Very interesting. I find the academic language intellectually very satisfying. Thank you for posting.

@ThomisticInstitute

2 жыл бұрын

Cheers, thanks for watching! God bless you!

Fantastic video. Thank you for putting this together. It's interesting in that many sophisticated Atheist Philosophers such as J.L. Mackie, J.H. Sobel, Alex Malpass, and others actually utilize some of Aquinas' reasoning when it comes to arguing against Kalam-style Cosmological Arguments that argue for the necessary finitude for the past.

@spanish_inquisitor3433

2 жыл бұрын

Just want to say as a Catholic I love the work you guys do.

@RealAtheology

2 жыл бұрын

@@spanish_inquisitor3433 Appreciate the support. Thank you for the comment.

@CMVMic

Жыл бұрын

Time is an illusion. The Universe always existed. God is an incoherent proposition.

@AntonySachin

Жыл бұрын

@@CMVMic Then why scientists say that the Universe had a beginning and it is 13.6 billion years old?

" It matters what you think" ain't that the truth! Great punchline, and thanks for a nice video

This got me "the infinite Hotel with infinite rooms" flashbacks. I love it.

Trusting in Scripture is not a "flawed and hasty defense of the faith". It is faith.

As a former atheist convert, these videos offer a all to uncommon intellectual treatment of our faith. . . ( albeit with a strong Thomistic slant. . . )

@CMVMic

Жыл бұрын

Sorry to hear that. Catholicism is incoherent.

@apologiaromana4123

Жыл бұрын

@@CMVMic Citation needed

@CMVMic

Жыл бұрын

@@apologiaromana4123 citation? Lol We can debate it if you want

@apologiaromana4123

Жыл бұрын

@@CMVMic Don’t sweat it. It’s a common quip internet atheists often use. Just don’t be a troll

@astro_monist2559

5 ай бұрын

​@@CMVMicI'll debate you, fire away.

I believe Thomas Aquinas says that God has instant access to every moment of creation, therefore everything is always available for God in his eternal existence as part of his omnipresent powers, but God has subjected us to a frame of time where we are limited to be or to live, wherever we are, presently. It's fair to say that the universe has always existed in God's perspective, but not in our perspectives as created beings. But that's my take on it presently. Thanks Fr. Thomas!

@CMVMic

Жыл бұрын

God does not exist

Cool

Is the Cosmos, (all that is), inside the Mind of God ? Is the Universe a dream in the Mind of God ?

Wait, I thought Aristotle argued for the exact opposite of the eternity of the world 🤔. My understanding is that Aristotle believed there could not be an infinite chain of causes, so there needed to be an uncaused causer or prime mover that set everything into motion.

@tytyvyllus8298

2 жыл бұрын

Don't confuse ontological causation with chronological.

@PaulRezaei

2 жыл бұрын

@@tytyvyllus8298 I don’t know what the difference is.

We are as on the Sharp rage of a knife , between two eternitees. Marcus Aurelius. ( But I follow Saint Thomas Aquinas) Big bang theory . GOD said it , and " BANG" !!! It happened.

So, does the Church teach that the world was created in time? Aquinas is arguing that it's not contradictory to think that it existed eternally and was created, but I don't see anything in the video or texts where he supports the teaching (if it is the teaching) that it was made in time. Thank you.

@leonardovieira4445

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, the Church teaches that. It is true of Faith. Search the Theological Summa: Part I, Treatise on the Six-Day Work, Question 46, article 2, "Whether it is an article of Faith or a demonstrable conclusion that the world began."

@periruke

2 жыл бұрын

You could reconcile both views as follows: God created world, which includes time and everything else that exist. So there is no moment in time when world didn't exist. From that follows: world is created, but exists eternally because there was no time when world didn't exist. Hope that helps.

@josephzammit8483

Жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/pqWDy5qDhsy8ldY.html

@Folkstone1957

10 күн бұрын

@@periruke How do you define “eternally” ?

So does God exist outside the universe? If so, what is the place where God exists. Both as the non-corporeal Father and Holy Spirit and as the Son in his glorified body?

@CMVMic

Жыл бұрын

God does not exist smh. When will you ppl wake up

Relatively short time ago humans didn't know there was anything beyond earth, less than 450 years ago we found out we are going around the sun but knew little to nothing of what's beyond. Now we can see as far as the observable universe allows us to see, but we'll never know what's beyond the point where the universe is expanding so fast it's light will never reach us, so that in mind we know just as little about the universe as the people who didn't know there were other planets in the sky because we can't see any further. Our universe could be trillions of times larger than what we think and there could be an infinite amount of other universes out there.

Yes, Aquinas's reasoning does indeed help to come to richer understanding of God.

@ThomisticInstitute

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching! God bless you!

Have to wonder had Aquinas lived a few decades longer, could he have turned to the maths coming from the Islamic world and the republished works of the ancients and pushed mathematics forward a century or two

So faith is way to rationalize weight around logic?

The problem with Thomas' answer to the first argument for the finitude of the past is that the problematic sense of "crossing over infinity" does not involve intermediate terms. Traversing an infinite involves only the successive formation of infinite events, one after the other (which does not require even a single subject that remains throughout the entire change). Even if infinity were traversed by someone between one point and another, the problem would be exactly the same. And it is not enough to be able to traverse every part of the entire series, as this does not guarantee the traversability of the series as a whole (to say otherwise would be falling into the fallacy of composition). About the infinite in calculus, it is about the potential infinity, it deals with the notion of ideal limits and not with infinitesimals. That is, it is not a number, but an indeterminately large collection. This is certainly not the case with the past, which is a determinate whole (proof of this is that if we supposed, through mental fiction, that a new object arose every moment of the eternal past, we would have an actual infinite of objects. But if this assumption were made with the eternal future, we would not reach the same conclusion, as there would only be a finite amount of objects at any one time). As for the second argument, the problem with the objection lies in the assumption that the type of divine action undertaken is defined from God's perspective. After all, from the creatures perspective, each is really "caused now", but it cannot be caused to exist as it existed before. It must be caused to remain in existence, which is not creation but conservation. This distinction must exist, albeit by analogy, in the divine being who in fact has no distinction at all. But beyond that, there is the big problem of saying that God can create something without Him changing and therefore implying a transition between states. This would only be possible if He were not actually engaged with the creature, which would be incomprehensible (causality is necessarily a real relationship on the part of the two terms, and there is no intelligibility in denying this).

@krzysztofciuba271

2 жыл бұрын

? Causality is not a logical relation (between terms); one cannot formalize it on the definition of logic despite a lot of junk literature on it; the relation between antecedent and consequent is called material implication, usually in ENG. As "if...then". The term "creation or to create" does not refer to the term " to cause"(sufficient one plus 3other causes: material, formal and efficient" on the definition .

@CMVMic

Жыл бұрын

@@krzysztofciuba271 How do you define creation? How is it incoherent?

@CMVMic

Жыл бұрын

Haven't you assumed time is real?

Is time even real? Is it something? If it is not (and we have many evidence about the fact that it has a relational, not substantial nature), the idea that there was "a beginnig" is just meaningless, as it is to say that the universe is eternal. When we say that the universe is not eternal and it's created, what we are really saying is that it's not necessary, it's not ontologically foundamental, it needs a ground. We are not really saying that time itself is finite, indeed an atemporal God could have created a universe infinitely extended in time as well in space. We don't know if God has done this, I think not because the idea of an infinite time is full of undesiderable consequences, but the revelation says nothing about this understanding of time, it just says that God is the ground of the universe, it doesn't say that God created a universe with a finite past or a finite extension in space. Moreover, the creation in the Bible is indeed the beginnig of history, not necessarily the beginnig of time itself, even the word "bara" doesn't necessarily point to a creation ex nihilo (and indeed it's not true that at the moment of the creation there was nothing, there were angels for exemple, and "Elohim" indeed is a word used for both God and angels, as you can see in the LXX translation). For what concerns modern science, it is still possible to imagine that the inflationary epoch was preceded by an eternal non-inflatiomary epoch. If this is a grand unification epoch, probably is not true, but anyway we don't know, it's a possibility.

@krzysztofciuba271

2 жыл бұрын

If you introduce a term on the definition describing a change why do you claim it is not real? Because u don't smell, touch, hear or see? It is called knowledge by acquaintance, u forgot or never heard about the knowledge by deductio, redution/or induction and some combinations of both- in B. RUSSELL, J M BOCHENSKI OP etc. Educate yourself more

@Pienotto

2 жыл бұрын

@@krzysztofciuba271 if you want, i can say that it is real, but not actual. From an ontological perspective, I'm a reist: imho only concrete objects are actual, all the other things (properties, relations, states of affairs, possible worlds, numbers...) are just constructions, something that we have created in our mind. You can say that they are real in a weak sense (e.g. you can say that they are God's thoghts). So, as time is indeed a relation, I can say that it is not real in a strong sense, but I can still use the term in a definition, for exemple, as it is useful. Time is a relation and so it's abstract and not actual, but there's no problem in saying that change requires time, I'm just saying that change requires a relation, even if this relation is not something that can exists in itself (but even change, an abstraction, can't). I considered knowledge by acquaintance when I wrote my book about computational epistemology, but I refuted it as meaningless. Anyway, this is totally irrelevant: I can say that something is actual even if I can't know anything about it, and I can say that time is not actual even if I can use it in the construction of my knowledge (e.g. I know that I could have been a guitarist, but this guitarist-me is not actual, is not really a part of our world, even if it exists in a weak sense as a part of another possible world).

@krzysztofciuba271

2 жыл бұрын

@@Pienotto I understand but rethink your division on "real" and "actual" for what? Almost all science terms are introduced on a definition or description including such basic term like "number" (any: 0,1,2....a complex: x+iy

@CMVMic

Жыл бұрын

@@krzysztofciuba271 Time is not real, it is an illusion due to our subjective experience of an objective reality. This entire argument for God hinges on the assumption that time, change, motion or becoming are objectively real. They aren't. They are mental phenomena. They are all illusory due to relations/mental abstractions created by the brain. Possible worlds are also mental constructions. They do not exist as anything more than logical possibilities. They are not real/actual in an objective sense, they only seem real from a subjective standpoint.

@CMVMic

Жыл бұрын

Eternity does not have a temporal relation. Eternity simply means changeless. Infinites has to do with temporality but time is an illusion.

Nobody knows. Stop trying to figure out shit that's not meant to be comprehended & live life. 💯

I wish these videos weren’t so scripted. Someone seemingly rushing through a teleprompter is not as receivable as someone who is speaking from their own understanding and heart, pausing to comment on the examples and key points given.

Nice, but I keep looking for a video that explains if the First Way answers string theory. Thanks

@leonardovieira4445

2 жыл бұрын

It's not strings! It is God who, thinking, creates! They are not "vibrations". It is God who, through his Love, maintains in existence at every moment the being of every thing in this universe. Its action is not immanent in material reality, as "modern science" insists through the String Theory, but proceeds through the analogical participation of being from eternity, which transcends metaphysically.

@CMVMic

Жыл бұрын

@@leonardovieira4445 thought creates? Lol that is absurd. A mental substance creates a material substance? Nonsense

@leonardovieira4445

Жыл бұрын

@@CMVMic Not just "thought", but God through his Word imparts being to the creatures that he himself thought. Does that sound absurd to you? It shouldn't, even in light of the latest conclusions in quantum physics.

@CMVMic

Жыл бұрын

@@leonardovieira4445 so now a mind speaks words??? Lol nonsense. Pls enlighten me on the latest conclusions of quantum physics since you seem to rely on that to support such an irrational conclusion. What does it even mean to impart being? Pls tell. Being cannot come from nonbeing. Whatever exists always existed. Existence is an eternal state which requires no explanation. Existence is a brute fact.

@leonardovieira4445

Жыл бұрын

@@CMVMic God is the very Being and creator of all things. Therefore HE DOES NOT EXIST, but IS, eternally. On the other hand, everything He created EXISTS, because they are unnecessary beings. This means that there is no univocity between the being of created things and the being of God, there is no proportion, in the order of being, between Subsistent Being and created things. The way we call God's communication of being to the things he created is "participation." This is a term coined by Plato to name the non univoce relation of being. The technical term for this, in philosophy, is "intrinsic attribution analogy."

Hold on you never said it was created at a certain point?

@jogon2433

9 ай бұрын

Even tho I don’t agree as of right now . What he’s Saying is that God created the universe in eternity past. Hence the universe was created but never in a point a time because Thomas believed in a first actualizer (Aristotle belief in God ) that for in order for him to be an “ actualizer “ has to have eternally actualized something which is the world. But then this theory is sort of flawed because it implied God couldn’t have had the choice to create the world or not , hence taking away the free will of God lol

@patrickvernon2749

9 ай бұрын

whats your thoughts on panentheism?

@jogon2433

9 ай бұрын

@@patrickvernon2749 false heretical and will lead many to hell

@patrickvernon2749

9 ай бұрын

@@jogon2433 did you even look up the definition?

@jogon2433

9 ай бұрын

@@patrickvernon2749 sorry I thought you said pantheism. Not too familiar with it man

If the universe always existed, then it did traverse an infinite past, which is absurd.

@CMVMic

Жыл бұрын

Time is an illusion. The Universe is all of existence. Being cannot come from nonbeing

@fitzburg63

Жыл бұрын

@@CMVMic Prove it. Talk is cheap

The motion in the universe the movement of the planets stars etc is finite not infinite all are created by the hand of God by His Will and Love! Where science ends religion begins! And whoever created or invented the atoms the basic unit of matter in the universe, owns the Universe and all unto it! Dr Albert Einstein

It is logically imposible to have an infinite regress in the past and in the cause-effect process because we exist and we are in the present moment and the "infinite" has no end. So, yes, the past/time had a beginning, it's a logical necessity. God sustains the entire Universe in existence/being at every moment since the beginning of time. So God created the Universe from nothing (ex nihilo) and sustains everything in being since the beginning until now. So the creative activity of God is not just the beginning but also includes that.

@ceceroxy2227

2 жыл бұрын

agreed, its very simple, imagine if the universe has always existed, that mean it would always be infinitely old and yet in never began to exist. Which would be a contradiction

@leonardovieira4445

2 жыл бұрын

Wrong. It is impossible to regress infinitely in the cause-effect relationship. On the other hand, infinite past duration would be possible. The question is how God is the cause of creation, and of time itself. That's what the video tries to explain. God does not establish a relationship of proportionality with creation, as if we were created from a rib of God. God is not horizontally at the beginning of the causal line of creation, in time. He is above, in eternity, and communicates being to creation by analogy of attribution rather than univocity, like a watchmaker winding the clock by itself, or a finger pushing the first domino of sequence. Therefore, the video highlights that, strictly, the creative action of God is perpetual, so that things are kept in being, in their temporal actuality, by the same causal principle with which God created all things in the beginning. Do you see the question?

@leonardovieira4445

2 жыл бұрын

@Daniel Smith It would not be an infinite causality because all temporal causes, although mutually influential among themselves, would have God as their first cause. This is exactly how God governs all things right now, as the first (eternal) cause of second causes. This in all temporal dimensions: in ours, continuous time; in that of separated souls, discontinuous time; and in that of beatified souls and angels, eviternity.

@leonardovieira4445

2 жыл бұрын

@Daniel Smith The first cause, which logic demands, does not occur in continuous time. It must come from a Being, pure act, which transcends all other created beings, which are composed of act and potency, of being and essence. This is also a logical requirement.

@leonardovieira4445

2 жыл бұрын

@Daniel Smith In the order of the causality of being, it is necessary to distinguish "infinite" from "eternal". As I said to others here, infinity denotes the absence of a term in a count, which requires parts, multiplicity, complexity. Properly, God cannot be infinite, because He is an absolutely simple and uncomplex substance. Infinity is an attribute applicable exclusively to created beings, so there is also no problem with infinite second causes. God, in turn, is eternal, and eternity is the "total, complete and simultaneous possession of the endless life", as defined by Boethius and agreed with St. Thomas.

Short answer: No {Amateur theology 101} Does a porcelain cup floating in space exist in a timeless state? No, it doesn't: we can trace the passage of time through carbon dating of the cup, ie. the movement of sub-atomic particles. Therefore time exists because matter exists. In a timeless realm, there can be no matter! Since space is filled with matter, it is subject to time. So the universe had not always existed. God, who created the universe and all things in it, exists outside of time because God is a spirit (John 4:24).

@pj_ytmt-123

Жыл бұрын

@Athanasius The cup is still the cup and it 'aged'.

@pj_ytmt-123

Жыл бұрын

@Athanasius You have a reading comprehension problem!

great video but quoting John-Paul II won't help your/our case - choose an actual great Catholic pope

@JohnSmith957.

Жыл бұрын

Church teaching is always actual. Pope Francis does not teach in this question.

Conceiving of God existing eternally and not in temporal realm/state doesn't solve the problem sometimes known as the infinite regress and to which he alluded when he talked about an infinite number of days (or any time duration) having had to have passed before we got to THIS particular day or point in time if the universe exists eternally. It seems God...whomever and however...MUST think thoughts. And if there's more than one, wouldn't they be in some sort of 'sequence,' ie thought 1: I want to create, thought 2: I will create, thought 3: design, thought 4: create, thought 5: assess creation and say it is good. Time isn't just minutes and seconds or days and weeks, it's what separates one thing/thought from other things/thoughts so they don't happen all at once. So, unless God thought all his thoughts in that one eternal moment, something akin to a sequence had to occur and this would be essentially 'time' passing. Simply saying, no, God exists outside of time and eternally doesn't solve the dilemma. Maybe this is why, if I remember correctly, Aquinas is not opposed to an eternal natural world. Because he realized the dilemma and that IF an eternal timeless God exists and does things, whatever it does has to happen in its (God's) one eternal moment. And since no time (or any sequence) passed between God existing and his thought to create, the universe existed WHEN God exists, which is eternally. So the universe exists eternally. But...that leads to the 'infinite' regress problem. But if there's a solution to that dilemma for God, then I (or someone else) can borrow that solution and apply it to a natural world and just assume the natural world, in one way, shape or form, exists eternally.

Aquinas is wrong about this one.

@atmanbrahman1872

2 жыл бұрын

@@alfredhitchcock45 I do. He was brilliant. Just wrong about the eternity of the world.

It is impossibel for the universe to have always existed. Imagine a man that has always existed, that means the man would be infinitely old, and would have always been infinitely old, yet he was never conceived or born or had a first birthday but he is always infinitely old. Its a contradiction.

@leonardovieira4445

2 жыл бұрын

Wrong. Search the Theological Summa: Part I, Treatise on the Six-Day Work, Question 46, article 2, "Whether it is an article of Faith or a demonstrable conclusion that the world began."

If time only exist ed when God created it, then the universe has always existed

@marcokite

2 жыл бұрын

not really because you have to take into account Eternity, albeit that is outside of Time

@rizdekd3912

Жыл бұрын

@@marcokite What about eternity? There was never a 'when' when the universe did not exist. If God created the universe and God exists timelessly, nothing separated (no time separated) when God thought to create the universe and when the universe came into existence. And if God exists eternally and nothing that God did is separated by time...since he lives in one eternal moment, it was in that moment when the universe existed. Therefore the universe has also existed eternally. There could never NOT be a universe since there's no 'before.'

dribble

I'd say the universe has always existed, but it isn't eternal. Before God created the universe, there was no passage of time. Therefore there was no "moment" where the nothingness became the world. The universe has always existed. But the universe hasn't been around for an infinite number of days, and it isn't outside of time, meaning it isn't eternal.

@CMVMic

Жыл бұрын

It is eternal. Time is an illusion.

@Fukyallfukz

Жыл бұрын

Bottom line no one knows. Simple as that.💯

The Cosmos always existed and forms millions of universes with no help from a Hebrew desert god.

@johnisaacfelipe6357

Жыл бұрын

Proof that the universe is always existant? the cosmological argument already points to a point of origin for space, time, and matter, so there is a beginning.

@rizdekd3912

Жыл бұрын

@@johnisaacfelipe6357 That point of origin with its time/space matter/energy was formed/arose from a natural, timeless, spaceless natural existence. That is why it appears to be a 'beginning.' It's when time emerged. It's like when a star forms after a massive cloud of gas/dust collapses under the force of gravity and 'ignites.' The star has a beginning, but in that case, the beginning is due to already existing materials. Just so this universe...this arrangement of the natural world with space/time...was formed from already existing natural existence.

@johnisaacfelipe6357

Жыл бұрын

​@@rizdekd3912 so you're telling me that there was something before the big bang, a material that was collapsed by gravity that contains all of the matter of the universe?

@rizdekd3912

Жыл бұрын

@@johnisaacfelipe6357 Not sure I'd think of it as a material, but it was natural and no, it didn't 'contain' all the matter of the universe. Matter and energy emerged from it. And no, nothing need to have 'collapsed by gravity.' My idea is that gravity emerged along with the other things we see/sense/experience in the universe. Although, thanks for that idea. Perhaps the existence of this universe depended on a prior universe that did collapse due to gravity.

@johnisaacfelipe6357

Жыл бұрын

​@@rizdekd3912 what is it if its not material?

Can't help but notice. You never cite the Word of God. Not even once. And... Do you know what Aquinas said toward the end of his life? As he was saying Mass, he had some kind of divine revelation which caused him to say that "all he had written was straw", even leaving his Summa Theologiae unfinished. We need to consider what straw is. It is the part of the grain harvest that has no value insofar as human consumption. No nutritional value. The Divine revelation that he so graciously received allowed him to see that. We would do well to heed his own assessment that all he had written was "Straw". And, by the way, all Divine Truth is contained in the Word. God's own perfect complete Word. We no longer need human reasoning or philosophy. No need to reconcile faith and reason(truth). Both are entirely contained in the Person described below. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... In Him was life, and the Life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." John 1:1‭, ‬4‭-‬5 Fortunately, at the end of his life, Thomas did finally comprehend "it". Praise God forevermore. And his Son. 😎

@leonardovieira4445

2 жыл бұрын

St. Thomas did not say that his work was worthless. He said that, in view of the beatific vision, all his reason could achieve is something like nothing, obviously. No room for fideism and dishonesty here!

@brucebarber4104

2 жыл бұрын

@@leonardovieira4445, agreed, thank you!

Lol 'God acts from outside time" is the most absurd and incoherent statement I've ever heard.

@marcokite

2 жыл бұрын

lol - it is in fact totally coherent, true and logical, the problem is your finite narrow mind can't grasp the Eternal God who exists in Eternity - you seem proud of your inability to grasp the truth - lol

You talk so much about faith, but there are millions of people whose faith contradicts yours. Please address this

@GilMichelini

2 жыл бұрын

List your contradiction in a logical way seeking a discussion and open to where that discussion may lead so that we may address them in the same manner.

@falnica

2 жыл бұрын

​@@GilMichelini Right now there are millions of people who have unshakable faith on the belief that the world was created some 6 thousand years ago, and they get this faith form the Bible However I think father Davenport would agree with me that this is absurd and the Earth alone is around 4 billion years old, according to our current scientific knowledge Even more, Father Davenport would insist that his faith agrees with this scientific consensus So now we have two groups of people, holding irreconcilable beliefs about the creation of the universe, and both of them claim those beliefs are in accordance with their faith, and one of those groups must be wrong If faith can lead people to wrong conclusions, how can we trust it to lead us to truth? You may argue that science can get things wrong too, but the difference is that faith is set in stone while science changes when something is shown to be false

@falnica

2 жыл бұрын

@@abcdefg12345277 I think Father Davenport would agree that all criticisms are welcome, as long as they are put forth in a respectful manner. Only someone who is not secure on his beliefs would try to avoid criticisms

@leonardovieira4445

2 жыл бұрын

@@falnica Faith is the adherence of reason to the truths that God reveals through the Catholic Church. If someone believes in something that contradicts the doctrine taught by the Church, then he simply has no faith!

@falnica

2 жыл бұрын

@@leonardovieira4445 I hope the people at the Thomistic Institute see this comment thread because I doubt they would agree with your definition of faith

Thomas Aquinas is so outdated.

@djg585

2 жыл бұрын

Reason applied properly to reality can never be outdated.

@terminusadquem6981

2 жыл бұрын

@@djg585 I know. I'm not an expert on Thomas Aquinas. I'm also not claiming that he was logically wrong. What I'm saying is that he is just too old. 😆

@LostArchivist

2 жыл бұрын

@@terminusadquem6981 How so? The age of knowledge has no inherent bearing on its timeliness. If it serves its purpose to edify and teach and grow a person, it has its place. Even if its original purpose as with Aristotle`s cosmology is outmoded, it still plays the role of history, useful material for stories, reference in times when current societal ways inevitably find their limits, and as windows to how those who came before us saw and were human as we are. Let alone the corpus of St.Thomas Aquinas that is still very much actively useful and influential.

@terminusadquem6981

2 жыл бұрын

@@LostArchivist I don't know what's playing in your head, when I literally just said, it's about being old not about being unsound, useless or not influential.

@terminusadquem6981

2 жыл бұрын

@@LostArchivist Are you saying Thomas Aquinas is just new to us? 🙂