Catholic view of Presuppositional Apologetics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LeonardDeNoblac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You need to understand two points together. A universe which is optimal and indifferent from nothing in all its properties is possible. Something doesn’t need a sustainer when it is possible.
 
STT said:
Something doesn’t need a sustainer when it is possible.
Click to expand...
Why? Something is possible when it could exist at least in potence. But potence needs to be actualized in order for a possible thing to actually exist (for example, the existence of unicorns is possible, but that doesn’t mean that they have to actually exist out of necessity ). Something that exists on its own is a pure act (that is, its potency is fully actualized ). I can argue that such is not the case for our universe.
 
Last edited:
LeonardDeNoblac said:
Why? Something is possible when it could exist at least in potence. But potence needs to be actualized in order for a possible thing to actually exist (for example, the existence of unicorns is possible, but that doesn’t mean that they have to actually exist out of necessity ). Something that exists on its own is a pure act (that is, its potency is fully actualized ). I can argue that such is not the case for our universe.
Click to expand...
A universe either exist or exist not. Both to me are possible.
 
STT said:
A universe either exist or exist not. Both to me are possible.
Click to expand...
So you agree that the physical universe is a contingent thing (that is, it has not to exist out of necessity, because it was possible for it to not exist ). Now, everything that is contingent depends for its existence on something else that is necessary for its existence (for example, the law of non-contradiction is a necessary truth, because, as the principle of Pseudo-Scotus - “Ex falso sequitur quodlibet” - demonstrates, admitting a real contradiction would trigger the principle of explosion, wich would create a system where all propositions are true, no information would be possible and everything would exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense - wich is impossible ). But, because an infinite regression is impossible (an infinite chain wouldn’t be attached to anything, and would fall ), there must be a being necessary in itself, on wich the existence of everything else depends.
 
Last edited:
Void is not the same as nothing. Void is a thing, but nothing is literally “no-thing”, and reify nothing would be a contradiction.
 
Nothing is nothing. It has no property at all, because only a thing can have properties.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
Do you believe that “there is a point that only God existed and then God and creation”? Do you believe that time also is a part of creation?
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe it. So what?
 
STT said:
Then how God could possibly create time if He is subjected to time. Please note that there are two points in process of creation and this requires time.
Click to expand...
  1. What does it have to do with what we were talking about?
  2. Time is the measurement of change. Saying that there was time before creation is like saying that there’s something further north than the North Pole on earth. Created beings are in a temporal dimension because they are subject to change, but God, being pure act, is above time because He is not subject to change.
 
LeonardDeNoblac said:
  • What does it have to do with what we were talking about?
Click to expand...
I am arguing against the concept of creation. God needing time to create time is a regress.
LeonardDeNoblac said:
  • Time is the measurement of change. Saying that there was time before creation is like saying that there’s something further north than the North Pole on earth. Created beings are in a temporal dimension because they are subject to change, but God, being pure act, is above time because He is not subject to change.
Click to expand...
No. Time allows change.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
No. Time allows change.
Click to expand...
That’s simply false. The object of measurement always precedes the measurement. Time is the measurement of change, by definition, so change must precede time. You seem to have a concept of absolute time that has been proven wrong by philosophy and physics since a long time ago.
 
Last edited:
LeonardDeNoblac said:
That’s simply false. The object of measurement always precedes the measurement. Time is the measurement of change, by definition, so change must precede time. You seem to have a concept of absolute time that has been proven wrong by philosophy and physics since a long time ago.
Click to expand...
No, I have an argument in support of that. Consider a change in a system, A to B. A and B cannot coexist, lay on the same point, therefore we need two points of a variable. There is however a duration from the first point to the second point otherwise the change never takes place. This variable is time.
 
STT said:
No, I have an argument in support of that. Consider a change in a system, A to B. A and B cannot coexist, lay on the same point, therefore we need two points of a variable. There is however a duration from the first point to the second point otherwise the change never takes place. This variable is time.
Click to expand...
No, time is the measurement of the change that occurred from A to B. Also, time is relative. How could it be so, if time was needed in order for change to occur? Something absolute can’t be contingent on something relative.
 
Last edited:
LeonardDeNoblac said:
No, time is the measurement of the change that occurred from A to B. Also, time is relative. How could it be so, if time was needed in order for change to occur? Something absolute can’t be contingent on something relative.
Click to expand...
Any change requires two points on a variable. One points comes after another. There is a duration for reaching from one point to another point. This variable which is called time is required because of these reasons.
 
STT said:
Any change requires two points on a variable. One points comes after another. There is a duration for reaching from one point to another point. This variable which is called time is required because of these reasons.
Click to expand...
You are simply repeating the same thing you said before. The variable of change is the material and spatial state of things, wich determines the course of time according to the observation.
 
Last edited:
LeonardDeNoblac said:
You are simply repeating the same thing you said before. The variable of change is the material and spatial state of things, wich determines the course of time according to the observation.
Click to expand...
Do you agree with those three facts? Which one do you have a problem with?
 
STT said:
Do you agree with those three facts? Which one do you have a problem with?
Click to expand...
You said that time is the variable of change. That’s not true. The variable of change is the spatial and material state of things. Time is determined by the variable according to the observation, but is not the variable itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top