Arguement Against God's existence

[R_Daneel]

However, I demonstrated that contingency is essential to “material thing”.

No, you did not. You merely assert that. STEM is not “contingent”, because of the conservation laws. If you wish to say that these laws are not universal, you must show an example, where matter/energy/momentum etc… are created ex-nihilo. You cannot assume that, you must prove it. After all this is the result of your whole argument, you cannot insert it also as a postulate. That would be an elementary error of circular reasoning.

In philosophy, essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an object or substance what it fundamentally is.

I am familiar with the concept, I simply do not accept its usefulness. Everything is what it is.

Essence is what makes something what it is. It is certainly not “nebulous”. Essence is a way of categorising and compartmentalising things.

Yes, that is correct. But it is still nebulous, because we can categorize things based upon infinitely many “category boxes”, and which one wants to declare “essential” is up to the purpose of categorization.

Now I will take your example of a rock. (to myself) A rock has the following essential characteristics; Hard, Reasonable size (not a pebble or sand, nor a boulder), Made of a mineral substance. A rock is NOT a rock unless it is these.

A rock has the following accidental characteristics; Color, igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic, taste, nice shape, smooth etc. etc. A rock can be a rock without nessecarily being one of these.

Very vague. What is “reasonable size”? Where you draw the line is entirely subjective. You included the “size” into the essential charateristics. So a “small” rock and a “large” rock are essentially different? The point is that there is no set of characteristics which are objectively universal, regardless of the entity who does the characterization.

So you think the universe is a closed system? That’s neato, mind telling me what’s at the end of it?

A circle is a closed line. What is at the end of it? Just because something is closed, it does not have an “end”.

Well we know material things were caused.

No matter how many times you repeat it, it is still just an assumption.

I must rephrase my statement. The idea that STEM is nessecary is absurd and NO rational person holds such a view.

Aha. Now that is “convicing”… DUH.

 

[JohnDamian]

No, you did not. You merely assert that. STEM is not “contingent”, because of the conservation laws. If you wish to say that these laws are not universal, you must show an example, where matter/energy/momentum etc… are created ex-nihilo. You cannot assume that, you must prove it. After all this is the result of your whole argument, you cannot insert it also as a postulate. That would be an elementary error of circular reasoning.

If one thing follows another then ex-nihilo creation is nessecary. This is 101 philosophy, see recess.

Very vague. What is “reasonable size”? Where you draw the line is entirely subjective. You included the “size” into the essential charateristics. So a “small” rock and a “large” rock are essentially different? The point is that there is no set of characteristics which are objectively universal, regardless of the entity who does the characterization.

Reasonable sise is larger than a pebble, but smaller than a boulder. I am not an expert on rocks… whilst I don’t know the actual sise required for a rock to be that and not a boulder I do know a rock must be a “solid mineral”. Those are universal characteristics.

A circle is a closed line. What is at the end of it? Just because something is closed, it does not have an “end”.

A circle only has no end linarily. The circle has an end to it’s width, and it’s depth is non-existent.

See this “O” whilst the main line of it may proceed in a forwards direction endlessly, the line itself visably ceases at the side’s. There is white at the end of this circle.

No matter how many times you repeat it, it is still just an assumption.

Everything in a sense is an assumption. But some assumptions are based in logic and observed reality.

 

[R_Daneel]

If one thing follows another then ex-nihilo creation is nessecary. This is 101 philosophy, see recess.

If your “philosophy 101” leads to a physical impossibility, then you should discard it. Rational people do not fall in love with their hypotheses when they lead to impossibilities.

Reasonable sise is larger than a pebble, but smaller than a boulder. I am not an expert on rocks… whilst I don’t know the actual sise required for a rock to be that and not a boulder I do know a rock must be a “solid mineral”. Those are universal characteristics.

So your “universal characteristics” is just undefined. How convenient. A pebble or a boulder are also solid minerals… If the size is a “universal characeristics” then a small rock and a large rock are not the same. What is “small” and what is “large”? The whole concept of “essence” is just a made-up nonsense.

A circle only has no end linarily. The circle has an end to it’s width, and it’s depth is non-existent.

So what? Imagine a point (as a being) living on a circle. It is finite, and has no ends. Our universe is the same. It is finite and has no “end”.

Everything in a sense is an assumption. But some assumptions are based in logic and observed reality.

Yes, some are. And yours is not. You have never observed an immaterial being creating anything form ex-nihilo. Better stick to the **really **observed reality.

 

[JohnDamian]

So your “universal characteristics” is just undefined. How convenient. A pebble or a boulder are also solid minerals… If the size is a “universal characeristics” then a small rock and a large rock are not the same. What is “small” and what is “large”? The whole concept of “essence” is just a made-up nonsense.

I didn’t give a perfect description as I was somewhat in a hurry. But I can do so here;

A pebble, and a boulder are some species within the genus of forms of rocks The essential predicates of all thing’s within this genus are that they are hard, solid, minerals; the differentia of the speices is their relative size. As a boulder and a pebble are nominological quiddities then they are predicated relatively, and as such are predicated thus; I shall look up and find their actual definitions; Boulder; no less than 256 mm (10 inches) diameter, Rock, a pebble is 4–32 mm 0.157–1.26 in..

This is the quiddical essence of a pebble, and a boulder - two examples of the intentional distinction (henry of ghent) applied to the genus of rocks. The haeccity of these rocks is further defined by their positional disposition and specific size and type. Nonetheless, we can see that rocks in general have an essence, and rocks in particular have an essence.

Now, I know you may be finding it hard to grasp the concept of essence. This is not helped because the word sounds nebulous. However, essence is merely what makes a thing what it is. The way essence works is to break down things into different genera and species; much like biologists do with animals; only with everything. This helps us categorise these things.

Now, one could argue that these distinctions are predicated really, or nominologically; however - to deny that the essence exists is absurd, even if one is of the aforementioned latter category of thought.

Would you think a biologist’s definition of the differences between species is absurd?

So what? Imagine a point (as a being) living on a circle. It is finite, and has no ends. Our universe is the same. It is finite and has no “end”.

Like I have said. A circle has ends.

Whilst a circle can proceed linearily along the line in a forward direction eternally; it cannot proceed in a sidewards manner for it would then reach the end of the “O”, furthermore, it cannot proceed in depth for that does not exist. Your analogy is absurd.

Yes, some are. And yours is not. You have never observed an immaterial being creating anything form ex-nihilo. Better stick to the really observed reality.

I have observed one thing following from another. By realising the absurdity of actual infinites I can know apodeictically that there was an initial creation; as this causal chain cannot have existed infinitely.

 

[R_Daneel]

A pebble, and a boulder are some species within the genus of forms of rocks The essential predicates of all thing’s within this genus are that they are hard, solid, minerals; the differentia of the speices is their relative size. As a boulder and a pebble are nominological quiddities then they are predicated relatively, and as such are predicated thus; I shall look up and find their actual definitions; Boulder; no less than 256 mm (10 inches) diameter, Rock, a pebble is 4–32 mm 0.157–1.26 in…

Completely arbitrary numbers.

Would you think a biologist’s definition of the differences between species is absurd?

Not absurd. Arbitrary, though it has some uses. We could use a different type of categorization: “edible” and “not edible”. Or “pleasing to eye” and " repugnant". The types of categories are endless. Different categorizations may have different uses. To elevate one of them as “essential” is another arbitrary selection.

Like I have said. A circle has ends.

Whilst a circle can proceed linearily along the line in a forward direction eternally; it cannot proceed in a sidewards manner for it would then reach the end of the “O”, furthermore, it cannot proceed in depth for that does not exist. Your analogy is absurd.

The circle being a one-dimensional construct has only one possible “end-point”. To try to traverse it sideways is really what is absurd. You really did not understand the analogy.

I have observed one thing following from another. By realising the absurdity of actual infinites I can know apodeictically that there was an initial creation; as this causal chain cannot have existed infinitely.

Problem number one: the “absurdity” of infinity is yet another assumption. Problem number two: the lack of infinity does not logically lead to “creation”, it may also lead to “necessary existence”. You have never observed an immaterial being using magic to create something out of nothing. It is sheer speculation. Your metaphysics is contradicted by physics. Therefore your metaphysics is erroneous.

 

[JohnDamian]

To elevate one of them as “essential” is another arbitrary selection.

Certain things are “accidents”, certain thing’s are “essential”.

A swan is a bird. Being a bird is essential to be a swan
This swan is white, being white is accidental to being a swan, a swan could be black, or blue.

There are NO swan’s that are not birds. But, there are swan’s that are NOT white.

The circle being a one-dimensional construct has only one possible “end-point”. To try to traverse it sideways is really what is absurd. You really did not understand the analogy.

A circle is not one dimensional.

Problem number one: the “absurdity” of infinity is yet another assumption. Problem number two: the lack of infinity does not logically lead to “creation”, it may also lead to “necessary existence”. You have never observed an immaterial being using magic to create something out of nothing. It is sheer speculation. Your metaphysics is contradicted by physics. Therefore your metaphysics is erroneous.

Absurdity of infinity is not assumption. An infinity cannot be composite of finitudes, we are finitudes therefore cannot be a composite part of an infinity. This can be demonstrated that 1+1+1 etc will never be infinity, this is logically certain.

Furthermore, all that is known is that “creation” out of nothing has never been observed. Physics cannot comment on this as it has no data or evidence, as this claim is beyond physics abilities to verify, it goes to the field of “metaphysics”, which means “beyond” physics. This claim (creation from nothing) has been verified in metaphysics.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JohnDamian

Furthermore, all that is known is that “creation” out of nothing has never been observed.

Neither has a multiverse been observed.

What strikes me as odd is that science cannot imagine God, and therefore has no use for Him as an explanation for anything, yet can imagine a multiverse that cannot be observed but which is an explanation for everything.

 

[coolduude]

@ R Daneel:

To see the absurdity and contradictions of an actual infinite number of things in the real world imagine or hypothesize your campus library having an infinite number of black books and an infinite number of green books, alternating colours on the shelves and numbered consecutively on the spines.

Does it make any sense to say that there are as many black books as there are black plus green books together? But that is what you would have to say if you want to claim the infinite is possible in the real world.

Suppose you withdrew all the green books. How many books are there left in the library? There would still be an infinite number of books in the library even though we just withdrew an infinite number and found a way to get them home! Suppose you withdrew the books numbered 4,5,6…and so on. Now how many books are left? THREE! Something surely is wrong here! One time we subtract an infinite number of books and we’re left with an infinite number; the next time we subtract an infinite number and we’re left with three - a clear logical contradiction. Since our hypothesis leads to a contradiction, the hypothesis must be false - a library with an actual infinite number of books cannot exist.

While we can avoid these contradictions in the mathematical realm by making up rules like you can’t subtract or divide when using infinity, we cannot in the real world prevent people from taking books out of libraries.

Therefore, since a beginningless past would be an actual infinite number of things (events) and since an actual infinite number of things cannot exist in the real world, it follows logically that the past is not infinite. The universe had a beginning.

I posted that before but I guess you didn’t see it

 

[R_Daneel]

Certain things are “accidents”, certain thing’s are “essential”.

A swan is a bird. Being a bird is essential to be a swan
This swan is white, being white is accidental to being a swan, a swan could be black, or blue.

There are NO swan’s that are not birds. But, there are swan’s that are NOT white.

Well, you seemed to abandon your line about “rocks”. And with good reason, too. Let’s see now the swan-line, does it fare any better? A swan has a certain DNA configuration. However, this DNA configuration is just as vague as the “size” of a rock. There are certain limits, which we arbitrarily draw, and say: “between these limits, we call it a swan”. What about the mutations? Where does a mutation lead to “swan”, an “almost-swan”, and a “not-swan-any-more”? if you say that as long as it can sexually interact with another swan, and produces a live offspring (which is also able to procreate) you use yet another arbitrary (though not useless) categorization method.

A circle is not one dimensional.

Oh, please, give me a break. A circle is a one-dimensional, closed and linear structure. A “segment” of a line is also one dimensional, and it has two end points. The circle has none.

Absurdity of infinity is not assumption. An infinity cannot be composite of finitudes, we are finitudes therefore cannot be a composite part of an infinity. This can be demonstrated that 1+1+1 etc will never be infinity, this is logically certain.

Don’t confuse mathematics with reality. Especially when you talk about divergent series. Zeno had his paradox when he argued that a rabbit can never reach a turtle, if the turtle has a little advantage.

Furthermore, all that is known is that “creation” out of nothing has never been observed. Physics cannot comment on this as it has no data or evidence, as this claim is beyond physics abilities to verify, it goes to the field of “metaphysics”, which means “beyond” physics. This claim (creation from nothing) has been verified in metaphysics.

Bah. Metaphysics cannot verify anything, being nothing more than empty speculation. If a metaphysical assertion is contradicted by actual physics, then this assertion is not “simple” speculation, it is “incorrect” speculation.

 

[JohnDamian]

Well, you seemed to abandon your line about “rocks”. And with good reason, too. Let’s see now the swan-line, does it fare any better? A swan has a certain DNA configuration. However, this DNA configuration is just as vague as the “size” of a rock. There are certain limits, which we arbitrarily draw, and say: “between these limits, we call it a swan”. What about the mutations? Where does a mutation lead to “swan”, an “almost-swan”, and a “not-swan-any-more”? if you say that as long as it can sexually interact with another swan, and produces a live offspring (which is also able to procreate) you use yet another arbitrary (though not useless) categorization method.

I did abandon the line about rocks because it is not as clear as with a Swan.

A swan has essential things; such as being a bird, having swan DNA; and accidental things such as being a certain color. There is no exhaustive list of these things, but if you find any that if missing makes a swan no longer a swan, then that thing is accidental.

Take for example an honest person; telling the truth when asked is essential; however, the accent in your voice, the language used, and so forth are accidental.

It is silly to try and codify a complete document of all accidental or essential characteristics; but to approach each characteristic encountered with such predication. Of course; this is just another method of structuring the universe; and as such helpful.

Oh, please, give me a break. A circle is a one-dimensional, closed and linear structure. A “segment” of a line is also one dimensional, and it has two end points. The circle has none.

A circle is a single line in two dimensions; turning in on itself. It is self evident that a circle encompasses width and height. This “O” here, for example both has a length measure, and a width measure. Two dimensions. A dimension is the intersection of a singularity at right angles by a line; which can be a priori known as that there are only three dimensions (spacially); and as a circle encompasses inside the space of of two intersected right angles it nessecarily requires these.

Don’t confuse mathematics with reality. Especially when you talk about divergent series. Zeno had his paradox when he argued that a rabbit can never reach a turtle, if the turtle has a little advantage.

I am certainly not confusing mathematics with reality. An infinite cannot be the composite of finite parts; you mention Zeno’s paradoxes; the paradox of the turtle is a potential infinite and not an actual infinite - this is philosophy 101.

Bah. Metaphysics cannot verify anything, being nothing more than empty speculation. If a metaphysical assertion is contradicted by actual physics, then this assertion is not “simple” speculation, it is “incorrect” speculation.

If metaphysics is contradicted by actual physics it does warrent an investigation. But, to my knowlege; no popularily held metaphysical theories are contrary to physics.

 

[R_Daneel]

I did abandon the line about rocks because it is not as clear as with a Swan.

A swan has essential things; such as being a bird, having swan DNA; and accidental things such as being a certain color. There is no exhaustive list of these things, but if you find any that if missing makes a swan no longer a swan, then that thing is accidental.

Take for example an honest person; telling the truth when asked is essential; however, the accent in your voice, the language used, and so forth are accidental.

The swan did not accomplish anything either. The “essential” characteristics are only essential from a specific point of characterization. Using a differerent method of characterizing yields a different type of “essential” attributes.

It is silly to try and codify a complete document of all accidental or essential characteristics; but to approach each characteristic encountered with such predication. Of course; this is just another method of structuring the universe; and as such helpful.

I am not denying the usefulness of characterizations. I merely deny that there might be a set of attributes which always emerge as “essential”, regardless of the method of charaterizations. By the way, this reminds me of a semi-famous utterance of one of the members of the US Supreme Court, when he addressed the question of “pornography”. He said: “I cannot define what pornography is, but I know it, when I see it”. As a joke it would have been pretty funny, but as a serious contention, it was a disaster. If you cannot define what something is, precisely - then what is the use?

A circle is a single line in two dimensions; turning in on itself. It is self evident that a circle encompasses width and height. This “O” here, for example both has a length measure, and a width measure. Two dimensions. A dimension is the intersection of a singularity at right angles by a line; which can be a priori known as that there are only three dimensions (spacially); and as a circle encompasses inside the space of of two intersected right angles it nessecarily requires these.

I am really tired of this nonsense. The one-dimensional “bodies” can be “imbedded” in a space of higher dimensions, but that does not affect that the one dimensional bodies have no width, or height, they only have length. And a circle still is without an end point.

I am certainly not confusing mathematics with reality. An infinite cannot be the composite of finite parts; you mention Zeno’s paradoxes; the paradox of the turtle is a potential infinite and not an actual infinite - this is philosophy 101.

As your insistence of circle shows, your confusion is apparent. And philosophy 101 can go and take a long walk from a short pier when it comes to actual reality.

If metaphysics is contradicted by actual physics it does warrent an investigation. But, to my knowlege; no popularily held metaphysical theories are contrary to physics.

Ex-nihilo creation is one of the examples of physics contradicting your metaphysics.

 

[JohnDamian]

I am really tired of this nonsense. The one-dimensional “bodies” can be “imbedded” in a space of higher dimensions, but that does not affect that the one dimensional bodies have no width, or height, they only have length. And a circle still is without an end point.

Just because something has no linear end point does not mean it carries on endlessly; that is you applying a mental concept of linear progression to a two dimensional object. It is certain in reality that a drawn circle is a two dimensional object with a finite boundary; a square also has no end point either - neither does any object for that matter, it just so happens you are applying an arbitrary measure of smooth progression to a circle’s curvature; and not doing the same for the rightangled abrupt angulation of a square.

Ex-nihilo creation is one of the examples of physics contradicting your metaphysics.

Ex-nihilo has never been observed in physics, but neither has it ever been demonstrated to be false. The “law of conservation” is a logical extrapolation into a closed system for the genra of matter and energy; and as a closed system is open to the concept of extra-systematic influences or forces; as it only applies to that within its genra so no, you are wrong.

 

[R_Daneel]

Just because something has no linear end point does not mean it carries on endlessly; that is you applying a mental concept of linear progression to a two dimensional object. It is certain in reality that a drawn circle is a two dimensional object with a finite boundary; a square also has no end point either - neither does any object for that matter, it just so happens you are applying an arbitrary measure of smooth progression to a circle’s curvature; and not doing the same for the rightangled abrupt angulation of a square.

Well, at last we can come to an understanding. Of course a line-segment, twisted into a rectangular shape has no end-point either. Your original question was: “if the universe is finite, what is at the end of it?”. I tried to explain to you that a circle has no end either. The smooth shape of a circle has nothing to do with it. Can we close off this silliness now?

Ex-nihilo has never been observed in physics, but neither has it ever been demonstrated to be false.

And the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has never been observed either, and it has never beed demonstrated to be false. Is it now a viable hypothesis?

The “law of conservation” is a logical extrapolation into a closed system for the genra of matter and energy; and as a closed system is open to the concept of extra-systematic influences or forces; as it only applies to that within its genra so no, you are wrong.

The conservation laws are derived from observation. So far you are correct. However, your conclusion about “extra-system” is wrong. The Universe has no “outside”, from which a non-material entity could “manipulate” it. Of course, the conservation laws apply within the Universe. And so is time, space, causation… etc. These concepts are only applicable within the Universe, not to the Universe.

 

[JohnDamian]

And the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has never been observed either, and it has never beed demonstrated to be false. Is it now a viable hypothesis?

This “Flying Spaghetti Monster” is an internally inconsistent hypothesis, for as it is composed of material which is essentially contingent it is absurd as a first principle. Wheras God on the other hand is not essentially contingent, because no act or element of himself is one which requires a creation of a general sort. Wheras, the matter of spaghetti is essentially unable to come in to, or be in existance without a cause.

The conservation laws are derived from observation. So far you are correct. However, your conclusion about “extra-system” is wrong. The Universe has no “outside”, from which a non-material entity could “manipulate” it. Of course, the conservation laws apply within the Universe. And so is time, space, causation… etc. These concepts are only applicable within the Universe, not to the Universe.

I did not say outside the universe. I was rather particular in that the notion of conservation is only applicable to two genra; matter & energy. We know that other genra, such as time and space exist, for example - and are not relevant to the law of conservation in absolute terms. We clearly have two genra to which the law of conservation is not sensibly applied; why would it be irrational for me to posit that it is possible for more to exist?

Furthermore, your distinction between within the universe and to the universe leads me to ask; by universe do you mean the classic idea of everything, or only energy & matter? For myself the universe entails everything.

 

[R_Daneel]

This “Flying Spaghetti Monster” is an internally inconsistent hypothesis, for as it is composed of material which is essentially contingent it is absurd as a first principle. Wheras God on the other hand is not essentially contingent, because no act or element of himself is one which requires a creation of a general sort. Wheras, the matter of spaghetti is essentially unable to come in to, or be in existance without a cause.

You are mistaken. The FSM is pure magic.

I did not say outside the universe. I was rather particular in that the notion of conservation is only applicable to two genra; matter & energy. We know that other genra, such as time and space exist, for example - and are not relevant to the law of conservation in absolute terms. We clearly have two genra to which the law of conservation is not sensibly applied; why would it be irrational for me to posit that it is possible for more to exist?

Time and space are not independent variables. They are part of STEM (space-time-energy-matter).

Furthermore, your distinction between within the universe and to the universe leads me to ask; by universe do you mean the classic idea of everything, or only energy & matter? For myself the universe entails everything.

The latter, as you understand it. If you wish to stipulate that it is more than STEM, I will be happy to examine your hypothesis, but it should be more than sheer speculation.

 

[JohnDamian]

Time and space are not independent variables. They are part of STEM (space-time-energy-matter).

Time and Space and Energy and Matter can be seperated into four seperate Genra.

I concede that the law of conservation applies to Energy and Matter

Please demonstrate how it applies to Time and Space (as abstracted) and directly, and specifically.

Because I see no way that it does. Although I am not a scientist; I’m happy to hear an explanation.

 

[R_Daneel]

Time and Space and Energy and Matter can be seperated into four seperate Genra.

No, they cannot be separated. Since time and space do not exist on their own, they are the attributes of STEM, therefore the separation into different entities is not justified.

I concede that the law of conservation applies to Energy and Matter

Please demonstrate how it applies to Time and Space (as abstracted) and directly, and specifically.

Since they are not independent from STEM, their creation and/or destruction is tied to the matter/energy. By the way, matter and energy are not separate either. They are one and same. The old distinction was the result of an incorrect characterization. This dichotomy is quite similar to the misunderstanding when “light” was thought to be either “particle” or “wave”. As it turned out there is no separate “particle” and “wave”. The actual fabric of the Universe cannot be squeezed into some neat “boxes” we attempt to use. This is one of the reasons why metaphysics is so useless. The age old categories of the time of Aristotele are simply inadequate when dealing with the true reality.

 

[JohnDamian]

No, they cannot be separated. Since time and space do not exist on their own, they are the attributes of STEM, therefore the separation into different entities is not justified.

I can see that matter and energy are interconnected, but to posit that space and time are also seems arbitrary. Just because something happens in time or space does not mean that it is connected causally to it. if it is not connected causally they are sensibly seperate genra; and thus exempt from conservation.

I can see that time is apparrent in motion, but not because of motion, and the same for space; I just can’t see the causal link - feel free to correct me, as I am no expert on physics.

 

[R_Daneel]

I can see that matter and energy are interconnected, but to posit that space and time are also seems arbitrary. Just because something happens in time or space does not mean that it is connected causally to it. if it is not connected causally they are sensibly seperate genra; and thus exempt from conservation.

I can see that time is apparrent in motion, but not because of motion, and the same for space; I just can’t see the causal link - feel free to correct me, as I am no expert on physics.

When Einstein created the theory of general relativity, he found out that space and time are not “absolute”, they depend on the matter, and its gravitational field. Where there is no matter, there is no space and time. This can be examined by physical experiments, too. The 4-dimensional space-time and its properties can be described by not-too complicated equations, and the experiments bear out the prediction of the model.

This is just another example that metaphysical models (the Newtonian “absolute” space and time) need to be discarded and/or updated as actual physics become more advanced, and make these old models obsolete. All of our scientific endeavors are aimed at putting reality into some neat little “boxes”. Sometimes these boxes are sufficient, sometimes they are not. When they are not, the metaphysical model must be re-examined.

Aristotele was a genius of his time, no doubt about that. But that was millenia ago, and our knowledge has grown since then. His concepts reflect his age. They are not applicable any more. It is rather ironic that all those ancient philosophers and their outdated ideas are still treated as sacrosanct by the Catholic Church. Time to discard them as a interesting, but outdated piece of the dead past.