According to the treatise, the idea of Aristotle on the eternity of the world can neither be rejected nor accepted. As a known Aristotelian, Thomas defended the attack that Aristotles idea of the eternity of the world makes no sense. He thought, as a Christian believer, that the claim of Aristotle that the world has always existed is false because it contradicts the Bible- Genesis 1 In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. Nevertheless, Aquinas has doubt that this can be proven false by philosophical principles.
Thomas believed that God, through his supreme power, could have created a world that coexists with God. He actually stressed, In view of his infinite power, God could have made something that has always existed. As an ever powerful God, He can create the world eternal but the question of the possibility of something that has always existed can ever be made. However, an eternal world would still be a created one that is entirely dependent to an absolute God. With this, the idea of the world being coequal with God was doubtful. Thomas views on the eternity of the world were condemned by Article 99 in year 1277. His thoughts on the worlds duration became a distinguishable and accepted idea until the Renaissance. Nevertheless, the accepted idea still suffered many philosophical criticisms.
In order to identify what really the criticisms pointed out and if it makes sense, then, it is reasonable to discuss the entire rebuttal. The Franciscans were undeniably the ones who led the fight against Aristotles influence in Paris. One of these Franciscans was St. Bonaventure. He argued, in his commentary in the Sentences, that it is simply makes no sense to say that a created world has always existed. One of his arguments is that the souls would actually increase infinitely if the world had always existed. The influence and esteemed power of Bonaventure led the local success of the anti- Aristotelian for a short period of time. Thus, in 1277, three years after Thomas death, the teachings of Aquinas have been condemned.
Rebuttal against the critics
When considering the truthful idea of the Catholic faith which is in contrast with the philosophers who argued that the world has not existed eternally and that its duration has a beginning, a doubt exists that it is not always true. The idea that the world could have always dependent of God, and if something is apart from him would be eternal and unmade by Him, is evidently an error in both the Catholic belief and philosophically- that is to say that anything that exists must be caused by him who truly has existence.
The question still exists if it is possible for something to come to be even it has always been. Thomas believed that the claim that it is not possible can be understood in two ways, as being true to one of the two reasons, either on account of the removal of the passive potency or it is conceptually incoherent.
In the first way, Thomas thought that before an angel was made, the angel was not able to come to be. This is because there was no passive potency preceded its existence and since it was not made from any underlying matter. However, God was able to make the angel and was able to bring it about that the angel came to be.
In the second way, due to the involvement of conceptual incoherence, Thomas argued that something is said not to have occurred. This conceptual incoherence can be seen on the order of an affirmation and its denial being not simultaneously true. Others believed that this conceptual incoherence could be possible with God while others said he cannot because of the case of nullity. According to Thomas, the view would not be heretical if only one could say that God could do the claim. He also mentioned Augustine who remarkably wrote, in Against Faustus, Whoever says, If God is omnipotent he can make the things that were such that they were not, does not see that he is in effect saying, If he is omnipotent he can make what is true, as true, be false. Others also viewed God could make the past not to have been the past.
It is not heretical to say that something caused by God has always been. Thomas considered that anyone who said that something that could come about in creatures cannot be brought about by God would question Gods omnipotence.
The whole question comes down to whether or not to be created by God in its complete substance is contrary with not having a beginning of its duration that they cannot be shown in this way. According to Thomas, there could only two reasons for this incompatibility, whether the one or the other or both of the reasons. The reasons are the efficient cause must precede its effect in duration andor because non-existence must precede existence in duration, which is why it is said to be created from God from nothing.
Considering the first reason, no cause which produces its effect immediately need precede its effect in existence. However, God take effect immediately not through motion. Thomas, therefore, argued that it is not necessary that God precede his own effect in duration. The first premise is inductively evident from all immediate things and changes, such as illumination and the likes. Thomas was able to prove as follows.
In any instant in which a thing exists, the principle of its action can be posited, as is clear in all generable things in that instant in which fire begins to be, heating begins. But in immediate activity, having the same beginning and end, was also the same case with all the indivisibles.
The fact that God is a controlled cause presents no difficulty, because it is not necessary that the will come first before its effect in duration, nor the voluntary agent, unless because he acts on liberation which could not be attributed to God. Moreover, the
cause which produced the whole substance of the thing is the same as the cause which produced the form in the production of the form.
Considering all the arguments and rebuttal of Thomas about the world being eternal, he have gained the prestige of a being a rational and reputable philosopher. Though his discussion on De aeternitate mundi clearly admitted some sense of error on the Aristotelian thought, still he was able to defend the Aristotelian argument through his unconventional philosophy.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment