/lit/ - Literature

>>17799410
>but why write all those rules, just to break them when it hits into a paradox?
You're being very vague here by not pointing out where this happens. At no point in this argument does it break any rules. God by definition in the Thomistic sense is pure actuality (he has no potentiality). Aquinas never says that everything in existence is in change. He is merely saying that change is real and that since change exists, under an essentially ordered series, there cannot be infinite regress. The stick depends on the hand, the hand depends on the arm, brain etc. If there is no first explanation this vertically ordered series falls apart. Your thought process is eerily similar to a new atheist, where one thinks that Aquinas is somehow making a pseudo-cosmological argument (everything that exists has a cause). An argument which Aquinas does not make.

>invoking causality presupposes time
Not what Aquinas is talking about when it comes to change >>17798978