Dr. William Lane Craig | Pints With Aquinas

[Vetus Ordo]

Excellent interview with Dr. William Lane Craig on Pints with Aquinas.

It gets particularly interesting after minute 22 when Dr. Craig talks about how he managed to come to terms with the challenges that Platonism poses to the doctrine of divine aseity.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YURCo2Hdapo[/yt]

[Xavier]

I like Prof. Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument. KCA.

Major: Whatever begins to exist has a Cause. [Logical Necessity]
Minor: But, the Universe began to exist. [Empirical Fact]
Conclusion: Consequently, the Universe has a Cause. [from LN+EF]

Therefore, a Cause of the Universe, a First Cause of all things, Exists.

And this Cause of the Universe is Who we all call Almighty God.

St. Thomas Aquinas would probably formulate the issue like this:

Major: Whatever exists Contingently requires an Efficient Cause. [A Certain Logical Necessity]
Minor: But, the Universe is known to exist Contingently. [Since what has begun to exist is contingent]
Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe requires an Efficient Cause. [From the two premises above]

St. Thomas would say, an infinite regress of contingent causes is impossible.

At some time, we must come to a Necessary Cause, without Beginning or End.

Another way in which we can see the Universe is contingent is it could cease to exist.

But whatever could conceivably cease to exist exists contingently, not necessarily.

In just the same way, as seen above, what begins to exist, exists contingently.

Therefore, the universe is not uncaused, but has a Cause, that exists necessarily.

And this Necessary First Cause of all things is God, Who exists, timelessly or eternally.

And whatever exists timelessly, without beginning or end, exists eternally & necessarily.

St. Thomas: "The third way is taken from possibility and necessity and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not possible to be, since they are found to be generated and corrupted. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true then even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus now nothing would be in existence -- which is absurd.

Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

[Non Nobis]

I like Prof. Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument. KCA.

Major: Whatever begins to exist has a Cause. [Logical Necessity]
Minor: But, the Universe began to exist. [Empirical Fact]
Conclusion: Consequently, the Universe has a Cause. [from LN+EF]

Therefore, a Cause of the Universe, a First Cause of all things, Exists.

And this Cause of the Universe is Who we all call Almighty God.

St. Thomas Aquinas would probably formulate the issue like this:

Major: Whatever exists Contingently requires an Efficient Cause. [A Certain Logical Necessity]
Minor: But, the Universe is known to exist Contingently. [Since what has begun to exist is contingent]
Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe requires an Efficient Cause. [From the two premises above]

St. Thomas would say, an infinite regress of contingent causes is impossible.

At some time, we must come to a Necessary Cause, without Beginning or End.

Another way in which we can see the Universe is contingent is it could cease to exist.

But whatever could conceivably cease to exist exists contingently, not necessarily.

In just the same way, as seen above, what begins to exist, exists contingently.

Therefore, the universe is not uncaused, but has a Cause, that exists necessarily.

And this Necessary First Cause of all things is God, Who exists, timelessly or eternally.

And whatever exists timelessly, without beginning or end, exists eternally & necessarily.

St. Thomas: "The third way is taken from possibility and necessity and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not possible to be, since they are found to be generated and corrupted. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true then even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus now nothing would be in existence -- which is absurd.

Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm
St. Thomas thought: that it is not "a demonstrable [reason alone] conclusion that the world began"  .."By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist".  He does say that the world of creatures can be shown to be not eternal "Nothing except God can be eternal. And this statement is far from impossible to uphold: for it has been shown above (I:19:4) that the will of God is the cause of things. Therefore things are necessary, according as it is necessary for God to will them, since the necessity of the effect depends on the necessity of the cause (Metaph. v, text 6). Now it was shown above (I:19:3), that, absolutely speaking, it is not necessary that God should will anything except Himself. It is not therefore necessary for God to will that the world should always exist; but the world exists forasmuch as God wills it to exist, since the being of the world depends on the will of God, as on its cause. It is not therefore necessary for the world to be always; and hence it cannot be proved by demonstration."

So the world can't exist eternally on-its-own self-causing but St. Thomas is saying that if it weren't for FAITH we wouldn't know it it  had a definite beginning at a concrete spot in time. I don't know how else to read St. Thomas.

Modern science (besides faith itself) shows indicates a beginning of the universe at a concrete spot in time.  The Kalam Cosmologicial Argument follows best from this.

[Xavier]

Hi, Non Nobis. St. Thomas seems to say that the world must be created, but need not necessarily be non-eternal. It could be created, yet eternal; the analogy being given is that of a footprint eternally caused by an Eternal Foot. As the Cause was eternal, St. Thomas says, the Effect also could be eternal - and reason alone could NOT preclude this. "As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 4), the opinion of philosophers who asserted the eternity of the world was twofold. For some said that the substance of the world was not from God, which is an intolerable error; and therefore it is refuted by proofs that are cogent. Some, however, said that the world was eternal, although made by God. For they hold that the world has a beginning, not of time, but of creation, so that in a certain hardly intelligible way it was always made. "And they try to explain their meaning thus (De Civ. Dei x, 31): for as, if the foot were always in the dust from eternity, there would always be a footprint which without doubt was caused by him who trod on it, so also the world always was, because its Maker always existed." To understand this we must consider that the efficient cause, which acts by motion, of necessity precedes its effect in time; because the effect is only in the end of the action, and every agent must be the principle of action. But if the action is instantaneous and not successive, it is not necessary for the maker to be prior to the thing made in duration as appears in the case of illumination. Hence they say that it does not follow necessarily if God is the active cause of the world, that He should be prior to the world in duration; because creation, by which He produced the world, is not a successive change, as was said above (I:45:2)."

Granting this, the footprint would still be contingent. It would seem to be an eternal effect from an eternal cause, but it still is an effect - and if not temporally, then at least logically, it has a beginning, because something preceded it causally speaking, namely, God. At least that is how I think we can understand it. Your thoughts on that, Non?

Of course Revelation teaches us the world had a beginning. And since science now suggests that also, it is likely one's non-theistic opponent will grant that particular premise with less difficulty. So, yes, I admit Kalam is a good argument. But I also think the Third Way is sound. What do you make of the Third Way, on contingency or possibility and necessity?

If we see the second paragraph, St. Thomas is not content with stopping at proving that there is some Necessary Being. I usually stop at that, as most people grant something Necessary, without beginning or end, could only be God. But just in case some one wants to argue something could be Necessary but not God (as some still do, of course) St. Thomas goes further to show, that in Necessary Beings itself, there is a kind of "contingent necessity" - "it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another" [although if something has "its necessity caused by another" does it reduce to being contingent? I don't know.] which must be referred back to an absolutely Necessary First Being: "Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity ... This all men speak of as God". Whew!

St. Thomas is thorough, imho, to foresee and to forestall all possible objections from every side. The important takeaway for us is God exists without beginning or end as First Cause of all things.

God Bless.

[Exsurge Domine]

Excellent interview with Dr. William Lane Craig on Pints with Aquinas.

It gets particularly interesting after minute 22 when Dr. Craig talks about how he managed to come to terms with the challenges that Platonism poses to the doctrine of divine aseity.

[removed for heretical content]

Craig is a renowned and obstinate heretic. Why are heretics being given a platform to speak on what should be a Catholic forum?

[Vetus Ordo]

Excellent interview with Dr. William Lane Craig on Pints with Aquinas.

It gets particularly interesting after minute 22 when Dr. Craig talks about how he managed to come to terms with the challenges that Platonism poses to the doctrine of divine aseity.

[removed for heretical content]

Craig is a renowned and obstinate heretic. Why are heretics being given a platform to speak on what should be a Catholic forum?

Removed for heretical content. I chuckled. There's no such thing in the interview with Dr. Craig.

You would have noticed that in case you'd bothered to watch it.

[Exsurge Domine]

Excellent interview with Dr. William Lane Craig on Pints with Aquinas.

It gets particularly interesting after minute 22 when Dr. Craig talks about how he managed to come to terms with the challenges that Platonism poses to the doctrine of divine aseity.

[removed for heretical content]

Craig is a renowned and obstinate heretic. Why are heretics being given a platform to speak on what should be a Catholic forum?

Removed for heretical content. I chuckled. There's no such thing in the interview with Dr. Craig.

You would have noticed that in case you'd bothered to watch it.

Heretics aren't to be entertained or watched, idiot. Are you even a Catholic?

[Kreuzritter]

Excellent interview with Dr. William Lane Craig on Pints with Aquinas.

It gets particularly interesting after minute 22 when Dr. Craig talks about how he managed to come to terms with the challenges that Platonism poses to the doctrine of divine aseity.

[removed for heretical content]

Craig is a renowned and obstinate heretic. Why are heretics being given a platform to speak on what should be a Catholic forum?

Removed for heretical content. I chuckled. There's no such thing in the interview with Dr. Craig.

You would have noticed that in case you'd bothered to watch it.

Heretics aren't to be entertained or watched, idiot. Are you even a Catholic?

And you've what, been "Catholic" for a whole year after listening to MHFM Youtube videos?

[Exsurge Domine]

Excellent interview with Dr. William Lane Craig on Pints with Aquinas.

It gets particularly interesting after minute 22 when Dr. Craig talks about how he managed to come to terms with the challenges that Platonism poses to the doctrine of divine aseity.

[removed for heretical content]

Craig is a renowned and obstinate heretic. Why are heretics being given a platform to speak on what should be a Catholic forum?

Removed for heretical content. I chuckled. There's no such thing in the interview with Dr. Craig.

You would have noticed that in case you'd bothered to watch it.

Heretics aren't to be entertained or watched, idiot. Are you even a Catholic?

And you've what, been "Catholic" for a whole year after listening to MHFM Youtube videos?

What is someone that claims to be "Quasi-Catholic" and posts blasphemous filth doing in a Catholic forum? Catholics cannot consort with heretics. You should be banned.

[Kreuzritter]

Excellent interview with Dr. William Lane Craig on Pints with Aquinas.

It gets particularly interesting after minute 22 when Dr. Craig talks about how he managed to come to terms with the challenges that Platonism poses to the doctrine of divine aseity.

[removed for heretical content]

Craig is a renowned and obstinate heretic. Why are heretics being given a platform to speak on what should be a Catholic forum?

Removed for heretical content. I chuckled. There's no such thing in the interview with Dr. Craig.

You would have noticed that in case you'd bothered to watch it.

Heretics aren't to be entertained or watched, idiot. Are you even a Catholic?

And you've what, been "Catholic" for a whole year after listening to MHFM Youtube videos?

What is someone that claims to be "Quasi-Catholic" and posts blasphemous filth doing in a Catholic forum? Catholics cannot consort with heretics. You should be banned.

Evidently I'm right. You're like an open book. Even your mannerism and patterns of speech are manufactured and predictable.

[Gardener]

Peter or Michael?

[Vetus Ordo]

Heretics aren't to be entertained or watched, idiot. Are you even a Catholic?

Lato sensu, yes.

Glad to have made your acquaintance.

[Exsurge Domine]

Lato sensu, yes.

Modernist doublespeak.

[GBoldwater]

Heretics aren't to be entertained or watched, idiot. Are you even a Catholic?

Lato sensu, yes.

Glad to have made your acquaintance.

What do you mean you Catholic in a broad sense?

[Vetus Ordo]

Heretics aren't to be entertained or watched, idiot. Are you even a Catholic?

Lato sensu, yes.

Glad to have made your acquaintance.

What do you mean you Catholic in a broad sense?

It's complicated.