CCC 32 What does it mean?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tom7

Guest
Hello.

Could someone please cast some light on what it means in CC 32:
The world : starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

Specifically what does it mean “starting from movement and becoming. I understand the rest.

Many thanks

Tom
 
Last edited:
Nothing can come into existence without a cause. Nothing can move without a cause. So the initial cause is what we name God.

So we start with the knowledge about existence and movement and from there we under there must be God
 
Last edited:
Tom7 said:
Hello.

Could someone please cast some light on what it means in CC 32:
The world : starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

Specifically what does it mean “starting from movement and becoming. I understand the rest.

Many thanks

Tom
Click to expand...
When the world is created it moves, as it develops it becomes.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.
As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.7
Click to expand...
And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: “See, we are beautiful.” Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?8
Click to expand...
302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:
By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, “reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well”. For “all are open and laid bare to his eyes”, even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures. 161
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Can you disprove it?

Has anything in your experience ever disproved it?
 
Tom7 said:
Can you disprove it?
Click to expand...
Yes. If there was a uncaused-cause then there was a moment that only uncaused-cause has existed. This makes uncaused-cause subject to time. Time is an element of creation though which means that uncaused-cause cannot be subject to time. Therefore, we are dealing with a contradiction. Therefore, there cannot be an uncaused-cause.
Tom7 said:
Has anything in your experience ever disproved it?
Click to expand...
The beginning could be different from now. For example, particles (electron and positron) come out nowhere and go nowhere.
 
It’s basically a shout out to St. Thomas Aquinas’ traditional “Five proofs” for the existence of God from his Summa Theologica (ST, Part I, Q.2, Art.3).
  1. Argument of the unmoved mover (i.e. movement)
  2. Argument of the first cause (i.e. becoming)
  3. Argument of contingency
  4. Argument of degree (i.e. beauty)
  5. Argument of design (i.e. order)
I’m honestly surprised there is no footnote pointing to the Summa.

So basically the CCC is saying that these traditional “proofs” give us a starting point for coming to know God as our Creator and End Goal through natural reason before we get to divine revelation.
 
Last edited:
No, but I am certainly convinced of that. No alternative theory makes sense to me.
 
STT said:
Yes. If there was a uncaused-cause then there was a moment that only uncaused-cause has existed. This makes uncaused-cause subject to time. Time is an element of creation though which means that uncaused-cause cannot be subject to time. Therefore, we are dealing with a contradiction. Therefore, there cannot be an uncaused-cause.
Click to expand...
There was a moment? That is a unit of time. Only if He created time first. But God exists in eternity. One cannot say there was a “time” before creation. There was no “before” creation. There is eternity, which does not have such things as before, after, moments, etc. Which is why there is no change in eternity. Only God exists in eternity.

All of which makes a lot more sense than “it just all happens to exist”
 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
There was a moment? That is a unit of time. Only if He created time first. But God exists in eternity. One cannot say there was a “time” before creation. There was no “before” creation. There is eternity, which does not have such things as before, after, moments, etc. Which is why there is no change in eternity. Only God exists in eternity.
Click to expand...
Forgive me for using “moment”. Was there a “point” at which only God existed? You believe that God created the universe so there was a point that universe didn’t exist. Therefore, this point should exist.
 
No, there was no point before the universe. There is no “before” the universe. You can try to use careful wording such as point, to avoid an inference to time, but you will fail. “A point at which” is clever language to do so, but either one of two things result :. You are simply implying before or you are leaving time out of the statement and replacing it with space, ie “point at”, which also fails because space is not part of eternity.
Until you leave out any concept of time or space, you are arguing against an argument no one is making.
 
tafan2 said:
No, there was no point before the universe. There is no “before” the universe. You can try to use careful wording such as point, to avoid an inference to time, but you will fail. “A point at which” is clever language to do so, but either one of two things result :. You are simply implying before or you are leaving time out of the statement and replacing it with space, ie “point at”, which also fails because space is not part of eternity.
Until you leave out any concept of time or space, you are arguing against an argument no one is making.
Click to expand...
If God created the universe then there was a point that universe didn’t exist and only God existed. That is crystal clear. How do you define creation?
 
STT said:
Electron and positron come out of nowhere and go nowhere. So we have nothing, something and then nothing.
Click to expand...
Not entirely true. Subatomic particles pop into existence from zero point energy due to quantum fluctuations. So they don’t truly pop into exist from nothing. Also, as to your point about the uncaused cause being a contradiction since it exists in time, Edward Feser has this to say:
“Where creation is concerned, then, God is “first” cause not in the sense of coming before second, third, or fourth causes, but rather in the sense of being absolutely fundamental. That apart from which nothing could cause (because nothing could exist) at all.”

 
Last edited:
No, no, no, no. You do not understand. How do I define creation? The beginning. There was no point at which it didn’t exist, there was no moment before it existed, there was no “nothing and then something”. There was a beginning.
 
STT said:
Yes. If there was a uncaused-cause then there was a moment that only uncaused-cause has existed. This makes uncaused-cause subject to time.
Click to expand...
No. You’re asserting a “moment” where there is none that you’ve proven. In other words, you’re literally creating time, and then using the ‘fact’ of that time to prove your point! 🤣
STT said:
Forgive me for using “moment”. Was there a “point” at which only God existed?
Click to expand...
Do you mean “point” in a temporal way?

If so, then the answer is “no”. When time existed, creation existed. So, at any “point” in time, there was more than God.

The question to ask is whether God existed prior to the created universe. The answer there is “yes”.
STT said:
If God created the universe then there was a point that universe didn’t exist and only God existed. That is crystal clear.
Click to expand...
Only if you presume a standard for measure that would incorporate that “point”. So… what’s that “point” mean?
 
Look up the theological and philosophical meanings of those words. Boiled down, it means, look around you at the unfolding beauty. Someone had to create it.
 
Gorgias said:
The question to ask is whether God existed prior to the created universe. The answer there is “yes”.
Click to expand...
Actually, this is wrong, there is no prior to creation. There is eternity, outside of creation, with no time. But your other points are on point 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top