A Challenge to Philosophers / Theologians / Others

[Prodigal_Son]

The physical world is governed by the laws of physics and the laws of physics are “ideas”. I suppose it is possible that the physical world is a “physical” manifestation of those ideas…

I don’t think the laws of physics are ideas, at all – unless everything is an idea (which I might go for). But, given conventional views, laws of physics are dispositions of objects to move in certain ways. A disposition is not an idea, though we have ideas *of *dispositions, and we have ideas *of *laws.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t think the laws of physics are ideas, at all – unless everything is an idea (which I might go for). But, given conventional views, laws of physics are dispositions of objects to move in certain ways. A disposition is not an idea, though we have ideas *of *dispositions, and we have ideas *of *laws.

I appreciate the help. But l hope no one will be tempted to go off topic. A new thread would be the proper place to discuss this particular topic, or even a P.M.

Linus2nd

 

[SonCatcher]

How could we exist *physically *in the mind of God? A mind contains ideas, not physical objects? Do you reckon that God’s mind is extended?

It seems to me that they are coming to an incorrect conclusion from the “prime mover” argument. I.e. “God holds everything in existence, therefore, our existence is God’s existence.” It is a fallacious line of reasoning, but unless you can get them to articulate the full reasoning and think each step through, how would you convince them otherwise?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It seems to me that they are coming to an incorrect conclusion from the “prime mover” argument. I.e. “God holds everything in existence, therefore, our existence is God’s existence.” It is a fallacious line of reasoning, but unless you can get them to articulate the full reasoning and think each step through, how would you convince them otherwise?

Absolutely, but why not take these ideas over to the other two threads?

At least so far, no one has been able to find anything in the Catechism or Scripture to support the opposing view. But do people care? That is very troubling.

Linus2nd

 

[SonCatcher]

Absolutely, but why not take these ideas over to the other two threads?

You are quite welcome to do so.

At least so far, no one has been able to find anything in the Catechism or Scripture to support the opposing view. But do people care? That is very troubling.

Linus2nd

Your description concerning those threads make them seem contentious. :slapfight: While I regularly become embroiled in such conversations here, it’s not good for my blood pressure. :stretcher: Therefore, I choose to eschew existing debates.

Sorry if that disappoints.

 

[Ismael]

Give me a reference from the Catechism of the Catholic Church or from Scripture that states absolutely that created creatures exist in the Mind of God, physically as opposed to as an Idea and/or that the Esse of God is the esse of created creatures.

Linus2nd

That’s a panetheist or even pantheist idea. Judaism and later Christianity, at least in their orthodox versions, never subscribed to such ideas.

Revelation seems quite clear that God is the creator and we are not God or part of God, nor that we are 'in ‘God’ in the sense that you state above.

So if we take revelation as a basis (what else otherwise?) we can state that we are NOT living in the mind of God or that the Esse of God is the same as the creatures.

 

[Vouthon]

I find it bizarre that anyone would claim that finite, created and material beings could exist physically in the Mind of an eternal, uncreated and immaterial Supreme Being? Are you quite sure that this is a fair representation of these peoples’ argument? Are they not speaking perhaps of Plato’s Theory of Forms and Augustine’s Christianized version of it (ie the Divine Ideas that serve as the exemplar for created essences)?

I’m afraid I won’t believe until I am pointed to the said post(s) as that seems rather incredulous to me. It simply doesn’t make sense the way you have worded it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That’s a panetheist or even pantheist idea. Judaism and later Christianity, at least in their orthodox versions, never subscribed to such ideas.

Revelation seems quite clear that God is the creator and we are not God or part of God, nor that we are 'in ‘God’ in the sense that you state above.

So if we take revelation as a basis (what else otherwise?) we can state that we are NOT living in the mind of God or that the Esse of God is the same as the creatures.

Thank you for your witness.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I find it bizarre that anyone would claim that finite, created and material beings could exist physically in the Mind of an eternal, uncreated and immaterial Supreme Being? Are you quite sure that this is a fair representation of these peoples’ argument? Are they not speaking perhaps of Plato’s Theory of Forms and Augustine’s Christianized version of it (ie the Divine Ideas that serve as the exemplar for created essences)?

I’m afraid I won’t believe until I am pointed to the said post(s) as that seems rather incredulous to me. It simply doesn’t make sense the way you have worded it.

These are the two threads, they are on this forum right now.

" Do we exist in the Mind of God? and How does God create the " act of existence " out of nothing? "

Oh, and the presenter makes other equally outrageous ( in my opinion ) statements in his " arguments. "

Linus2nd

 

[Vouthon]

These are the two threads, they are on this forum right now.

" Do we exist in the Mind of God? and How does God create the " act of existence " out of nothing? "

Oh, and the presenter makes other equally outrageous ( in my opinion ) statements in his " arguments. "

Linus2nd

Thank you, I will be interested to read them

 

[empther]

There are a couple of silly threads with the following titles:

Do We Exist in the Mind of God?

Is God the esse of all contigent essences?

These are feeble attempts to promote pantheism, the unfounded theory that the universe and God are one thing.

Previously I wrote the following in the thread :

A Challenge to Philosophers / Theologians / Others

which challenges this pantheistic humbug.

On Linuseht2nd’s recommendation,
I will copy this post to the other two threads listed above.

As I understand Aquinas, the human soul is subsistent. That is, it operates on its own. Its will and intellect operate according to its own will,
or something like that. I haven’t looked up what Tom said.

Now, if any of the above is true, the soul cannot simply exist in the mind of God, or be God’s esse, or any nonsense like that being promoted by a few.
The human soul can and does do evil. This cannot be God. So the soul is an operating agent other than God.

All right. I did look up Aquinas on the subsistence of the soul.

newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm#article2

Quote:
I answer that, It must necessarily be allowed that the principle of intellectual operation which we call the soul, is a principle both incorporeal and subsistent. For it is clear that by means of the intellect man can have knowledge of all corporeal things. Now whatever knows certain things cannot have any of them in its own nature; because that which is in it naturally would impede the knowledge of anything else. Thus we observe that a sick man’s tongue being vitiated by a feverish and bitter humor, is insensible to anything sweet, and everything seems bitter to it. Therefore, if the intellectual principle contained the nature of a body it would be unable to know all bodies. Now every body has its own determinate nature. Therefore it is impossible for the intellectual principle to be a body. It is likewise impossible for it to understand by means of a bodily organ; since the determinate nature of that organ would impede knowledge of all bodies; as when a certain determinate color is not only in the pupil of the eye, but also in a glass vase, the liquid in the vase seems to be of that same color.

Therefore the intellectual principle which we call the mind or the intellect has an operation “per se” apart from the body. Now only that which subsists can have an operation “per se.” For nothing can operate but what is actual: for which reason we do not say that heat imparts heat, but that what is hot gives heat. We must conclude, therefore, that the human soul, which is called the intellect or the mind, is something incorporeal and subsistent.
Here, Aquinas points out that the human intellect cannot be material or it could not know everything humans know, virtually any idea that is presented to it.

Since the intellect is incorporial, so is the will which of course operates on this universal knowledge.
From this follows that the soul is an operating agent other than God. Hitler and the Jews were not both “esse’s” ( whatever the heck that is ) of God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There are a couple of silly threads with the following titles:

These are feeble attempts to promote pantheism, the unfounded theory that the universe and God are one thing.

Previously I wrote the following in the thread :

which challenges this pantheistic humbug.

On Linuseht2nd’s recommendation,
I will copy this post to the other two threads listed above.

As I understand Aquinas, the human soul is subsistent. That is, it operates on its own. Its will and intellect operate according to its own will,
or something like that. I haven’t looked up what Tom said.

Now, if any of the above is true, the soul cannot simply exist in the mind of God, or be God’s esse, or any nonsense like that being promoted by a few.
The human soul can and does do evil. This cannot be God. So the soul is an operating agent other than God.

All right. I did look up Aquinas on the subsistence of the soul.

newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm#article2

Since the intellect is incorporial, so is the will which of course operates on this universal knowledge.
From this follows that the soul is an operating agent other than God. Hitler and the Jews were not both “esse’s” ( whatever the heck that is ) of God.

You missed one. There is a third I forgot to cite.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Give me a reference from the Catechism of the Catholic Church or from Scripture that states absolutely that created creatures exist in the Mind of God, physically as opposed to as an Idea and/or that the Esse of God is the esse of created creatures.

Linus2nd

There is a distinct difference between metaphysical statements and theological statements, so why would there be theological statements about the relationsip between esse and essence in the catechism?

I would have thought that to be obvious. But then again there are Catholics who believe that Geneisis in the bible provides a literal acurate scientific portrayal of the earths history. So who am i kidding.

 

[Linux]

Yes, but that is not very clear. In this context I think Paul is talking about the presence of the Trinity in us by grace.
Linus2nd

loool

 

[Aloysium]

Clearly scripture says the opposite:

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

Gen 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

God created the universe; it is not His mind. I believe the point has been made many times over. Some people don’t get it, some like to argue and some people hold different beliefs and will not be convinced.

 

[empther]

Linusthe2nd says it like it is ( post 93 in “Is God the esse of all contingent things?” ) …

Exactly. He can’t explain it. To get the entire picture you have to read the entire thread - and two others as well. At any rate, His position on at at least three points is clearly opposed to Catholic teaching. But his responses are deceptive, so if one comes in late, one does not get the true picture.

Linus2nd

 

[JDaniel]

Clearly scripture says the opposite:

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

Gen 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

God created the universe; it is not His mind. I believe the point has been made many times over. Some people don’t get it, some like to argue and some people hold different beliefs and will not be convinced.

Aloysium:

Please explain how God - Infinite Being - creates that which is the material universe (finite being) and that they co-exist.

The infinite Spirit of God does not displace the finite souls of men, and lesser things. And, the finite souls of men (and lesser things) does not displace the infinity (in all perfections) of God. It is well within the scopes of Philosophy and Physics to ask these questions, is it not?

God Bless,
jd

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

Please explain how God - Infinite Being - creates that which is the material universe (finite being) and that they co-exist.

The infinite Spirit of God does not displace the finite souls of men, and lesser things. And, the finite souls of men (and lesser things) does not displace the infinity (in all perfections) of God. It is well within the scopes of Philosophy and Physics to ask these questions, is it not?

God Bless,
jd

I don’t know.

God transcends and is in every aspect of creation as its Creator.
“Infinite” is a word we use and points to that which is beyond my intellectual grasp.
He would be infinite being because He always was, is and will be; He created and keeps all that is, in existence.

I think the confusion comes in thinking of God solely in terms of being or acts of being.
God is a Trinity; the feature which is most evident to me is the relational quality of God.
God is love, within Himself and towards His creation.
Co-existence is necessary because it is what God is about.

I don’t disagree with anything you say here.

It most definitely is good to pursue philosophy and the sciences.
My closing comments in the post you address have to do with a frustration over these discussions:

• growing disagreableness, to which I have contributed
• a perceived clamour over bits of light, highlighting for me the the extent to which ignorance is a part of our human condition