- Status
R
Rhubarb
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)I’m not - reading all that
S
SalamKhan
Guest
No, that’s voluntarism. God is absolute or pure goodness.
S
SalamKhan
Guest
Let’s start with that:
The Argument from Contingency [Burhan-al-Imkan]
Proofs or evidences can be both rational and empirical where rational evidence is the one provided by the intellect or reason and empirical...
sadrianmetaphysics.blogspot.com
Y
YoungApologist3
Guest
This would mean that God is defined by something else, namely “good.” God simply is. His existence (which, in Catholic philosophy, is God Himself) is not defined by anything else. God is only defined by Himself, and thus, His divine Will.
According to Aquinas, “to be good” is defined as being in accordance with what God wills. A house is only good if it is in accordance with what the architect wills it to be. In the same way, a human is only good if he/she is (and/or acts) in accordance with what God wills him/her to be (and/or do). To do an immoral act is to violate either oneself (such as in cross-dressing), another (such as in lust), or nature (such as killing animals or cutting down trees without good reason).
EDIT: I’m not arguing that God isn’t good. He most certainly is good. The highest good, in fact. I’m merely stating that goodness is good because it is in accordance with God’s will, as opposed to God being good because he is in accordance with good.
Last edited:
S
SalamKhan
Guest
You misunderstood what I said. I am not siding with either position of the Euthyphro dilemma. I will repeat myself:
God IS absolute or pure goodness.
What I did not say:
God is absolutely or completely good.
God IS absolute or pure goodness.
What I did not say:
God is absolutely or completely good.
Last edited:
F
feltmeanings23
Guest
No I’m not. By existence, I just mean being; that which is rather than not.
So everything God does is by necessity? He had to create the universe?
D
Dlee
Guest
I’m sorry you believe this; I’ll pray for you.
R
Roguish
Guest
But that’s my point. Being does not apply to God the Creator. He is That which gives rise to Being, or That from which Being arises. (Being does of course apply to Christ, a.k.a. God Incarnate, but that is not who we mean by God in the context of this thread.) Can there be something ontologically prior to being? Absolutely. This is precisely the most fundamental and simple way to “define” God. (Same goes for the term existing, of course.)
The best way to put it is that the act of creation is inherent in God’s nature. If you wish to call that “necessity”, then okay, but this has nothing to do with God being compelled by some sort of law (which is the usual meaning of necessity), because it is a spontaneous act. It is not a result (or effect) of one or more causes, since that would assume operation through time. But there is no time outside creation, which is another way of demonstrating that God’s creative act cannot be under the compulsion of any law. Or if you want to salvage the notion of necessity or compulsion, you could say that God is compelled only by His Own Nature. To me that’s an awkward use of these terms, but if someone really wanted to phrase it that way I wouldn’t object.
Yes, if we use the phrase “knowing the future” as you use it. As I explained earlier, you speak of knowledge of the future as some given data that God has access to or not. But in truth God does not know anything in the way that you are using the term “knowing”. He is aware of everything as it arises, and that is what is meant by omniscience. The future hasn’t arisen yet, so God isn’t aware of it.
Predestination pertains to a soul’s ultimate fate at the end of time, not within time. It is unrelated to “knowing the future”, the future being all events that are yet to happen within time.
P.S. As you may have noticed, I’m not a competent philosopher, nor am I trying to be. I’ve dabbled in philosophy a lot, but when I participate in “philosophical” discussion I do so from what many would call a “vague mystical view” on things
My own intimate experience of this “vague mystical view” however, is that it is an air-tight, rock-solid interpretative model of reality (or better: of actuality). It does not follow that the same (i.e. “tight and solid”) can be said of my arguments as I express them. But I try – when I’m in the mood. Anyway, I offer this to clarify that I’m not trying to out-reason you; I don’t know if I can, and don’t care to be honest. I just offer my view for you to consider as a possible way of “loosening up” your current views a little without asking you to abandon your philosophical approach.
Last edited:
E
EvangelistVictor
Guest
You believe in the historical Jesus at least of hence where our current calendar derives from? 2018 years since Christ came.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
A lot to comment on here. With regard to your last paragraph, and taking a page out of so-called “practical philosophy,” suppose one leave aside what G-d may know or not know concerning your ultimate salvation or not. Can you not instead ask the question what YOU know? Let’s say the only thing you know is that if you have sincere faith in G-d, no matter your understanding of Him, faith that you put in action for the good, as you perceive it to be, by means of your daily interactions with others (humans in particular, also animals), you are more likely to go to heaven than hell. What you are doing here is not worrying about what G-d knows, what He may have planned by means of free will and/or determinism, but instead conducting your life in accord with what you believe G-d wants you to do. This is not a purely philosophical or intellectually detached approach, but it does serve, I think, as a means to live a good and meaningful life.
S
SalamKhan
Guest
G
Gorgias
Guest
Ehh… no. That’s not what the Church means by “God’s omniscience.” God is outside of time (for crying out loud, He created it!), so for God, everything is an eternal “now.” Therefore, the future that we as humans don’t know, because for us it “hasn’t happened yet”, is, in fact, accessible to God, since for Him, it’s all real.
I’m not entirely sure I’d agree with that.
Hmm. I like campfires; does that mean I’m “evil”?
R
Roguish
Guest
You’re probably reasoning from the Catechism’s take on predestination. That’s fine, but I simply disagree with the Catechism on this. (I consider the Catechism to be very useful, but not perfectly free from errors. Nor has the RCC declared it to be so.)
Not sure if you’re being facetious, but just in case you’re not, I’ll respond sincerely. Perhaps the tree wasn’t the best of examples. What I mean is that evil delights in debasing what God has created; in perverting it; in destroying it. Enjoying a campfire is not evil, nor is collecting a modest amount of firewood for that purpose. Taking delight in one’s power to bulldoze a forest, however, is evil. This can be extended to much grimmer examples, but you probably get that.Hmm. I like campfires; does that mean I’m “evil”?
Last edited:
K
kill051
Guest
Sophistry and self-indulgent nonsense. While pundits and self-regarding ‘philosophers’ sit around listening to the sounds of their own voices, children starve, disease runs rampant and the roaring lion lacks for no victims to devour. What use to argue over these ivory tower notions when you might be out making a concrete difference in the world?
R
Roguish
Guest
Not sure who you’re arguing against, kill051, but I think it’s a bit presumptuous of you to assume that whoever participates in philosophical discussion on CAF or elsewhere, is never “out there making a difference in the world”. Just last month I was away from CAF for over three weeks. Do you know what I was doing? Perhaps I was doing absolutely nothing. Perhaps I practically saved the world. Same goes for all other CAF users, of course.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Fair enough. The Catechism disagrees with your take, then. And you know what’s at issue, here…?
… what’s at issue isn’t infallibility, but authority. The Church was given authority by Christ to teach His Gospel. Jesus Himself told Peter that whatever he taught on earth, God would accept in heaven. So… where’s your authority coming from?
One other thought: although the Catechism isn’t an infallible teaching, it is a document that communicates other infallible teachings of the Church! When you read it, please take note of the citations & footnotes – they reference the documents that are infallible teachings!
A little bit. Your case seemed to be reaching, a bit.
Yep!
Just wanted some additional clarity on your thought. It’s always a good thing!
D
deMontfort
Guest
^^^^^ You realize this is heresy, right?
- Status