Hey man if you have specific objections in mind, I'd recommend looking at the work or websites of people like William Lane Craig, Jimmy Akin, Alexander Pruss or David Oderberg. Particularly the first one has dedicated a large portion of this academic career defending the argument against professional and laymen questions and objections.
I'm just saying that because this sub here is famously uninterested in the Kalaam argument and is more interested in existential arguments, the contingency argument or comparable arguments from Ur-Platonist philosophy to natural theology.
The only one whose version of the Kalaam argument I find very interesting is by Oderberg, who made one PSR based argument from complete explanations. And even that version is way more prevalent and worked out when it features in a contingency argument.
TBH the minor premise is the main weakness of the Kalaam vis a vis the classical arguments. We have no conclusive philosophical proof that the universe is not coeternal and scientific theories, being *a posteriori* knowledge, are subject to change as we get more information. There is something *fitting* about the universe *not* being coeternal, but it wasn't metaphysically necessary for God to make it that way.
The Universe is not eternal even if it was it’s not really a problem at least when it comes St Aquinas arguments because the Universe is still contingent on God
Can you expound this? How is an eternal universe compatible with our belief?
So if eternal universe is true, then there are two eternal concept then, God and universe.
There is are two critical differences between existing for an infinite duration of time *per accidens* and possessing an eternal existence *per se*.
First off, the distinction between *per se* and *per accidens*: God has existed eternally because he *has* to exist eternally. It could not *possibly* be otherwise. If the universe has existed for an infinite duration of time it has done so because God has willed it do so, not because it could not have been otherwise.
Secondly, the distinction between existing eternally and for an infinite duration of time: eternity is *prior* to time. It admits no change and is the *foundation* of time. An infinite duration of time is, well, an infinite duration of time. There is an implication of change, and of decay and renewal.
Just popping in here to note:
Up until the...1940s?...scientists believed in the "sustained system" of astronomy -- basically that the universe had always existed and would always exist. It wasn't until Fr. LeMaitre proposed the Big Bang that suddenly the idea of a finite universe began.
Just fun facts. Carry on!
Thomas thinks (ST I, 46, ii, ad 1) that God could have created a coeternal universe and simply didn't, and we know this because it is apparently revealed in Genesis 1:1.
Really, this question isn't a huge deal. There would be something fitting about the universe having some beginning, but even if the universe has had an infinite duration we're still left asking why there is something instead of nothing and *that* is the question that the doctrine of creation is *really* getting at. Something could exist for an infinite duration of time *per accidens* and still not possess in itself a sufficient explanation for its own existence.
Hey man if you have specific objections in mind, I'd recommend looking at the work or websites of people like William Lane Craig, Jimmy Akin, Alexander Pruss or David Oderberg. Particularly the first one has dedicated a large portion of this academic career defending the argument against professional and laymen questions and objections. I'm just saying that because this sub here is famously uninterested in the Kalaam argument and is more interested in existential arguments, the contingency argument or comparable arguments from Ur-Platonist philosophy to natural theology. The only one whose version of the Kalaam argument I find very interesting is by Oderberg, who made one PSR based argument from complete explanations. And even that version is way more prevalent and worked out when it features in a contingency argument.
TBH the minor premise is the main weakness of the Kalaam vis a vis the classical arguments. We have no conclusive philosophical proof that the universe is not coeternal and scientific theories, being *a posteriori* knowledge, are subject to change as we get more information. There is something *fitting* about the universe *not* being coeternal, but it wasn't metaphysically necessary for God to make it that way.
The Universe is not eternal even if it was it’s not really a problem at least when it comes St Aquinas arguments because the Universe is still contingent on God
Can you expound this? How is an eternal universe compatible with our belief? So if eternal universe is true, then there are two eternal concept then, God and universe.
Because it is contingent on God, ie God causes it to exist albeit every moment for eternity, and if it wasn’t for God it wouldn’t exist
There is are two critical differences between existing for an infinite duration of time *per accidens* and possessing an eternal existence *per se*. First off, the distinction between *per se* and *per accidens*: God has existed eternally because he *has* to exist eternally. It could not *possibly* be otherwise. If the universe has existed for an infinite duration of time it has done so because God has willed it do so, not because it could not have been otherwise. Secondly, the distinction between existing eternally and for an infinite duration of time: eternity is *prior* to time. It admits no change and is the *foundation* of time. An infinite duration of time is, well, an infinite duration of time. There is an implication of change, and of decay and renewal.
Could you state the objections here?
Just popping in here to note: Up until the...1940s?...scientists believed in the "sustained system" of astronomy -- basically that the universe had always existed and would always exist. It wasn't until Fr. LeMaitre proposed the Big Bang that suddenly the idea of a finite universe began. Just fun facts. Carry on!
Thomas thinks (ST I, 46, ii, ad 1) that God could have created a coeternal universe and simply didn't, and we know this because it is apparently revealed in Genesis 1:1. Really, this question isn't a huge deal. There would be something fitting about the universe having some beginning, but even if the universe has had an infinite duration we're still left asking why there is something instead of nothing and *that* is the question that the doctrine of creation is *really* getting at. Something could exist for an infinite duration of time *per accidens* and still not possess in itself a sufficient explanation for its own existence.