Support NeoGAF

[LegendofLex]

The current theory is that there was no "something" or "nothing" before the big bang. There was also no time so words like "infinite" and "ever-existing" loose their meaning.

Both of these statements actually match the divine creation theory. "There is no time" is precisely what is captured by the notion of "infinite," and "before creation there was not really such a thing as something or nothing" is precisely what is captured by the notion of "ever-existing." Obviously we have no real language for what would go on outside of time, so those are of course approximations anyway.

The problem here is assuming they have to come from somewhere to begin with. The laws of physics may just be an eternal part of reality itself. Universes could be born and die based entirely on those laws.

For all we know, singularities and big bang events are as common in the universe as stars are. Just the space between them and the time periods are beyond anything we can comprehend.

Sure, but the whole "eternal part of reality itself" notion doesn't exactly make the "eternal divine force" argument appear less correct (you've basically rephrased the idea in more science-friendly terminology, and even effectively asserted that there could be a kind of "somewhere" that isn't quite a "somewhere" as we understand it). In fact, it makes it appear more convincing, given that even without modern scientific observation religion still arrived at basically the same conclusion (albeit one couched in theological premises instead of merely based on scientific observations).

edit: this is all for the sake of argument, of course. I identify as Catholic, but I'm not particularly orthodox and find the pursuit of theological truths to be an exercise in futility.

 

[happypup]

Aquinas did not hold that God is self-evident. He rejected the ontological argument. He held that God is evident from some basic foundational facts about the material world, but he did not hold that God is self-evident.

I'm also not sure your first sentence is accurate. Aquinas held that we could know some basic things about God using reason. He also held that we could know, via reason, what is genuine divine revelation and what isn't. And then, once you've established that something is in fact genuine divine relevation, you know that it's true.


Well, he's a link where the same Thomist I already linked addresses Hume and the fallacy of composition specifically. Other than that, I dunno. Like I said, I'm not an expert, and I'm more familiar with Aquinas' classical arguments than I am with more popular contemporary arguments like W.L. Craig's Kalam cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, etc.

Well, technically He Said God is Self evident to himself, but that we would know him through his works, however that still gave him licence to return to God when his logic led him to only a first mover. That connection is a leap in logic, and circular, as he already assumes the existence of his God.

He also believed in divine revelation. That Reason could show us that there is a truth, but only revelation could lead us to believe in that truth.