Thomas Aquinas and the absurdity of Infnity

[Lagrange]

Though St Thomas rejected the 'proof' for the beginning of the universe, saying it is philosophically possible to conceive of the past as not having a beginning point (though by Revelation of course, he knows in fact that is not how God created the universe).

[Prodigal_Son]

Though St Thomas rejected the 'proof' for the beginning of the universe, saying it is philosophically possible to conceive of the past as not having a beginning point (though by Revelation of course, he knows in fact that is not how God created the universe).

Aquinas was very prudent in his arguments,to "Conceive of the past as not having a beginning" is only done in imagination,although I'm certain he would agree with me when it is destroyed by the following questions

"What is the number right before infinity?"
"When you count down from infinity,what is the distance to 1?"
"How long would it take to get from infinity to yesterday?"

Such thoughts give evidence that sucessive time refutes the thought it could be beginningless,though it can be endless

[Oldavid]

Such thoughts give evidence that sucessive time refutes the thought it could be beginningless,though it can be endless

Yes...
I can't concieve of time having no beginning simply because it is a succession of events which require cause. An infinite regression of secondary causes is meaningless.
However, if entropy is removed from the equation and endless succession of events would seem possible. (World without end...?)

[Oldavid]

Such thoughts give evidence that sucessive time refutes the thought it could be beginningless,though it can be endless

Yes...
I can't concieve of time having no beginning simply because it is a succession of events which require cause. An infinite regression of secondary causes is meaningless.
However, if entropy is removed from the equation and endless succession of events would seem possible. (World without end...?)

[Oldavid]

Sheesh!
I don't understand these computer thingys.

[Graham]

Such thoughts give evidence that sucessive time refutes the thought it could be beginningless,though it can be endless

Yes...
I can't concieve of time having no beginning simply because it is a succession of events which require cause. An infinite regression of secondary causes is meaningless.
However, if entropy is removed from the equation and endless succession of events would seem possible. (World without end...?)

Why would an endless future be possible if an endless past is not? One can't arbitrarily limit the infinite on one 'side' (the past); a limited infinity is absurd. So the same objection applies to both: since time is part of nature, and nature is finite, it follows that the succession of past and future events is also finite.

[Prodigal_Son]

Such thoughts give evidence that sucessive time refutes the thought it could be beginningless,though it can be endless

Yes...
I can't concieve of time having no beginning simply because it is a succession of events which require cause. An infinite regression of secondary causes is meaningless.
However, if entropy is removed from the equation and endless succession of events would seem possible. (World without end...?)

Indeed, "New Heaven and  New Earth" (Rev.) , The world will be reborn into perfection, better then the first creation :D For God can do all things.

I believe entropy is the cause for radioactive decay, I wonder if particle theorist have thought of this?

[Prodigal_Son]

Why would an endless future be possible if an endless past is not? One can't arbitrarily limit the infinite on one 'side' (the past); a limited infinity is absurd. So the same objection applies to both: since time is part of nature, and nature is finite, it follows that the succession of past and future events is also finite.

Again,like Iona,I like people like you too Graham,asking questions and being skeptical,well I hope I can give evidence for what I'm saying,alright here we go.

if you have 1,you can +1 can't you? 2 you can add 1 to get 3 and so forth without end,but for you to do ths you have to have a 1 to get anything.Infinity can never be reached since it implies a completeness,that there are no more additions possible,so you can always move forward and never reach infinity.

When it comes to something material being beginningless we have a problem, one can not count down FROM infinity,but can count up TO infinity.

I hope what I said makes sense Thanks for posting graham bell

[Oldavid]

Such thoughts give evidence that sucessive time refutes the thought it could be beginningless,though it can be endless

Yes...
I can't concieve of time having no beginning simply because it is a succession of events which require cause. An infinite regression of secondary causes is meaningless.
However, if entropy is removed from the equation and endless succession of events would seem possible. (World without end...?)
[/quote]

Indeed, "New Heaven and  New Earth" (Rev.) , The world will be reborn into perfection, better then the first creation :D For God can do all things.

I believe entropy is the cause for radioactive decay, I wonder if particle theorist have thought of this?
[/quote]
Entropy is the "cause" of the decay of everything.
Perhaps it's better understood as "the second law of thermodynamics" which basically states that "all ordered systems, left to
themselves, tend toward maximum randomness and lowest energy".

I suspect that entropy was introduced into creation as a result of Original Sin since, before that, God said it was all good.

It also implies a highly ordered beginning to decay from.

New Earth might simply be a return to the original.   Eh?

[Prodigal_Son]

Entropy is the "cause" of the decay of everything.
Perhaps it's better understood as "the second law of thermodynamics" which basically states that "all ordered systems, left to
themselves, tend toward maximum randomness and lowest energy".

I suspect that entropy was introduced into creation as a result of Original Sin since, before that, God said it was all good.

It also implies a highly ordered beginning to decay from.

New Earth might simply be a return to the original.   Eh?

The fact that the second law exists gives good reason to believe the universe is not eternal,lest we believe their is some sort of "Cosmic gas station" The universe size will not find away around entropy,it will all end.

Perhaps,though could very well be that the original creation was "Good" in a natural sense,after all trees gave nutrients,and adam and eve were relient on the tree f life. Original sin destroyed man in the worst way,it seperates man from God,what is death compared to this? Adaman eve required a beginning but there was no cut-off in sight unti they ate of the tree that they were forbidden to