Checkmate in 3 moves

[ALotLessThumb]

Is this some kind of disposition that people born with, that they helplessly take what people say out context? Where did i say exactly that Thomism is the faith?

It is implied throughout these arguments that we can only profess Thomistic premises if we are to speak “honestly” or “intelligently” which seems to be in question, since the accusations of dishonesty and ignorance have abound several times.

Faith by definition is faith in God’s message of salvation. The word faith has nothing to do with whether or not we are able to discern the existence of the metaphysical attributes of God. The faith itself admits as a part of its core teaching that Gods existence can be know within the light of human reason. Which makes absolutely no sense if the church simply presents the existence of God as a matter of faith. Thats not Catholic teaching; thats fidiesm. A heresy

Faith by definition, diachronistically, is pistis, or trust. I have not, in the handful of posts I’ve made, denied certitude in positing a philosophical Deity; nor I have not suggested separating reason from faith, so I am confused to what you are attributing to me. I don’t think or need to ground what I already know, or as Gilson said: “A realist knows.” So this is a strawman, everyone who disagrees with you is not a fidest.

Feel free to learn your faith.

It is not my faith but the Faith of the Universal Church which is the protector of that deposit of faith. This faith is not exhausted by one school of thought on metaphysics. And we must be careful not to make an idol of our minds.

I am not saying that people cannot have faith in the existence of God, but there would not be a deep philosophical tradition (that many catholics are ignorant of) if it were the teaching of the faith that Gods existence cannot be discerned rationally, but simply something to be taken on faith.

Many people take Gods existence on faith because the torment of their life forces them to do so. However, if you are to be a Catholic, you have to at the very least admit that metaphysical proof of God is possible.

If you can show, as “CatSci2” has been trying show, that it is logical possible for the universe to exist by itself, then you are contradicting Gods logical necessity as a cause, and therefore, despite what Catsci thinks, you are disproving Gods existence

as understood by Catholics.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm

As stated, man can know God by reason but it is through Revelation that the fullness of God is known. Or as stated:

This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”.

Anselm’s Ontological Proof is the perfect example of what reason can posit about God. It, in all its renditions, is analytically correct and cannot be defeated but it cannot be proven synthetically- which is where revelation comes into play.

As for why people accept God, it is not my business unless they ask me, I am a layman not a professor or part of the Magistrate, so I don’t see why you are ready to cast people aside because they are not logicians or well versed in Church Documents- that is a reflection of their teachers, not them. Telling people they are dishonest and ignorant is turning away people who seek God because they do not conform to your ideas on what it means to seek God or be Catholic.

And I don’t need to “show” whatever CatSci was arguing with you about. I am not involved in that argument and I reject the premises for one thing and more importantly, I don’t need to show it when Saint Thomas himself explained how even by assuming Aristotle’s eternal universe (which was self-creating) to be true, there would be a God- so it has already been shown using your premises. But that is not engaging, or allowing others to engage you, in conversation.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Not really, that would be creatio ex deo (creation out of the being of God). See the wiki link in my previous post.

Ex nihilo is literally out of nothing, which is impossible. Too, there never was nothing so its a non-issue.

It is an issue, because the idea that the universe exists by itself, on the basis that there was never nothing, contradicts the faith that you claim to have.

As for creatio ex deo, context is again something that needs to be taken into account which you seem blissfully unaware of.

End of story.

 

[CatSci]

It is an issue, because the idea that the universe exists by itself, on the basis that there was never nothing, contradicts the faith that you claim to have.

So what? I’m sure there’s plenty of things that contradict the faith that I have, that’s a non-issue. You’re the one who claimed that there’s only a certain way to propose that you’re OP is wrong, and now you at least seem to be accepting that I have provided another one, regardless of whether you and I think its true.

As for creatio ex deo, context is again something that needs to be taken into account which you seem blissfully unaware of.

End of story.

Yeah, the old: “You’re wrong but I can’t be bothered to explain why”.

Epic fail.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It is implied throughout these arguments that we can only profess Thomistic premises if we are to speak “honestly” or “intelligently” which seems to be in question, since the accusations of dishonesty and ignorance have abound several times.

That you you see evidence of Thomism in a premise or conclusion, is irrelevant, and it is ridiculous if think that such is a proof that i only reason a particular way because i am a fan of Thomism. I am not a fan of anything school of thought. I am only interested in whats rationally true; i follow logic where it leads. If in the end that makes me a Thomist, then so be it.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm

As stated, man can know God by reason but it is through Revelation that the fullness of God is known. Or as stated:

I Did not say otherwise. I was talking about the metaphysical attributes of Gods nature. Study what is meant by metaphysical epistemology and you will understand that it deals with Gods general nature, not particular revelations such as the fact that God is 3 persons in one divine nature. I cannot know that God is 3 persons, but i can rational prove that in general God has self knowing and an intellectual will and therefore personal in that respect. I never said that Christ can be known or everything can be known about God through reason alone; you simply jumped to that conclusion.

Read the quote from the catholic encyclopedia. As a Catholic you cannot simply dismiss the intrinsic relevance that proving the existence of God has for the faith.

And i made it evident that faith refers to things which concern our salvation, such as the Christ (the word of God made flesh).

However the church clearly states that proof of the “existence” of God is logically possible insofar as Gods general metaphysical attributes are concerned.

Anselm’s Ontological Proof is the perfect example of what reason can posit about God. It, in all its renditions, is analytically correct and cannot be defeated but it cannot be proven synthetically- which is where revelation comes into play.

This is fallacious and a misrepresentation of what the Church means by knowledge of Gods existence through reason.

That is not what the church intends when they say you can have knowledge of Gods existence. Anselm’s argument simply fails, insofar as knowledge of Gods ontological existence is concerned.

Again if CatSci is correct, then God (A necessary personal creator) does not exist.

.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Creation implies a creator.

Therefore ‘ex nihilo’ cannot exclude the creator.

I agree, that’s how I understand it. Where did I say something different?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

So what? I’m sure there’s plenty of things that contradict the faith that I have, that’s a non-issue. You’re the one who claimed that there’s only a certain way to propose that you’re OP is wrong, and now you at least seem to be accepting that I have provided another one, regardless of whether you and I think its true.

I am not accepting anything you have said, because everything you have said thus far amounts to being an invalid argument. I was merely showing you the implicate conclusion that your argument would have if it were rationally valid. It would be a disproof of your faith, whether you are honest enough to face it or not.

Yeah, the old: “You’re wrong but I can’t be bothered to explain why”.

Epic fail.

I did explained why my argument in general succeeds and its been ignored; so why am i going to waste my time teaching somebody that does not want to be taught; especially somebody who does not see logic as universally applicable in the context of metaphysics? No amount of self-deception or denial on your part is going to change the fact that your argument is invalid. Luckily truth does not require acknowledgement to be true. Pride is not a virtue. Let those with eyes to see, see.

 

[vz71]

Ex nihilo is literally out of nothing, which is impossible. Too, there never was nothing so its a non-issue.

However the phrasing is* creation* ex nihilo.
That says someone did something (created) out of nothing.

 

[vz71]

I agree, that’s how I understand it. Where did I say something different?

I don’t know.
I am just trying to verify my understanding stands scrutiny.
Thus far, it does.

 

[CatSci]

I am not accepting anything you have said, because everything you have said thus far amounts to being an invalid argument. I was merely showing you the implicate conclusion that your argument would have if it were rationally valid. It would be a disproof of your faith, whether you are honest enough to face it or not.

Ugh, that’s so pointless. I don’t have to accept the proposal to xplain to you what it is. This isn’t about whether or not I accept the Hartle-Hawking no boundary proposal or not, nor whether or not it affects my faith.

It stands as an atheistic model of the universe that has finite time and doesn’t require time to be an illusion. You said there wasn’t one and I have provided one. You’re can’t help but avoid this fact presumaby because you can’t admit you were wrong.

I did explain every well why my argument succeeds, and no amount of self-deception or denial on your part is going to change that.

What I was referring to you not explaining, was how or why the context of creation ex deo need to be taken into account and where it shows I was wrong. All you provided was: “Nuh-uh! Wrong context.” That’s not an argument.

Again if CatSci is correct, then God (A necessary personal creator) does not exist.

No, if I am correct; then if God exists, he exists regardless of what proposals cosmologists put forward.

 

[CatSci]

However the phrasing is* creation* ex nihilo.
That says someone did something (created) out of nothing.

Right, creation ex nihilo is contradictory and impossible.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Ugh, that’s so pointless. I don’t have to accept the proposal to xplain to you what it is. This isn’t about whether or not I accept the Hartle-Hawking no boundary proposal or not, nor whether or not it affects my faith.

It stands as an atheistic model of the universe that has finite time and doesn’t require time to be an illusion. You said there wasn’t one and I have provided one. You’re can’t help but avoid this fact presumaby because you can’t admit you were wrong.

It does not matter what proposal you have. The Hartle-Hawking proposal, although interesting, would not be proof that the universe is its own cause in the sense that its existence is not contingent upon another being in order to exist. Apart from the fact that we don’t even know if its truly possible, even if it was, all it would show is that there is no discernible point from which change proceeds (no physically measurable point); thus removing the need of an absolute physical cause (since it is stated in a physical context and not a metaphysical context). But the universe is still a finite quantity of change (the actualization of potentiality). So long as thats true, the universe is contingent up a reality that was not itself a potential being or state, simply because you cannot get potentiality out of nothing and none of the effects in the universe is the cause of that potentiality. The universe is a series of potential effects. If a physical thing cannot in principle be the cause of its own motion without the principle of intelligence as a sufficient cause, then change cannot exist by itself without an intelligent cause. It doesn’t matter if you make the universe a square, a triangle, or a dinosaur, finite or infinite in number; change cannot exist without a timeless intelligent cause.

No, if I am correct; then if God exists, he exists regardless of what proposals cosmologists put forward.

Thats irrational. If the universe exists by itself, then the God of Catholicism does not exist, since God would not be necessary for existence; which is one of the prime attributes of God. A thing can be ontologically contingent without having a beginning in time. It still has a non-temporal beginning in so far as its reason for existence is not itself. I agree the word “beginning” outside of the context of time sounds irrational at face value; but if you understand the cause as being timeless and simultaneous with its effect, then it makes much more sense to say that time began to exist, especially given the fact that there is a smallest quantity of change with no physical preceding effects or causes. There is a point from which all change proceeds; therefore change has a beginning and a cause that is timeless.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Right, creation ex nihilo is contradictory and impossible.

I agree that its impossible to create the “act of reality” out of nothing

 

[Cirdan_XII]

To say that nothing (outside of Mathematics) can truly be infinite flies in the face of Catholic teaching as the CC tells us that God’s love is infinite.

 

[Nimeniton]

Well I think the point of creation ex nihilo refers to the non-existence of physical matter prior to creation, and that where there was no physical matter, God created new physical matter.

Anyways, we could really just leave the outdated Aristotlean philosophical ramblings out of the picture entirely and point to the laws of thermodynamics as evidence for creation.

There is a point to creation ex nihilo, it avoids the heresy of pantheism. If we are not a part of God then where did we come from - creation ex- nihilo. So God brings out of nothing something because he does not bring it out of himself. This contradicts the first premise. Out of nothing comes nothing.

 

[Jaaanosik]

There is a point to creation ex nihilo, it avoids the heresy of pantheism. If we are not a part of God then where did we come from - creation ex- nihilo. So God brings out of nothing something because he does not bring it out of himself. This contradicts the first premise. Out of nothing comes nothing.

From the inside of space time point of view there was nothing (no space, no time, no matter, no energy).
From the outside there was/is/will be (no time or any other dimension at all) God.
When the space time starts God does not change. Nothing is subtracted away from Him.

“Out of nothing comes nothing” is true when hypothetically there is no God.
God exists so space time starts out of nothing. When/where there was nothing then there is space time now.

 

[vz71]

Right, creation ex nihilo is contradictory and impossible.

Impossible or not, it happened.
It is a miracle of God.

 

[CatSci]

The Hartle-Hawking proposal, although interesting, would not be proof that the universe is its own cause in the sense that its existence is not contingent upon another being in order to exist.

Sure, and the Theory of Gravity isn’t proof that there aren’t magic fairies dancing on everything and pushing them downwards.

Apart from the fact that we don’t even know if its truly possible, even if it was, all it would show is that there is no discernible point from which change proceeds (no physically measurable point); thus removing the need of an absolute physical cause (since it is stated in a physical context and not a metaphysical context).

Without a beginning there’s no need for some “cause”. It just is.

But the universe is still a finite quantity of change (the actualization of potentiality). So long as thats true, the universe is contingent up a reality that was not itself a potential being or state, simply because you cannot get potentiality out of nothing and none of the effects in the universe is the cause of that potentiality.

I know, I know… that’s all you can keep saying: “but its finite and changes, so it must’ve began, so there has to be a cause”

You haven’t address that the lack of a boundary eliminates this need.

Think of the old ant walking on a mobius strip. Its finite, it changes, but since there’s no boundary, we can’t say the strip “begins” anywhere and we can’t say that there’s some cause to that beginning of the strip.

The universe is a series of potential effects. If a physical thing cannot in principle be the cause of its own motion without the principle of intelligence as a sufficient cause, then change cannot exist by itself without an intelligent cause.

Where did “intelligence” come into this? What do you mean that “a physical thing cannot in principle be the cause of its own motion without the principle of intelligence as a sufficient cause”? When a raindrop precipitates out of the vapor, its going to start falling to the earth, and there’s no intelligence needed for that.

It doesn’t matter if you make the universe a square, a triangle, or a dinosaur, finite or infinite in number; change cannot exist without a timeless intelligent cause.

Why not? How could “intelligence” be needed in any way?

Too, intelligence as we know it requires brains…

No, if I am correct; then if God exists, he exists regardless of what proposals cosmologists put forward.

Thats irrational.

No, not in the slightest. Its logical and sound and true. How could it be otherwise? Are you saying that God’s existence is dependent on cosmological proposals? If a cosmologist proposes a godless universe, then god cannot exist!? That’s irrational.

If the universe exists by itself, then the God of Catholicism does not exist, since God would not be necessary for existence; which is one of the prime attributes of God.

That’s correct. But that being proposed doesn’t necessitate that being true. Its strange that you think god’s existence depends on what man thinks.

A thing can be ontologically contingent without having a beginning in time.

But you’re assuming contingency… perhaps the Universe is an inevitability. That’s part of the deal with there being no point in time when the Universe did not exist. It has to exist at all points in time, there is no contingency.

I agree the word “beginning” outside of the context of time sounds irrational at face value; but if you understand the cause as being timeless and simultaneous with its effect, then it makes much more sense to say that time began to exist, especially given the fact that there is a smallest quantity of change with no physical preceding effects or causes. There is a point from which all change proceeds; therefore change has a beginning and a cause that is timeless.

Unless its unbounded. Then all that flies out the window.

 

[CatSci]

Impossible or not, it happened.
It is a miracle of God.

Yeah, but then that whole square-triangle thing is possible too.

 

[vz71]

Yeah, but then that whole square-triangle thing is possible too.

No it’s not.

A square-triangle is a falsehood. An object cannot be any more then its nature, and the nature of a square is to be a square. The nature of a triangle is to be a triangle.
Falsehoods are not possible. Ultimately the nature of an object must be what it is.

Creation is not a falsehood, it is part of the grand design of God.

 

[shoe]

Right, creation ex nihilo is contradictory and impossible.

For a finite thing to have existence, by definition it first must have a beginning. I believe that to assume the universe existed without a beginning is inconsistent with logic, reason, and science. But I believe it’s reasonable to assume that if a pre-existent God existed before the creation of the universe, with nothing else existing, that this pre-existent God could create from this nothing the universe. Creation ex nihilo is not the same thing as creating a work of art or building a house (it is not the changing of one thing into another thing); rather, creation ex nihilo is the “very origin of existence,” a work that only an omnipotent God is capable of doing. God did not need a material cause to make the universe. In other words, God’s creating the universe out of nothing simply means that God did not create the universe out of something that He previously had lying around in eternity. I think that God’s creation of the universe ex nihilo also serves to indicate that God, as the purposeful Divine Creator of the universe, is eternally separate and distinct from His creation.

“In the beginning God created heaven and earth” (Genesis 1:1).