Pints With Aquinas - 82: Aquinas Vs Bonaventure over the beginning of the universe, and, for some random reason, Friedrich Nietzsche!

Episode Date: November 28, 2017

Shownotes here: http://pintswithaquinas.com/podcast/can-philosophy-prove-the-beginning-of-the-universe/ SPONSORS EL Investments: https://www.elinvestments.net/pints Exodus 90: https://exodus90.com/mattfradd/  Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/  GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show. LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/ SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd MY BOOKS  Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9 Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4 The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform

Welcome to Pints with Aquinas, episode 82. I am Matt... I'm Matt Fradd, sorry. If you could sit down over a pint of beer with St. Thomas and ask him any question, what would it be? Today we're going to continue our discussion on the eternity of the world. Is it possible that God could create an eternal world.

G'day, guys. Two episodes devoted to the eternity of the world. That seems appropriate, doesn't it? Yeah, totally. Hey, good to have you with us here at Pints with Aquinas. I hope that you enjoyed last week's episode. I thoroughly, thoroughly, thoroughly, thoroughly enjoyed what Aquinas had to say on the eternity of the world. If you haven't listened to that episode, you're going to be completely bloody lost in this one. So go back and listen to the previous one, then come back and listen to this one. But the really big news that I want to announce, big news, I'm starting to sound like

Donald Trump. I always got some big news. The big news has to do to announce, big news. I'm starting to sound like Donald Trump. I always got some big news. The big news has to do with what just happened last week. I told you that I had a big announcement, which I made in the very last episode. I told you I quit my job and I'm going to devote myself to Pines with Aquinas full-time. And I said that I needed your support. And so many of you came out to support me and I cannot thank you enough. Yeah, just some people, you know, many people supported like $2, some people did $50, some people even did more and you have no idea how grateful I am to you. I saw one guy, he donated $1.50 a month and I almost teared up because I thought, here's this dude and he's like, because $1.50 isn't an option,

right? So he had to add that. So I love that he was like, well, $1, I could probably do $1.50. I just want to say thank you to everybody who has supported, no matter how large or small your monthly gift is. It means the world to me. And thank you very much. I actually told you a while back that once I reached a certain amount of patrons, I would begin doing high quality, well-produced videos like Father Mike Schmidt's. Well, we reached that goal. And so I'm going to be faithful to my promise. And so starting January or February, once we get all the equipment set up and the editors in place and everything, you should expect to see weekly videos from me. And so I can't thank you enough. You are what makes this show

possible. Like you're the reason if you support me on Patreon, you're the reason that this isn't just a dinky little podcast that can't reach a lot of people, you know. But we are reaching a lot of people. And I just got a message from an atheist the other day over Instagram. And he said it was because of your podcast that I stopped being an atheist. I shared that on Twitter. I did a cut and paste and shared that, and I just couldn't believe it. I mean, so thank you to everybody. You're not just making this show possible, but you're what's helping to facilitate these conversions, I think, allowing the Holy Spirit to work. So thank you. So if you haven't yet supported me, I'm doing this thing for the next couple of

months. It's a pretty big deal. So listen up. If you give five bucks a month, you get exclusive audio content. All right? If you give 10 bucks a month, I'm going to ship you a book. Now, I told people that I was going to send them this great book edited by Ralph McInerney on the Selected Writing System, Thomas Aquinas. I am going to do that. But if we run out of that book, I'm going to send you my upcoming book as soon as it comes out on the five ways of Thomas Aquinas. So just by supporting 10 bucks a month, I will ship one of these directly to your door. And then you also get a growing library of audio books. get a growing library of audio books. Okay. So, Attorney Patris by Pope Leo XIII is an encyclical on the restoration of Christian philosophy in which he talks a lot about Thomas Aquinas and bringing people back to Thomas Aquinas. Have you read it? Well, now you don't need to worry about

reading it. You can listen to it. So, just start supporting on Patreon for 10 bucks a month, you get all that stuff. Now, if you support me for $20 a month, you get all of that stuff. Plus, I will send you the Pints with Aquinas beer stein. This is like a $35 value thing. It's incredible. You're not going to be able to buy this anymore on the internet. The only way you can get a Pints with Aquinas beer stein is by becoming a supporter of Pints with Aquinas for $20 a month. And I'm so thankful to everybody who's decided to do that. So thank you very much. I do ask that if you do choose to

support me, don't like support me for 20 bucks a month, get your Stein and then cancel because then I lose money and that's just not cool. Like support me because you want to support Pints with Aquinas and then I'm going to ship you this stuff. If you give more money, I give you more things in return. So just one more time, but since you know, my wife and I won't have health insurance in January and we're going to figure all this stuff out, and this is really scary but exciting at the same time. Also, if you know a good life insurance thing that my wife and I and family can figure out, because that'd be great. Seriously, you should message me over the Facebook or Twitter page. Yeah, if you want to start supporting me, here's what you do. Go to pineswithaquinas.com, click support, if you want to start supporting me, here's what you do. Go to

pintswithaquinas.com, click support, and there you can see the thank you gifts I give you in return, and then you can just start supporting me and becoming part of the Pints with Aquinas community. Another thing that we're doing for our patrons is we're doing monthly live webinars. We did our first one the other day. It went for about an hour. There was 50 people that showed up after a two-hour notice, I think is all I gave you. It was so much fun. We were all kind of like having a drink of beer and chatting. And I was drinking whiskey, but we all had a lot of fun.

And it's the kind of webinar, it's really well-developed. I can actually open you up. That sounded weird. Open you up. What does that mean? I double-click on you, and your face comes up on the screen, and you can ask me a question live. And so other people get to hear you ask a question. So we can actually chat. So in our next webinar, it won't just be me reading off the text. So there's so many cool things that come with being a supporter of Pints with Aquinas. Also, I'm going to Denver tomorrow night and actually tonight. Yeah, sorry,

it's Tuesday. I'm going to Denver. I'm recording this the day before Tuesday, Monday. I'm going to Denver tomorrow night and I want to get together with people and have a beer with them if they want to. So the way you would do that is just go to Matt Fradd's, go to my Facebook page and you'll see the little event that I created. It's not a talk. There's no agenda. All it is, is if anyone wants to come and have a beer with me and other Pints with Aquinas listeners, it would be great to have you. That's all it is. That's literally all it is. And it's at a brewery. Let me just see where it is here. It's at the Bull and Bush Brewery in Denver. And we're going to get together at 8pm. So if you want to show up, just show up with a friend. I think we should not tell

the owners that we're coming for an event because we could get a lot of people and that I might get in trouble. So, you know, you just showed up, I just showed up, hey, we're chatting and having a beer together. So anyway, if you want to come to that, I'm also doing something in Houston very soon. So just stay close to my Twitter page and Facebook, Pints with Aquinas, Twitter and Pints with Aquinas Facebook, and you'll learn about these different kind of Pints with Aquinas meetups that I'm going to begin hosting around the country. Oh, and one last final thing. You may have heard me say or seen me say on Twitter that over the last couple of months, I've had two different Protestants send me a bottle of bourbon. I don't know if this is like a peace

offering from Protestants that may not themselves drink and figure what a Catholic's like. I don't know. But huge thanks to Matt Dampier from Kentucky, one of our beautiful evangelical listeners. I tell you what, if you're trying to get me to convert, this might be the way to do it. I'm just saying, okay? This is Hartfield and Company. It says a bourbon county distillery. Oh my gosh. Ready guys? Let's do this. Really good, eh? Really good. I don't know if y'all are bourbon drinkers. I love bourbon, partly because it's just super American. And I know I'm not super American clearly, but I live here now. I live in the South and you know, this is real nice. You can tell the difference between a good whiskey and a great whiskey, and this is a great whiskey. So, hey, thanks a lot, Matt. And again, I know I've said it before, but I'm so thankful to all of our non-Catholic listeners. Y'all are so welcome. I love you.

Please forgive me if I ever say anything that's like triumphalistic or offensive to you. I don't want to do that. You know, I want to remain true to what St. Thomas teaches and what the Catholic Church teaches, because obviously I'm Catholic and this is a Catholic podcast. The last thing I ever want to do is make you all feel unwelcome. You are our brothers and sisters in Christ. And, you know, I've met many Protestants that are, quite frankly, better Catholics than I am, if you know what I mean. And I've certainly met evangelicals who have taught me and do teach me so much about loving Jesus Christ and Holy Scripture and prayer and all that. So, hey, we're learning from each other. We're learning from each other. Okay, let's get back into our discussion on the eternity of the world. Here's what I want

to do. I want to finish this essay by Thomas Aquinas. So, that's pretty cool, hey? Like, if you listened to last week's episode and this week's episode, you're getting the entirety of this paper he wrote on the eternity of the world. Aquinas had much else to say besides this on the eternity of the world, which he wrote elsewhere, but that's pretty cool that at least you'll have a solid understanding of what Aquinas thinks on these things just by listening to last week's episode and this week's episode. So here's what I want to do. I want to finish the reading. Then I want to share why I find myself more compelled by people like Bonaventure, Al Ghazali, William Lane Craig, their arguments than I do Aquinas'. I know, I know, I'm not

supposed to think that. And you know what? You know, I might be wrong, right? And if I am, praise God, you know, usually when you disagree with Aquinas, you know, what are the chances? But all right, so here we go. Again, I hope you read last week, listened last week, so you understand this. But where we left off was this thing here. Aquinas is basically saying, yeah, you can prove, you know, you can try and prove that the past is finite if you don't have all the information that's what he's saying so where we are are we here he says because we are accustomed to making

that to makings that involve motion the claim that an efficient cause need not precede its effect in duration you know this isn't easily grasped again because whenever we see something cause something else, it precedes the effect, doesn't it? It precedes the effect. I want a coffee, I go make a coffee, right? The cause precedes the effect. But you'll remember last week, I used the analogy of the bowling ball in the pillow. You know, when you put a bowling ball on a pillow, the depression it creates is simultaneously, simultaneous with the cause. It isn't, you know, after the cause. All right. So, let's continue. Here we go. Aquinas says, the fact that God is a voluntary cause, presents no difficulty, because it is not necessary that the will precede its effect in duration, nor the voluntary agent, unless because he acts on deliberation,

something we should not attribute to God. All right, let's pause there. So, when I want a coffee, right, I deliberate, you know, I'm going to go get a coffee. Should I get a coffee? I've already had one. I kind of feel a little jittery, but I'm super tired. Let's just have one more. All right. It's not like that with God. And we can't say that about God, because guess what? God doesn't deliberate. God doesn't think if by think you mean in stages. Maybe I'll do this. And yes, I will. I'll decide I'm going to do that, right? There is no temporal duration in God's existence. He exists in one perfect, infinite now. So, we shouldn't attribute that to God, okay? Or else, if we do that, we're kind of anthropomorphizing God. We're making Him in our image instead of recognizing

ourselves to be made in His image. Aquinas continues, furthermore, the cause producing the whole substance of the thing is no more restricted than the cause producing the form in the production of the form, indeed, much less so, because it does not produce by inducing it from the potentiality of matter in the way the one producing form does. But an agent which produces form alone can so act that its effect exists whatever it does, as is the case with the sun shining. much more than can God, who produces the complete substance of the thing, bring it about that His effect exists whenever He wishes. So if I build a table, and I take the wood and then I build it, that happens in time. But to create the whole substance immediately, right? And when we say immediately, even we run into problems here, don't we? We're really running up against the bounds of our ability to think through these things. We're hitting metaphysical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question. That's actually a quotation from Sam Harris. I thought that was a good quote from him. But yeah, when we start asking these questions, you know, we're really kind of running into the edge of what we can grasp. So, yeah, maybe that's more accurate than the bedrock analogy. But anyway, so yeah, this analogy of the sun shining, like as soon as the sun is, you know, the shining is. And the sun, the sunshine in that case, like suppose the sun is eternal,

then the sunshine will be eternal. Now, that doesn't mean that the sunshine is a metaphysically necessary being in the way that the sun is, if the sun were eternal and a metaphysically necessary being in this thought experiment, you understand. No, the sun would exist, what would we say, per se, and the sunshine would exist per accidents. I think that's how I think I've got that right. So, the sun would exist in and of itself necessarily, but the necessity of the sunshine would have its cause in the sun. It wouldn't exist necessarily in the way that the sun would, right? It's still dependent upon the sun, even though the sunshine has existed from all eternity. And in the same way, if God creates the world from all eternity, that doesn't mean that the world is a necessary being, right? It means that it's still dependent upon God in the way the

sunshine would be dependent upon the sun. All right. Moreover, if there should be a cause whose effect does not immediately proceed from it in any instant in which the cause exists. This can only be because the cause lacks something of its perfection. A perfect cause and its effect exist simultaneously. But God is lacking in nothing. Therefore, His effect can always exist when He exists, and He need not precede it in duration. That's a fair point, right? I mean, like, think about what it means. If you want to say that God cannot create an eternal thing, what are you saying? Like, again, if you listened to last week, you'll see the two things that you might be saying. You might be saying, well, a cause has to precede its effect in time,

because God is outside of time. Or you have to say that there has to be a state of nothing which precedes the something. And you'll remember Aquinas quotes Genesis, where it says, God created the world out of nothing, therefore nothing preceded it. And he's going to respond to that and show why that interpretation of Genesis is perhaps wrong in a minute. All right. Moreover, the will of one willing does not lose its power, particularly in God. But all those attempting to refute the arguments of Aristotle, by which he proves that something always was from God because a thing argument there is like, suppose God isn't a person,

you know, God is just this blind, unthinking cause. Well, in that sense, it can't make a decision, right? It can't will anything. And so, it would make sense to say that the universe existed, you know, co-eternally with the cause, with the thing, the God, the first cause, or whatever you want to call it. But Aquinas is saying, well, even though God is free to create or not to create, that doesn't mean that God cannot create the world from all eternity. Again, just to quote him so you see what he said, he says, but even given that He, God, acts through will, it nonetheless follows that He can make something be caused by Him that might always be. So, here's sort of him wrapping it up in this sentence, he says, it is clear then that it is not incoherent to say that an efficient cause need not precede its effect in duration.

If it were conceptually incoherent, God could not, of course, bring it about. So here he sums up all that he's been trying to say. It's not incoherent to say that an efficient cause, in this case God, need not precede its effect and duration. So you can say that God and the effect can exist from all eternity and that that thing that God creates is indeed created. This isn't incoherent. Aquinas says if it were incoherent, then yeah, God couldn't bring it about. And I don't know, man, it sounds like Bonaventure is kind of saying, kind of disagreeing with Aquinas here. Don't quote me on that because I'm a student like you all are, hey?

But it would, yeah, we'll get into that towards the end of the show, so stick around. All right. It remains to be seen whether it is repugnant to reason that something made should always exist because as a thing made from nothing, it is necessary that non-existence precede its duration. So here's the second point he wants to make. You remember I said last week, and I've already said today, if you want to say that the world, if you want to say that God cannot create an eternal universe, then he says you have to say either one, it's not within God's power to do it because it makes no sense to say that the universe can be eternal. Or maybe you'll appeal to scripture and say, well, there was nothing which preceded the world. That's why we read in Genesis in the beginning, you know, God

created ex nihilo out of nothing. All right. So this is the second point now he's going to address, all right? That it is not repugnant is shown by the remark of Anselm. Ooh, good job. It's good when Aquinas quotes Anselm and Plato because he's quoting the tradition that his readers who may be skeptical of Aristotle, you know, it's good that he quotes these people. Because Anselm, Augustine, these are more platonic in their thought. And so that's a good move there. He says, shown by the remark of Anselm in the Monologian, eight, Monologian, where he is discussing how the creature is said to be made from nothing. He writes, that's Anselm, the third interpretation of what is meant by saying

something is made from nothing is when we understand it to be made and yet there is nothing from which it was made. Something similar in meaning seems involved when a man grows sad without cause and it is said that nothing saddens him. On this understanding, remembering what was said above, apart from the highest essence, all the things that are from him are made from nothing. That is, not from something else. There is nothing absurd in that. All right, that's the end of the quotation from Anselm. Aquinas continues, on this exposition, what is made is not ordered to nothing as if prior to its being. Nothing existed and only afterwards something existed. Do you understand? So when we say God created the world from nothing, it's not saying that the material universe did not exist, right?

That there was no material, then God created it, right? It can mean, as Anselm points out, that what is made is not ordered to nothing as if prior. It's not like nothing existed then there was something. No. And so, when we say that God created from nothing, we mean that He created without matter. Okay. And that could still be from all eternity. You don't have to conclude that nothing existed sort of chronologically prior to the universe. All right. Furthermore, let it be supposed that the relation to nothing implied in the preposition is positive. In this sense, that for the creature to be made from nothing means to be made after nothing. So, in that sense,

that's true of you and me, right? Like we were created out of nothing. Well, we weren't created out of nothing, actually. We were created from the seed and egg of our parents. But there was a sense in which we were created, you know, out of nothing or after nothing, right? Like, we didn't exist before we existed, essentially. The preposition after implying an order, absolutely. But there is order and order, namely that of duration and that of nature. If then the power in particular does not follow from the common and universal, it would not be necessary that from the fact that the creature is said to exist after nothing, that nothing should have been prior in duration and afterwards there was something. should have been prior in duration and afterwards there was something. It suffices that nothing is prior to being in nature. That inner thing which belongs to it of itself is prior to that which

it owes to another. But existence is something the creature has only from another. Considered Do you get that? Existence is something the creature has only from another. If we were to be left to our own devices, we would not be held in being. We would be nothing. In God, we live and move and have our being. Thus, in the creature, nothing is naturally prior to existence. It doesn't follow from the fact that there is no priority in duration, that nothing and being are simultaneous. For it is not maintained that if the

creature always was, at some time it was nothing, but rather that its nature is such that it would be nothing if left to itself. For if we were to say that the air is always illumined by the sun, we must say that the air has been made lucid by the sun. And because whatever comes to be, comes to be from the non-contingent, that is, comes to be from that which does not exist simultaneously with what is said to come to be, it must be said that if it was made lucid from the non-lucid or shady, not in the sense that it ever was non-lucid or shaded, but rather because it would be if the sun deserted it. This is crystal clear in the stars and planets which are always illumined by the sun.

All right, so you think of creatures as to air illuminated by the sun. If the sun always was, and the air always was, then the air was always illumined by the sun. It doesn't mean that the air had to exist prior to the sun illuminating it, and it doesn't mean that the universe had to exist, you know, shivers, I'm trembling on my words here, after God created it in time. I hope that might make no sense at all. How about I just shut up and read Aquinas? Okay. It is clear then that when something is said to have been made by God and to have always existed, there is no incoherence. If there were, it is... Oh, listen to this. Remember I said earlier? By the way, can you tell that I've not read this before? I've read some of it, but I actually haven't read the entire document. So I'm learning with

you, brothers and sisters. Okay. You remember before I said it was a nice move that he quoted Anselm? Boom. Now he's about to drop Augustine on the peeps. So, and listen to how he does it. This is good. Wow. If there were an incoherence, says Aquinas in a mic drop moment. It is marvelous that it was not seen by Augustine, since this would be a quick way to disprove the eternity of the world. But he fashioned in the 11th and 12th books of the city of God, many arguments to disprove the eternity of the world. Why would he have omitted this one? That is that it is incoherent to say that the world is eternal. That is good, eh? That is good. So if you're going up against an opponent who's like down with Aristotle and up with Augustine, Aquinas is saying, well, how is it

that your champion and mine, it's not like Aquinas is setting himself against Augustine, but how is it that Augustine didn't pick up on this then? Ooh, that puts you in an awkward position, doesn't it? Aquinas continues, indeed, he, being Augustine, seems to imply that there is no such incoherence. For speaking of the Platonists, he writes, and this is Augustine, For speaking of the Platonists, he writes, and this is Augustine, their understanding of this does not seem to involve time, but a principle of subordination. For they say, just as, oh, here we go, baby. Okay, so last week I used the analogy of the foot in the sand.

I thought that was Aquinas. It wasn't. It was Augustine. Listen to this. For they say, just as if a foot were eternally in the dust, its imprint would always be there. Yet no one would doubt that it had been made by the foot. Yet the one would not be prior to the other, even though the one is caused by the other. to the other, even though the one is caused by the other. So too, they say, the world and the gods, okay, this is Augustine talking of the Platonists. So they, the Platonists say, the world and the gods created in it always were, since the one making them always exists, yet they are made. He never says that this cannot be

understood. That's Aquinas. He never says, Augustine never says this can't be understood, but proceeds otherwise against the position. That's a great analogy. So, if you want to say, how can something always be and yet be created? Well, use Augustine's analogy there. You could put your foot in the dust, right? And say there was a foot in the dust from all eternity. The imprint, the print made by the sandal or foot or whatever, you know, doesn't begin to exist after the foot's been put down, but along with it. But again, I mean, Aquinas' whole point here is Augustine didn't point this out. Don't you think that's a little strange? So, so too in, okay, this is Augustine again. He says, one confessing that the world was made by God, but wanting for there to be no beginning in time of its creation, such that in a manner scarcely intelligible it was always made, says something

indeed, and wishes to defend God, as it were, from fortuitous rashness. The reason, again, I guess that sums it up. That's Augustine. And then Aquinas says, the reason why it is scarcely intelligible was touched on in our first argument. All right. Aquinas continues, and we only have a page and a bit left, so y'all doing well. Get another drink of that beer. Oh, whiskey, just not too much. You got to stay alert. It is cause for wonder then why the greatest philosopher seem unaware of the supposed incoherence. For Augustine says in 11.5, referring to those mentioned in the previous text, we now discourse with those who agree with us in saying that there are no bodies or natures of which God is not the creator, and later adds, these philosophers surpass all others in nobility and authority.

adds, these philosophers surpass all others in nobility and authority. Anyone thinking seriously about it then must conclude that those who held that the world has always existed, but at the same time said that it was caused by God are guilty of no conceptual incoherence. All right, pause there. This includes Aristotle, by the way, right? Who believed in some kind of God. This includes Plato, who believed in some kind of God, namely the good. And, you know, the Greeks, of course, had no conception of the universe beginning to exist. Aquinas continues, those who detect this incoherence, therefore, must alone be men, and wisdom must first have arisen with them. Since some authorities seem to support them, however, we must show how weak that support is. St. John Damascene, in On Orthodox Faith, says, It is not in the nature of things that what is

brought from non-being to being should be co-eternal with him who is without beginning and always is. And Hugh of St. Victor, at the beginning of On the Sacraments, writes, The power of the ineffable omnipotence cannot have something beside itself and co-eternal that it uses in making. But these and similar authorities can be understood by means of what Boethius says in the Consolation of Philosophy. They are incorrect who, when they hear that Plato held that this world neither had a beginning in time nor will have an end, understand him to mean that this made world becomes co-eternal with its maker. world becomes co-eternal with its maker. For it is one thing to endure through an unending life, which is what Plato says of the world, and another to be unending life whole and presently complete, which is clearly proper to the divine mind. So it is clear that what some maintain does not follow,

namely that creatures would be equal to God in duration. So understood, nothing can be co-eternal with God because only God is immutable. This is clear from Augustine. Time, which runs on mutably, cannot be co-eternal with immutable eternity thus if the immortality of the angels does not traverse time nor have a past which no longer is nor a future which is not yet their movements go through successive times and change from future to past. They cannot then be co-eternal with the Creator, of whom we cannot say that there is any movement which no longer is nor future that is not yet. So too, in the literal commentary on Genesis 8.23, the nature of the Trinity is wholly immutable, Trinity is wholly immutable, and that means unchanging, FYI, and for this reason is eternal in such a way that nothing can be co-eternal with it, and much the same can be found in the confessions. They, that is the murmurers, also adopt arguments from Aristotle, among which the

most difficult has to do with the infinity of souls. Because if the world has always been, it would be necessary that there are now souls infinite in number. But this argument is not relevant because God could make the world without animals and souls and make man when he did. The rest of the world being eternal and thus infinity of souls would not arise. Besides, it has not been proved that God could not create an actual infinite. There are other arguments, but I will not refute them now, either because they have been dealt with elsewhere or because they are so weak that of themselves they render their opposite position unlikely. All right, that's the end. That is the end. I like that there. I think that argument, I think that may have been used by Bonaventure,

this idea of the infinity of souls. So the argument there is if the universe always existed, then there would be an infinite number of souls, which seems ridiculous. Then Aquinas, I mean, I think that presumes that, you know, for as far back as the world was namely infinitely, then man existed alongside that. And I think Aquinas is saying, well, no, the universe could be infinite. And then at some point God makes man. And since, you know, man doesn't exist from the same point, uh, of the beginning of the universe

you know, man doesn't exist from the same point of the beginning of the universe doesn't follow that there'd be an infinite number of human beings. Gosh, dude, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. This is fascinating stuff. This is fascinating stuff. And, you know, look, I want to just say a few words about what Bonaventure has to say, because, I mean, I think I understand what Aquinas is saying after two episodes, but I think, I just, I don't know how to disagree with this argument from Bonaventure by Al-Ghazali, who formulated this argument. The argument is typically called the Kalam argument. You probably heard about that from William Lane Craig, who has repopularized Al-Ghazali's argument. But Al-Ghazali, I mean, basically Kalam means speech in Arabic, I think. And the point is, God spoke the world into existence.

So, Al-Ghazali, like Aquinas, like everyone else that we've mentioned other than William and Greg, had no idea about Big Bang cosmology, and they thought they could formulate a philosophical argument for the finitude of the past. So, let's just say a couple of things here. One, it seems to make sense that God can create something that has existed from all eternity. Okay. Is that the same as saying God can create an actual infinite? I'm not sure it is. And towards the end there in that paper, Aquinas, you remember, he said it hasn't been shown. Maybe God can create an actual infinite, as if he wasn't addressing that in the previous five pages. So, all right, here's the basic argument, okay?

All right, so the universe, put it this way, sorry, this is complicated stuff. If the universe never began, then it follows that it has always been. You agree with that? If the universe has always been, then the universe is infinitely old. Yes? Good. Okay. Well, if the universe is infinitely old, then an infinite amount of time would have to elapse before today. Would have had to elapse before today. Now, this gets us to the A theory of time and the B theory of time. So, one theory of time is the kind of common sense view that the past no longer exists, the future does not yet exist, and all exists is right now.

If that's true, then time travel is impossible. But there's another theory of time, the B theory of time, that says that the flow of time is an illusion and that the past and the future are as equally real as right now, right? This is the tenseless view of time, right? Now, if this is true, is true, then time travel is possible. Isn't that super cool? So, if the B theory of time is true, and that the past is just as real as the future and the present, then maybe this argument that Al-Ghazali and others put forth doesn't work. I'm not too sure. But let's just suppose that the common sense view of time is true. I don't see why there's reason to deny it, but then again, what do I know? I haven't studied this at great length and neither have you probably. If you had, you probably aren't listening to Pines of the

Aquinas. You're probably writing a paper in some ivory tower somewhere. Okay. But I mean, it seems right, doesn't it? Like the past doesn't exist and however we measure that, like you could say hours, you could say instances of time. Okay. But basically the argument is, okay, so if the universe is infinitely old and there's an infinite amount of time that would have have to elapsed before now, today. Okay. And so an infinite number of days must have been completed or moments or seconds or, or nows, whatever you want to say, right? Must have been completed one day, succeeding another, one bit of time being added to what went before in order for this present day, this present moment to have arrived. But there's a problem here, right? Because an infinite sequence of moments, of steps,

could never reach this present point or any point before it. So, either the present day has not been reached or the process of reaching it is an infinite. But obviously, the present day has occurred. We're in it. We're experiencing it now. Therefore, it follows that the process of reaching it is an infinite. In other words, the universe must have begun to exist. Let me give you another analogy. Suppose you own a... I think this is Trent Horn's analogy that I'm drawing from here. Suppose you own a donut shop. And every morning before you turn on that little open sign, you know, you pull a little chain and the neon open sign goes on. Before you do that, you want to know how many donuts you have. Suppose you have 20 donuts. It won't take long for you to turn that open, son.

Suppose you have a million donuts. It'll take you a heck of a lot longer. But eventually, one day, you will open the store. But if you have an infinite amount of donuts, you'll never open the store because you can't count through an infinite. You can't get to the end of an infinite series. You can't count down from infinity. But if the past is eternal, then there's been an infinite number of days or moments or nows that have preceded this one. But then this one should never have occurred. How do you get to it? You can't count through infinity. Therefore, the past is finite. That's the argument. What do you think about it? You can't count through infinity. Therefore, the past is finite. That's the argument. What do you think about it? Here's what I want you to do. I want you to argue

with me. I mean, again, I'm not making a hard and fast statement. I'm just trying to think through these things. And I'm going to pin this to the top of our Facebook forum. By the way, if you haven't joined it, we've got a private Facebook group just for people who follow points with Aquinas. So go there. Let's discuss this. This is super fun. You know what I like about it? And by the way, I want to re-emphasize that Aquinas believes that the universe began to exist. Don't misunderstand me if you didn't listen to last week's episode or if you've forgotten. Aquinas, of course, believes the universe began to exist. He just doesn't think that you can prove that by philosophy. We can only know that by revelation. He believes it's possible that the universe is eternal in the past and that God

created it. What I like about this, here's what I like about this. No one can be a heretic. No one can be a heretic. So, whatever side you come down on, no one's going to call you a heretic, okay, dear Christian? Because this is a matter of philosophy. So long as we all agree that God created the universe and that the past is finite, because that is what Scripture teaches, we can debate whether or not philosophy can arrive at the truth of whether it's eternal or not. So you can agree with Aquinas, and that's just fine. You can agree with Bonaventure, and that's just fine. You can agree

with Bonaventure and that's just fine. All right. It's just one of these kind of fun discussions. And I hope that you've really enjoyed today's show as much as I have. Again, a big thanks to everybody who is beginning to support Pints with Aquinas on Patreon. You rock. If you haven't done it yet and you want to do it and you want to get the thank you gifts I'll give you in return, go to pintswithaquinas.com, click support. By the way, everyone who's been supporting me over this last week or so, I'm getting through to all of them. I'm responding to all of you individually. It's just taking a lot of time. But yeah, if you support me today, I always make sure I make contact with everybody who's supporting me. I recognize every little gift that comes in.

Sometimes I'll give to different things and there's not a blip, you know, like I don't get any kind of thank you or any sort of, um, Hey, just want to let you know, you're, you're, you're part of this now. And, uh, it's not like I'm looking for the thank you when I give gifts, but it's like, did they even get it? You know, like, is it even noticeable? Well, I do notice it. And that's why I respond to everybody who supports, even if you support a little number, a small amount, I mean, all right, let's take a look at some of your questions. Okay, I think we might just have time for one question this week since we've been going on pretty long. I think the question I'd like to respond to is a question that came to me

from the atheist that I'm, well, the ex-atheist that I mentioned at the start of the show. He says, Mr. Fradd, I love when people call me Mr. Fradd. I feel like 48. I'm not 48, okay? It's just a receding hairline. Okay. You say, Mr. Fradd, I'm a huge fan of your show. It helped me a lot with my faith. Actually, your show was instrumental in my conversion from atheism. God bless you and thank you. He says, however, I still struggle sometimes with the work of Friedrich Nietzsche. What would Aquinas, oh gosh, what would Aquinas have to say about He says, who aren't that familiar, Friedrich Nietzsche lived in the 19th century. He's sort of referred

to as the grandfather of the postmodernists. When you consider Nietzsche's writings and beliefs, it doesn't seem to be that stunning that he actually went insane towards the end of his life. He was a nihilist, that is to say, there is no truth, there is no meaning, there is no objective value. So Nietzsche is what we would call a perspectivalist or a relativist. He thinks that everything that we encounter in the world is subject to our limited perspectives. And so because of this, there aren't any actual facts in the world, right? We only know our experience of reality. Here's a quote from The Will to Power. He says, quote, no fact, no, sorry. Let me try that again. Quote, no, facts is precisely what

there is not, only interpretations, end quote. And apparently he thought that was a fact. He says, so even though he thought there were no facts, he thought the perspectives were unavoidable, right? So while they're not facts, they can be useful. Here's another quote of his. He says, and this is also from The Will to Power, he says, quote, truth is the kind of error without which a certain species of life could not live. The value for life is ultimately decisive. And so what this means is that reason has little or nothing to do with human behavior. And what really drives us isn't reason, And what really drives us isn't reason, isn't the intellect, it's the will to power.

By that he means this desire to dominate our environment, to control our environment and make our personal mark on the world. So that was one of Friedrich Nietzsche's, by the way, it's Nietzsche, it's not Nietzsche. It's Nietzsche, one of his fundamental ideas. So he did think of Christianity as, as you put it, a slave religion. And he also referred to it as a slave morality. He also spoke very disparagingly of Aristotle and Socrates, especially, I should say. Now, one of the reasons he spoke about Christians this way is he was saying like, look, you Christians, you can't just, you know, you can't be powerful. And so you make a virtue out of vice, namely weakness, right? Because you can't be powerful, because you just can't take what you want and live life to the full, you have to make a virtue out of submission, right? Out of meekness, out of weakness, out of obedience.

And he says, the only reason you talk about these things like they're virtues is because you're impotent to attain what you want. All right. So this is what Friedrich Nietzsche calls resentment. It comes from the word resentment, the French word for resentment, resentment. And it's, I think I'm saying that right. I know that there's some French listeners or Canadian French listeners who are totally cringing at the way I said that, but yeah, get over it. So this is the basic gist. And I think this is a tremendous insight. And I actually think that the insight is accurate and helpful. I just don't agree with his application of the insight. So, he says when it comes to like resent him all, basically what that means is this. You feel that you are impotent to attain a particular good, so you then demonize the good. All right, so a story. Okay, so let's say this sheep walks up to a tree and he sees these juicy grapes hanging off the tree, off this branch, and he thinks to himself, oh, those look good. I'm very hungry. I really do

want those grapes. And as he's trying to figure out how to get those grapes, because he can't climb the tree and he doesn't know how he's going to get them, he notices a bird fly down and he sits on the branch and he just pecks away at the grapes. And the sheep gets so angry that he is completely unable to get the grapes that he says to himself, they're probably just sour grapes anyway. Do you see? Do you see how that's a tremendous insight? I feel like we do that. I mean, in little things as well as big things. Like, let me give an example. Suppose you've been trying to work out and get in shape for a while, okay? And you just don't seem to be able to get yourself to eat healthy on a regular basis or wake up every morning to go to the gym or to

work out, however it is you work out. And you become kind of really frustrated with yourself, like you actually feel impotent to achieve this good, namely health and fitness. Well, you could, like one option is just to say, I'm weak, you know. The other option is to demonize what you can't attain. And so you start looking people who are wearing their, you know, whatever, their workout clothes at the coffee shop and they look good and they're eating healthy. And you think to yourself, look at them. They're so into themselves. Like they're so stuck up.

It's like all about them. Like I'm the moral one, you know? Like, these people are really superficial. Do you see what I mean? Okay? And I'm sure you could give me a million examples. This is what Friedrich Nietzsche means by resent him more. So, I think that insight is accurate, but I think that when he applies it to Christianity, it is false. that insight is accurate, but I think that when he applies it to Christianity, it is false. I mean, it wasn't weakness that led Jesus Christ to the cross, right? I mean, it was actually a tremendous amount of self-control and a willingness to go beyond the repugnance of suffering and torture and crucifixion. So it might be the case that certain Christians say resent the sexual revolution because they can't have what

other people seem to be able to have. I mean, people might think that, but whatever. I mean, there's probably some atheists who despise Christians because they really want to believe in God, but don't seem to be able to. And then they end up saying, well, Christians are just superstitious. I'm the intelligent one. So this cuts both ways, you understand. So no, I don't believe Christianity is a slave morality at all. When I say submit to my wife in the middle of the night because my son's crying. That's not weakness. What's weakness is telling her to get up and do it so I can go back to bed. Look, that's me willing control over my environment. That's me trying to tell everyone what to do. But I think the

greatest obstacle to overcome, and I think anyone who's lived more than 15, 20 years recognizes this, the greatest obstacle to overcome is ourselves. If you can overcome everything but yourself, you're not that powerful. If you can overcome yourself, but you can't seem to overcome your environment because of whatever reason, you're powerful. You're probably what we call a saint. So I hope that's a help. And I want to say thank you so much for listening to Pints with Aquinas. And thanks for sending in that question. And yeah, that's all I got to say. I hope that was a help. God bless and I'll chat with you next week. I took you in Too many grains of salt and juice Lest we be frauds or worse, secures

Hollow me too deep and in you Whose wolves am I feeding myself to? Who's gonna survive? Who's gonna survive? Who's gonna survive? Who's gonna survive And I would give my whole life To carry you To carry you

And I would give my whole life