S
STT
Guest
I need to be convinced. What is the point of accepting things blindly?
- Status
A
AveOTheotokos
Guest
Only the willing of His own being and His own goodness are necessary. The willing of other things is not done out of necessity.
Read chapters 81, 82, and 83:
THAT GOD DOES NOT WILL OTHER THINGS IN A NECESSARY WAY
J
John_Martin
Guest
Well, it is not blindly, per se.
It is understanding the person you trust as always being true.
When you trust the person, never to lead you the wrong way, you don’t need to be convinced.
(Usually the person you trust will also give complete explanation until you finally say, “Oh, now I understand why you said it was true, and it is true just like you first told me.”)
S
STT
Guest
So the short answer to my question is that God is free to will on some cases, creation for example (I cannot imagine what is left)?
Thanks, I will read them later.
S
STT
Guest
That I understand but I need to intellectually be convinced.
E
eddie_too
Guest
by definition God is eternal and infinite.
by definition creation is not eternal and is not infinite.
i am not sure the objective of discussing whether human words, which are, by definition, created things, can effectively and fruitfully determine the nature, essence, of creating by the Uncreated Perfect Being.
does the OP have a point beyond wanting to sow confusion with and uncompehending use of words?
in other words, what it the point of the OP’s original post? does it have a point? can the OP prove that he/she has a better understanding of reality than does the Roman Catholic Church (RCC)? if he/she believes that, it should be relatively simple to demonstrate that better understanding. after all, for nearly two millennium millions of people in every generation have found the best understanding of reality to be provided by the RCC.
please OP (STT) provide us with a better understanding of reality than that provided by the RCC. if you cannot, stop with the philosophical nit picking. it appears to me to be mere solopsism and/or sophistry.
the idea that philosophy can completely address the concept of creation from nothing is pure sophistry. perhaps if the OP had infinite knowledge, paying attention to his/her words would be beneficial. based purely on the comments provided by the OP, i am confident the OP does not have infinite knowledge.
by definition creation is not eternal and is not infinite.
i am not sure the objective of discussing whether human words, which are, by definition, created things, can effectively and fruitfully determine the nature, essence, of creating by the Uncreated Perfect Being.
does the OP have a point beyond wanting to sow confusion with and uncompehending use of words?
in other words, what it the point of the OP’s original post? does it have a point? can the OP prove that he/she has a better understanding of reality than does the Roman Catholic Church (RCC)? if he/she believes that, it should be relatively simple to demonstrate that better understanding. after all, for nearly two millennium millions of people in every generation have found the best understanding of reality to be provided by the RCC.
please OP (STT) provide us with a better understanding of reality than that provided by the RCC. if you cannot, stop with the philosophical nit picking. it appears to me to be mere solopsism and/or sophistry.
the idea that philosophy can completely address the concept of creation from nothing is pure sophistry. perhaps if the OP had infinite knowledge, paying attention to his/her words would be beneficial. based purely on the comments provided by the OP, i am confident the OP does not have infinite knowledge.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
I’m pretty sure I saw at least one post which refuted your arguments, if not two or three; and I know what was posted from Aquinas refutes it, but you have chosen not to respond to that. I guess I will be writing a fourth
God experiences everything as an eternal NOW. This is something we cannot comprehend, but which we can know through philosophy. Again, Aquinas covers this in great detail. As such, there has never been a change in God’s perspective. The created universe has always existed, and not existed, in God’s understanding. This is similar to how, from His perspective, I am both not alive yet, currently alive, and no longer alive. There is no progression of understanding in God, just the eternal, absolute Truth.
Once again, if you would actually read Aquinas, he addresses all of this in far more dfetail than I am capable of. I know that dozens of people have pointed this out to you. You really should take our advice.
This point fails for the same reason mentioned above. All of existence exists in God as an eternal NOW, as such, both the “before” of the act, and the “after” exist simultaneously through Him.
However, the entire concept of a “before” or an “after” is meaningless in the timeless existence of God, therefore, there is no before the act or after it. These distinctions are how WE perceive act. God is not limited in His perception as we are. You are, once again, attempting to apply human limitations to something which is limitless. I understand why you do this, but you are wrong to do so.
This is a non-sequitur, the conclusion does not follow from either of the two premises. Even if either of these statements could be validly applied to God (which they cannot), nothing in this proves that Time is a requirement of act.
Again, God is pure act, pure existence. As such, He requires nothing to act, not even time. For God to require something outside of Himself to exst which would mean that He is not God.
You’ve added no additional clarity from this. Your argument is just as baseless as it has always been. You are applying human limitations on God, who has no limitations.
Seriously, read Aquinas with an open mind and actually learn from him. He is one of the greatest minds that has ever existed.
I have to drop out now, feel free to respond or not.
S
STT
Guest
I didn’t see any. I think most of reader didn’t get my argument.
Could God not create?
It is not about where things exist. It is about a change in existence.
It follows.
You are not really adding much.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
There’s nothing to “get” in your argument. I know it makes sense to you, but it doesn’t actually make sense based on reason, logic, philosophy, or theology.
Not even close to what I said. Did you even read my post? God can, and does, create. Otherwise, we wouldn’t exist.
That’s the thing, from God’s perspective there has been no change. It’s something we cannot fully comprehend, but I have already explained it as best I can.
What an astoundingly brilliant rebuttal to my reasoned arguments. Truly I have been blind my entire life. I bow before your superior reasoning skills.
I’m sorry, but you didn’t even try to level a defense for your nonsense. You didn’t address a single point I made, you only reasserted your existing faulty notion, as if doing so somehow proves your point. Despite your claims to desire intellectual reasons to believe, you are failing to engage your intellect and consider the propositions that have been put forth.
Did you used to go by the name Bahaman on these forums? You’re utter refusal to consider any position but your own is identical to his.
Well, you can’t add water to a cup with no opening.
If you’re not even going to have the respect for people posting to actually address their arguments, or to consider that maybe, just maybe (given the myriad of responses you’ve received, and the substantial evidence that’s been presented against your position which draws from philosophy, theology, history and science) you’re wrong, then no one is going to answer your posts anymore. You’ve shown a complete unwillingness to engage in actual debate or discussion, and instead only seem interested in ignoring what we post in favor of reasserting the arguments that have already been thoroughly ripped to shreds.
So yeah, I won’t be adding any more to this discussion. There’s no point wasting any more of my time on someone who isn’t actually interested in learning.
S
setarcos
Guest
Actually Einstein and some of the other lofty brains of science proved time and the cause effect relationship is not so easy to pin down.
Apparently from a physics point of view there is no concrete directionality of time. Quantum physics has shown that it can be equivalently correct to state that a cracked egg in a pan could be the before and the egg whole in the shell the after as it is to say the cracked egg is the after and the whole egg the before. Sub atomically it makes no difference. Our brains have been created in such a way as to perceive a directionality in the events in time that may be an illusion of reality along with so many other perceptions of the brain. Time itself may be an illusion as creations past, present, and future could have been simultaneously created by God which cannot be stated to have happened at any “particular” moment from our perspective because by any usable standards time is calculated relationally. If creation was done ex nihilo then there would be no relational data in which to calculate the moment it was done. No before creation, no after creation, just…creation. Anything else would be a meaningless conception since it would require some sort of relational data which did not exist.
A
AveOTheotokos
Guest
You have been given multiple answers supporting various posters positions. It is not that we don’t get your argument; the problem is that your argument is a non sequitur. It’s like trying to argue that it’s illogical for the sky to change from lime green to forest green while ignoring the fact that the sky isn’t green to begin with and is blue.
I answered this in post #183
God doesn’t change. This has been answered several times in this thread (for example, posts #168 & #169). God’s existence is eternal and unchanging, and there is no changing in “state” because God is constant. He does not exist in varying conditional “states” or points in time. There is no before, during, after.
As I have said many times, God and His will just ARE. They don’t develop, change, etc… They are not sequential. They are constant and eternal.
If you have access to FORMED.org or another way to view the Catholicism series by Bishop Robert Barron, I highly suggest you watch episode 3: “The Ineffable Mystery of God”.
S
setarcos
Guest
Since Jesus Christ the man actually does exist in time, and was born at a specific time in history in a specific place for a specific purpose, having not existed as Jesus the man before his birth begotten as the son of God this can be confusing to some as regards to not changing Gods state in any way. Perhaps you could elaborate on how this connection did not change God the sons state in any way in spite of the fact that he wasn’t fully man and fully God before Jesus was born.
A
AveOTheotokos
Guest
I’ll give it a shot…
Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through Him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
He came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
Jesus has two natures, being both fully human and fully divine. The divinity of Jesus is not changed by His taking on of a human nature.
Y
yppop
Guest
SST,
You seem to be implying that , if we exist, the pre-universe (that which existed before the big bang) could not be infinite and hence must be finite. If the pre-universe is finite then something must exist beyond it. What lies beyond a finite pre-universe either is nothing, i.e., non-existence or it is another pre-universe, a pre-pre-universe. In the first case the existence of non-existence is a contradiction (logically speaking) so we can rule that out. In the second case we would have the same problem with the pre-pre- universe that we have with the pre-universe, namely the non-existence fallacy or another pre-universe, a pre-pre-pre- universe. And I am sure you must see that any extension of the second case leads to a pre-pre-pre-pre… pre- universe. And, as the old saying goes, “Sonny, it’s turtles all the way down”, the famous vicious infinite regress the mother of all illogical arguments.
So, SST I have better things to do with my time than to deal with your exiguous
responses, I will give you the last word.
Yppop
E
ericc
Guest
“Before” the universe was created, there was no space, no time. Just non-existence. I have put “before” in quotes so as to denote prior to, something that came after without time getting in the way to muddy the argument. Something like the alphabet B coming after A and before C. “Before” there was no existence as per this universe. This is like the example given when physicists talk about temperature of absolute zero. When they say there are no temperatures lower absolute zero, the use of words “lower than” does not presuppose there are such temperatures, but only that we can conceive it in our minds. So when we say before creation when time started ticking, it doesn’t mean there was such a thing called time prior to creation.
Does God needed time to create? No. But his creation started the clock.
J
John_Martin
Guest
There was no “pre-universe”, and no pre-universe non-existence:
Creation-wise, there is only creation and there was only creation.
Only in the LORD is there “God knowing ‘God Alone’ and knowing ‘not God’ in the same knowing to Him, but we contemplate or think of each as ‘separate places in the knowing of God’ '”
Creation 'from nothing", might be said to be two “focuses in God”, where we know His knowing. Where we contemplate Him knowing himself alone, there is the material nothing, the ‘not-creation’.
And where we contemplate God knowing ‘not-God’, there is creation and there we ‘are’ and have our being.
In our being we are (as creation) materially, yet intelligibly to contemplation, actualizing in matter all the ‘not-God that is with God’ knowing of God.
S
STT
Guest
That is not correct.
That I understand. So God was able to do not create (or you want to say that He has to because of His Goodness and the fact that creation is good). Do you want that I repeat my argument?
It is not about God changing. It is about the fact that God cannot decide since there is no potentiality in Him and cannot act because of the argument which is made.
S
STT
Guest
I think there is a beginning in time which coincides with existence.
S
STT
Guest
Or there is a beginning in time which coincides with existence. One can conclude that there exist not a theory in favor or against concept of God at this point.
- Status