Many think God could have made an eternal universe. Aquinas wrote a book on it

Time is measured by the movement of objects or particles. If no particles or ligh waves are moving then there is no time. — christian2017

In the beginning there was the expansion of space. Not the movement of particles because they had not yet been formed.

I believe Aquinas thought God was eternal and timeless, but that the universe was not. If you read his prime mover argument (see below), he explicitly rules out the kind of eternal infinite descent you are referring to with your domino argument.

‘The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.’
- Thomas Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3, Summa Theologica

Many think God could have made an eternal universe. Aquinas wrote a book on it — Gregory

Whatever made the Universe we may call God. There you go. In 1 sentence I have explained everything you need to know.

When something changes color there are moving parts. Colors are produced by different wavelengths of light. Visible light is above Infrared and below Ultra Violet. — christian2017

The moving part is the expansion of Space. It pulls apart the wavelengths of light, causing them to change color from ultraviolet to infrared.

I know all about Aquinas. He said the world was not eternal because the bible says so but that reason can't prove it. He says it in the sigma thelogca, the summa contra gentiles, and his book on this very subject called munda something. His arguments that there is still a prime mover needed in an eternal universe don't strictly work. It depends how you model the seried

The book in English is titled on the eternity of the world. It was Bonaventure who believed in the Islam argument
Aquinas rejected that Muslim argument and side to an extent with Aristotle

The Muslim argument is the kalam argument

I know all about Aquinas. He said the world was not eternal because the bible says so but that reason can't prove it — Gregory

I think he gave a specific reason why he thought the world was not eternal - I have highlighted it above in the quote I gave from the first way - infinite regresses are just not logically possible. Many philosophers down the years have agreed with Aquinas, for example, Leibniz:

’Suppose the book of the elements of geometry to have been eternal, one copy having been written down from an earlier one. It is evident that even though a reason can be given for the present book out, we should never come to a full reason. What is true of the books is also true of the states of the world. If you suppose the world eternal, you will suppose nothing but a succession of states and will not find in any of them a sufficient reason.’ - Leibniz, Theodicy

When something changes color there are moving parts. Colors are produced by different wavelengths of light. Visible light is above Infrared and below Ultra Violet. — christian2017

Your getting bogged down in projecting what we currently understand to a situation that would predate the laws that we currently experience. The situation that I proposed is a universe where the only degree of freedom is an instant and total color change. What other parameters. that would be neccessary to produce this I do not know but there would be no moving parts in a homogeneous state. There would be no things to move. For example if I handed you a blank piece of paper and said whats on that paper you would say nothing. If I draw a line or a boundary then there is something because that breaks the homogeny. All I'm pointing out is a theoretical way that you could produce a clock from a homogeneous state.under a certain set of circumstances

So Aquinas contradicts himself in the first book of the Summa Theologica? I've read it. Do your research please Devan

I'm not sure what you mean - believing that the world is not eternal because of a believe in God and a belief in the impossibility of eternal infinite regressions in not contradicting oneself.

If anyone is interested in commemtary, search "accidental infinite series vs essentially infinite series Aquinas" on Bing

waves and particles are essentially one and the same. Your probably a arm chair quarterback.

You can't have waves without time and frequency. Frequency is a function of time

The first hit on Bing is a scholarly work that agrees with Aquinas’s, Leibniz, et all, that infinite regressions are not possible:

https://philpapers.org/archive/COHTMB.pdf

Perhaps you mean that Aquinas contradicted himself by holding beliefs in both of:

- the impossibility of an infinite regression
- that God is infinite

If so, I would agree - infinity is impossible so God cannot be infinite. The bible says God is infinite - without any justification - and Aquinas ties himself in a logical knot trying to justify that claim. Aquinas’s justification for God being infinite is given as:

1. Matter is made finite by form. Form is made finite by matter.
2. Matter is first potential to many forms, but when it receives a form it is made finite by that form.
3. Form is common to many, but when it is received by a particular matter it is then made finite.
4. Infinite matter, before it is made finite by form, is imperfect because matter without form is formless matter.
5. Form is contracted, and not made perfect, by matter. Form is infinite when not contracted by matter and thus has the nature of something perfect.
6. Being is the most formal of all things.
7. God is a divine being not received in anything, but is his own subsistent being. Therefore, God is infinite and perfect.

On [1] matter cannot exist without form so it is not made finite by form, it is finite period.
On [4] no justification for the existence of infinite formless matter is given
On [5] an infinite form is only possible in mathematics, not in reality
On [7] infinity is by definition unmeasurable, but any being can always measure itself - it is basic self awareness, so 'being' and 'infinite' are incompatible.

You can't have waves without time and frequency. Frequency is a function of time — christian2017

Can you please quote me to make it easier for me to understand your objections?

only time will tell. I doubt you are correct. Why wouldn't that light escape the area that had the homogenous state. When light is released into a vaccuum it will probably head out of the original space quite possibly perpetually.

It is only once we have become God that will we understand God — ovdtogt

What is anti time? I thought time could only be measured by the movement of particles. Even particles move in the opposite direction, time is still only measured by the movement of particles. Since the speed of light is constant or so they say, this makes time relative. (special relativity)

What is anti time? I thought time could only be measured by the movement of particles — christian2017

Might it be then the movement of anti-matter?

only time will tell. I doubt you are correct. Why wouldn't that light escape the area that had the homogenous state. When light is released into a vaccuum it will probably head out of the original space quite possibly perpetually. — christian2017

Again whether the change in color is by light or the flying dutchman is not important. The conditions I'm talking about are not the same as the conditions we live in. One might ask where light comes from in the first place. What causes the colour might have nothing to do with light. We are talking about speculative conditions before the big bang

perhaps

the difference between blue and purple is frequency. Your eye balls a radar system that can decipher frequencies. How would light not escape the system if it is surrounded by a vaccuum?

Yes that is true from our perspective I agree with you on that however all I'm asking you to do is to not keep on projecting how our reality works onto a hypothetical universe which intuiitvely should be much more simple than this one. The point is that if conditions before the big bang were homogeneous and there was some sort of constraint that made this a condition then the only degree of freedom that I can think of which can occur in that state is a change in color of the background. What the homogeneous state is is not something I can say at the moment, questions as to whether its a vacuum or space are not important really in the context of what I'm saying

Time is measured by the movement of objects or particles. If no particles or ligh waves are moving then there is no time. — christian2017

You said it: time is measured by the movement of objects. But time is not generated by the movement of objects. Therefore if no movement occurs, time can still exist.

Much like distance is measured with a distance-meter, such as with a ruler or a yardstick, but if no yardsticks existed, distances would still exist.

You basically put the horse behind the cart.

Time is measured by the movement of objects or particles. If no particles or ligh waves are moving then there is no time. — christian2017

If that were the case, time would stand still in a perfect vacuum . The vacuum would disappear into the past.

oh ok now i see what you are saying. I've heard that prior to the big bang particles were line up similar to the way a magnet has some of its particles lined up for lack of a better example.

if nothing whatsoever moves then there is no passage of time. Special Relativtiy backs this up. Time is measured completely by the movement of particles and/or objects. If nothing moves it may seem like an "eternity" but in fact no time has passed. "Time is relative".

Photons are made up of particles.

Time isn't a substance but can only be observed by the movement of particles. If nothing moves then it might possibly seem like lots of time is passing (your brain has moving particles) but in fact no time at all is passing.

Ofcourse particles are moving inside your brain so time is passing but since the speed of light never exceeds C this plays into the fact that "time is relative". I could give you my explanation of special relativity but you are probably better off looking elsewhere on this forum for an explanation of special relativity.

My explanation is in short the X vector + the Y vector + the Z vector of any given particle can never exceed C (the speed of light).

For example if X approaches C, Y and Z will approach 0

A clock under these conditions would be drastically effected in its ability to tell time

To understand this you at the very least must understand Vectors and also to some extent Newtonian (somewhat archaic) physics.

Time is measured by the movement of objects or particles. If no particles or ligh waves are moving then there is no time. — christian2017


If that were the case, time would stand still in a perfect vacuum . The vacuum would disappear into the past. — ovdtogt