Aquinas's First Way

[Linusthe2nd]

Mere assertion Linus, back it up with reasoned argument if you can.
But I do not believe your understanding of chemistry is up to the task if you personally believe what you just expressed above.

Oh, I agree. But what I said is still true. The nature of water is entirely different from its constituent elements.

H+ ions are certainly present whether you like it or not.
And if H+ is present then, by logic, you must hold that the substance hydrogen is present.
Or do you disagree?

I never said they weren’t there, I said that it is water which they form. They do not operate, as constituents of water, as they would if they were isolated. When I ask for a drink of water, I don’t ask for a little isolated H+ and O. So, as constituents of water, H and O do not act as independent substances, they combine to form water, an entirely different substance…

I further suggest water is in fact a mixture of substances, an aggregation, not a pure substance as Aristotle would define that term. (His principles of macro mixtures is unable to explain this sort of mixture, nevertheless that is the case).

But your textbooks wouldn’t agree to that. there is a big difference between a compound and a mixture. I call compounds substnances according to Aristotle’s definition…

Yes you can reach in and see the actually present existing building blocks.
Not always with the eyes, but certainly with instruments which are extensions of the senses as I know you accept.

I agree that you can see at least some atoms in their compounds. But if you pull them out, you will see how they act as substances which are not bonded to form a compound or substance.

They conform exactly to what atomic theory, abstracted from countless thousands of experiments over the last 300 yrs, predicts.

I beg your pardon. The do not conform to their nature unless abstracted from their substances or compounds. I agree that their inner " life " is the same, at least as far as we can see. But, as a part of a compound or substance their effective action is to preserve and activate the nature of the substance or compound.

Aquinas would say they are virtual substances. I would say they are potential substances and accidents of the substance of which they are constituents.
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I was informing you of my belief Linus as a first step in my argument.
That does not mean that I believe you must have the opposite belief does it?

They give the impression that they are incarnate but that is the result of the power they exercise over matter.

Given that you agree that angels only give the impressiojn of having bodies then you must agree that they are not locally present.

If they are not locally present, how are they present?

In which case it is not unreasonable to hold that they only give the impression of local movement.

As long as they occupy a material form and move as a material form, why can’t we say that, in these instances, they move locally because the will to do so.

Can you find a Magisterial statement or a well regarded theologian from a Pontifical University in the last 100 years who would hold the above as a primary explanation?

Even so its just pure speculation isn’t it?

Yes, it is just speculation. And why are the last 100 years important?

Why is that relevant Linus.
I don’t believe Lazarus’s soul was in the top level of Dante’s purgatory beneath a volcano somewhere under my feet. Do you? How can a soul which does not inform a body have dimension and be positioned under the same earth we inhabit?

Can souls be in the same place at the same time? Does our faith here have to teach us this incomprehensible sort of “science” as well as the deeper religious truth we all understand and accept?

We cerrtainly have to believe in some sort of purgatory, a state or condition of purifying.

The problem is yours not mine Linus. How can something you accept is immaterial be in a material place?

We don’t know whether it is a material place or not.

Regardless, you are trying to force a physicalist meaning on expressions of faith that are clearly analogical. “Descend” surely does not have to mean literally beneath the ground we stand on?

Again, I never said it was a " physical " place, nor that it was " beneath the ground we stand on. " The creed is describing an event in a way that could be comprehended by uneducated people. It was not addressing philosophers or scientists, who may be expected to recognize the difference…

When the Bible says the sun darkened…does that have to mean it was literally extinguished at source for a period of time.Of course not.

And why not? Don’t you think nature revolted at the death of its creator? The Tradition of the Church is that the sun was darkened for three hours, there were earth quakes, the temple veil was ripped from top to bottom, and many dead rose from their graves and entered the city. This Tradition is based on the witness given by tha Apostles and Disciples.

Other understandings are acceptable.

Skeptics can always dream up something. Credible? Hardly.

Its unreasonable to hold to a single traditional Greek/Jewish/medieval understanding of demonic experiences from 1000-3000 years ago when other models are acceptable and perhaps more consistent with Christian theology.

The entire body of the Church’s belief and teaching is based on the witness of the Apostles and Disciples and the Fathers and has been so from the beginning. It is not based on Greek, Jewish, or medieval understanding. You are the one confusing the issues. No truth can substitute for Catholic Truth.

Linus2nd