlier). Since the things existing in nature now are merely possible beings, the necessity of their existence must derive from another, that is, from a necessary being. — NotAristotle
But then for a great part of its history, Biblical religion was addressed to illiterate agrarian and farming communities, and had to be presented through myth and allegories that this audience would understand. It's anachronistic in our post-industrial technocratic culture. The mystical stream within Christianity is somewhat detached from that, which is why the mystics often skirt with, or even are accussed of, heresy. — Wayfarer
The issue may be stated in this manner: Aquinas' 3rd Way, as written, may require interpretation. — NotAristotle
I wonder if there should be (if there isn't already) a thread on (dare I say it) alternative accounts of god which are not personal or anthropomorphic? — Tom Storm
Good idea, although on a secular forum, it's rather like tossing bits of bloodied meat into the Piranha River. ;-) — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.