Apparently the mystery of what started it all has been solved without God:
Figured this would be fund to dissect as a group.
Grab your tea and put your thinking cap on.
Whoever wrote this should be fired, have his degrees revoked, and be publicly ridiculed by academia
All I need to call BS was you topic heading (something about a beginning) and then to see the name Aquinas. The world could be eternal for all any of the 5 ways are concerned. They have zilch to do with any temporal beginning
As far as the link itself
The Argument from Necessity:
Since objects in the universe come into being and pass away, it is possible for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time.
All that Aquinas actually says is that there are SOME things which are contingent. Which is undeniably true, as long as you accept any empirical observation as valid.
Since objects are countable, the objects in the universe are finite in number.
Where on earth did this guy get off just making up premises that are irrelevant. 1.) St. Thomas nowhere, in this argument, talks about the universe being finite or not. It is completely irrelevant to his argument. This moron who should have his degrees revoked, might as well put in something about peanut butter 2) That would not be the argument for a finite universe anyways. He obviously has never once ever read a single word Aquinas has written
Further, Aquinas actually concludes to "therefore there must be some necessary being(s)" And indeed this includes not just God, but angels, are human souls, and in an analogical way prime matter. In othr words, the immediate conclusion is that some things must not be contingent. Even the materialist atheist concedes that...old style atheists would simply say matter itself is necessary and eternal. That is why Aquinas continues to argue, first, that among necessary beings one must have its necessity in itself, and then through the next 9 questions eliminates God being matter, being diversified, etc.
The third way is take from the possible and the necessary, which is such. For we find in reality certain things that have the possibility to exist or not to exist, since certain things are found to be generated or corrupted and consequently have the possibility to exist or not to exist.
(Note: Certain things, some things. He is not making any more claim than that)
But it is impossible that are things which are, exist in such fashion. Since that which has the possibility to not exist, at times does not exist. If therefore all things had the possibility not to exist, at some time there would be nothing existing in reality.
(Note: We are talking about things which have an interior principle of being subject to coming to be and passing away. If all things were such, then the whole would also be such...as soon as you try and claim some principle that is not subject to such principles, the admit the conclusion of his immediate argument)
But if this is true, then even now there would be nothing existing, since that which is not, does not begin to be except through something which is. If therefore nothing were a being, it would be impossible that something should begin to exist, and in such manner there would be nothing, which is clearly false.
(Note: Nothing comes from nothing. Anyone denying that either does not know what the word nothing means or is a liar and doesn't really deny it)
Therefore not all beings have the possibility to exist or not to exist, but there must be something that is necessary in reality.
(Note: "something" Could be matter, could be angels, ad nauseam)
But everything that is necessary either has the cause of its own necessity from somewhere else or not. But it is not possible to proceed into infinity in necessary things which have the cause of the their own necessity from elsewhere, just as neither in efficient causes as has been proved. There it is necessary to posit something which is necessary through itself, not have the cause of its necessity from elsewhere, but which is the cause of necessity to other, which all call God.
(Note: He simple invokes previous arguments against an infinite regress. The argument is not that there cannot be an infinity, therefore there must be a first, but rather it is there must be a first and therefore there cannot be an infinity.)