Everything was always

[IWantGod]

Yes, I’ve seen your arguments on this subject, and to say the least I find them unconvincing.

Why is that?

The rule of non-contradiction.

You have a problem with the principle of non-contradiction as applied in metaphysics.

You think it should not be applied because it leads inescapably to my conclusion.

That’s not a good reason to say that an argument is wrong. The act of Reality is either rational or it is fundamentally irrational. If it is the latter, there is no point in reasoning as far as reality is concerned because objectively there would be no such thing as logical.

 

[IWantGod]

I’m always considering this possibility. In fact I consider it to be highly likely.

You either reject the idea that metaphysical knowledge is possible, or you agree that metaphysical knowledge is possible.

Which is it? And if you reject it, then please let us know why?

 

[Fauken]

How do you go from “faith” to law, cannon law?
——Forcing your faith.

What? How is canon law “forcing your faith”? Do you even know what it is?

 

[PetraG]

How do you go from “faith” to law, cannon law?
——Forcing your faith.

You’ve still dodged my questions. Do you have an answer, or not?

Laws, by the way, are a necessary part of any social contract, whether you write them down or not. I don’t know in what way you have a relationship of trust with anyone if the idea is that there are no rules is anything other than a pretense. As for forcing faith, canon law only applies to the faithful. It doesn’t apply to anyone who isn’t a member of the Church.

 

[IWantGod]

Basically, because you make assumptions.

This is what you report but you always fail to demonstrate that.

but in your case it’s the manner in which you present them as undeniable facts that I find aggravating.

Well it destroys your pet theory. Of course you find it aggravating. You’re only human.

But if one considers things from a more metaphysical perspective one could say that the handle has it’s own essence, independent of what it’s made of, and that it acts as “ A handle ”, singular, not as a collection of particles.

One could say that, but no Thomist ever would.

So which is it? Is it simultaneous causation or isn’t it? The answer that you get depends upon the assumptions that you make.

This has nothing to do with the kind of arguments i make for God. You are committing a fallacy. You are showing one instance where the conclusion may be uncertain and then asserting that this problem applies to my argument. It’s a Red Herring.

Lets do some real metaphysics. Any actualised potential is by definition existentially unnecessary. What does existentially unnecessary mean? It means that it doesn’t exist necessarily. In other-words any actuality or nature that has a beginning cannot be said to have a necessary act of existence for the simple fact that at one point it wasn’t real.

It’s possible that you will fail to understand the terms given in this argument, but what you can’t say is that something which begins to exist is a necessary act of existence because it leads to a metaphysical impossibility, and only somebody who has difficulty reasoning or someone that is being a troll would suggest the possibility of error.

If you want to argue that metaphysical knowledge is not possible, then by all means start another thread and i will join in.

 

[younique]

One question, one answer at a time.

Where do the cannon law makers get their authority?

Yes, of course laws are necessary for order, made with authority.

15 year old “virgin” bears a child in a very ,very vague story. No choice of your personal faith, you have to

believe the official story or the big “or else!”

Goes back to people fooling with you.

 

[IWantGod]

I realize that this is off topic, and I should just keep my mouth shut, but you just made an assumption, and you didn’t even realize it.

That’s what I mean when I say that you make assumptions, and I’ve long since given up on pointing them out, or trying to explain them. Because you just won’t listen.

It makes me appreciate Gorgias’ post all the more.

I think you are trolling. If i am wrong about you i apologise, but you need to get into the habit of rationally justifying what you say instead of asserting error where there is none. Otherwise as far as reason is concerned your opinion is without merit.

 

[Fauken]

Cannon law pdf, 467 pages
Ez google pdf download.

That’s not what I asked. What do you imagine canon law is? How is it “forcing your faith”?

15 year old girl, virgin birth, very, very vague story.
The boys in the fancy vestments say: believe, you can’t question.

You’re a guest on a Catholic forum. Show some respect for our beliefs. If you think the summary of the Catholic intellectual tradition is a bunch of guys in “fancy vestments” demanding blind faith, then I don’t know what to tell you. It’s simply not true. It’s about the same as me claiming that Atheists are a bunch of neckbearded dorito’s lovers who chug mountain dew by the gallon and never leave their mother’s basement. If that’s what you want to believe about Catholics, or even Christians in general, then it doesn’t matter what we present you when you think we’re a bunch of dumb mice.

 

[younique]

I apologize, dumb remark, statement.

 

[PetraG]

One question, one answer at a time.

Where do the cannon law makers get their authority?

Yes, of course laws are necessary for order, made with authority.

15 year old “virgin” bears a child in a very ,very vague story. No choice of your personal faith, you have to

believe the official story or the big “or else!”

Goes back to people fooling with you.

Well, OK, I asked my questions first, and you’re still begging them, but OK…

The authority of those who make canon law was handed down by the Apostles. The Apostles were the twelve disciples selected by Jesus as leaders. He gave them the authority to bind and loose. He didn’t give them the authority to dictate what is true or false–they are duty-bound to teach the truth and they do not have the authority to change what is handed on to them concerning what is true and what is false. (Matters of discipline such as whether or not married men can be ordained or whether ordained men can marry is another matter.)

As for the “or else,” most people accept that there are natural consequences for failing to believe the truth. The Catholic Church has a doctrine called “invincible ignorance” which says that if someone honestly seeks to find out the truth and conform themselves to the truth but by no fault of their own–either they never heard the truth or for reasons known to God alone they were not given the grace to accept the truth–that will not be held against them by their only Judge, who is God. There isn’t an “or else.” The natural penalty for knowing quite well what the truth is but refusing to conform yourself to it is something I think we all accept, though. If you believe you’ve found a situation that only applies to you that will spare you from the consequences of ignoring the law of gravity, well, I guess that’s an “or else” but that is the price of living in the land of real life.

PS: It isn’t “cannon” as in a large military weapon that projects objects at the enemy. It is “canon” as in a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged. Canon law does not concern itself with the duties of the faithful only, but also deliniates their rights.

 

[younique]

younique:

One question, one answer at a time.

Where do the cannon law makers get their authority?

Yes, of course laws are necessary for order, made with authority.

15 year old “virgin” bears a child in a very ,very vague story. No choice of your personal faith, you have to

believe the official story or the big “or else!”

Goes back to people fooling with you.

Well, OK, I asked my questions first, and you’re still begging them, but OK…

The authority of those who make canon law was handed down by the Apostles. The Apostles were the twelve disciples selected by Jesus as leaders. He gave them the authority to bind and loose. He didn’t give them the authority to dictate what is true or false–they are duty-bound to teach the truth and they do not have the authority to change what is handed on to them concerning what is true and what is false. (Matters of discipline such as whether or not married men can be ordained or whether ordained men can marry is another matter.)

As for the “or else,” most people accept that there are natural consequences for failing to believe the truth. The Catholic Church has a doctrine called “invincible ignorance” which says that if someone honestly seeks to find out the truth and conform themselves to the truth but by no fault of their own–either they never heard the truth or for reasons known to God alone they were not given the grace to accept the truth–that will not be held against them by their only Judge, who is God. There isn’t an “or else.” The natural penalty for knowing quite well what the truth is but refusing to conform yourself to it is something I think we all accept, though. If you believe you’ve found a situation that only applies to you that will spare you from the consequences of ignoring the law of gravity, well, I guess that’s an “or else” but that is the price of living in the land of real life.

PS: It isn’t “cannon” as in a large military weapon that projects objects at the enemy. It is “canon” as in a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged. Canon law does not concern itself with the duties of the faithful only, but also deliniates their rights.

Very nice reply, thank you.
Would you mind asking again your question you think i am evading?

 

[PetraG]

Very nice reply, thank you.
Would you mind asking again your question you think i am evading?

You haven’t answered where you came to the conclusion that everything that has ever existed always existed–what is your evidence? You have no accountant vast enough to account for everything, but you believe that not even the slightest little thing has ever been gained or lost. You have to admit that it was once thought that matter could never be created or destroyed but now it is thought that matter and energy can be interconverted into each other, which leaves the problem of what you even mean by nothing ever being lost or created. You maintained that God couldn’t communicate with us because of a lack of vocal cords, but didn’t answer the observation that a human brain could receive communication in the form of energy without the mediation of physical sound.

 

[younique]

What can we agree on? Possible size of universe? In a little dark spot,
where many thought there was probably nothing, the Hubble telescope
stayed focused on for many hours. The picture is of galaxies that are
13 billion years distant. What is there now, at this moment? (we can talk about what is a moment later)
I have no evidence of almost anything. To me, pi goes on for infinity, but i don’t have evidence.

 

[Lion_IRC]

If everything has always existed then I’m not breaching copyright or stealing anyone’s intellectual property when I…[insert act of piracy here]

 

[younique]

The smallest “things” that are now the dirt in your yard could have
existed forever, but now its your dirt, you have possession.

 

[PetraG]

What can we agree on? Possible size of universe? In a little dark spot,
where many thought there was probably nothing, the Hubble telescope
stayed focused on for many hours. The picture is of galaxies that are
13 billion years distant. What is there now, at this moment? (we can talk about what is a moment later)
I have no evidence of almost anything. To me, pi goes on for infinity, but i don’t have evidence.

You believe that pi goes on for infinity without evidence. You believe one can calculate a distance that is, in the end, inconcievably distant. That’s a kind of faith. If you believed some contention about the state or history or future or nature of the universe because you trusted the research and integrity of a myriad of scientists, that would be evidence, but it would still involve a sort of faith.

We believe what we believe based on the testimony of witnesses. I suppose that is our evidence, but in the end, it is as St. Paul put it:
" Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen. Because of it the ancients were well attested. By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, so that what is visible came into being through the invisible…" (Heb. 11:1-3)
We believe what we believe, when all is said and done, because of the gift of faith.

I understand that there are people of good will who do not see with the eyes of faith. They want to see the truth, but they don’t see the truth of the faith. The Church recognizes this can happen without ill will, because faith is a gift from God. That is why the Church can teach both, “If you can accept this, you are bound to accept it” and yet also recognizes that because of invincible ignorance (the absence of the gift of faith), some people of good will aren’t going to accept the faith.

What I am asking you to accept is that everyone who believes anything has to accept some of it by using their judgment about who to trust. If we accept no one as an authority, we are going to refuse a lot of things that we ought to have accepted as true at least to the level of a reasonable doubt.

More to the point, people who believe they have discovered an important truth necessary for life, happiness, the general welfare or what have you are naturally going to try to convince other people to accept their discovery. Yes, they could just go their way and not care what happens to the ignorant who don’t seek their advice. That is a way of not “forcing your views” on others. I don’t think that is necessarily the most empathetic path, even if you know sometimes you’re going to tell people things they don’t want to hear.

But yes, our instruction is to leave people alone when they make it clear they do not want to hear the truth we’re trying to pass on. The problem is, however, that of course we can’t help it if such people overhear us making the Good News available generally. I think that’s the price of living in a society in which ideas are freely circulated. You’re going to hear ideas you think are nuts pushed over and over. Well, it can be hard, but it beats the alternative, I’d say.

 

[PetraG]

The smallest “things” that are now the dirt in your yard could have
existed forever, but now its your dirt, you have possession.

If you think about it, that’s kind of absurd, isn’t it? It is based on a rule of justice we have in order to prevent fights, but in the end where did we get the idea that we “own” the earth? Yes, we “have possession,” meaning someone who wants it has to take it by overcoming our resistance or ignoring our claim. If there is no ultimate arbiter of justice, however, possession of anything is arbitrary.

 

[younique]

What do you know about “St Paul”.
What do you believe about “St Paul”
What do you think about “St Paul”
Do you have evidence about “St Paul”

 

[younique]

Evidence
A human interpretation of perceived facts.
Why the behavior of electrons?
What is a fact?
If every fact is known, would there be probability?

 

[Frankenfurter]

Everything, that we can prove, is the rearrangement of somethings.
Only stories of something from nothing.
That the big bang came from nothing, to me, doesn’t ring of true.
An answer i can think of is that it came from previous matter.
We know that our big bang is expanding.
What if other big bangs had expanded into complete seperation?
Now, there would be a great sea of matter, including floating massive
black holes.
Gradually, gravity would pull some available matter into a new unit.
This capturing of matter would continue until a critical point
is reached, then explode into a new big bang.
Infinity, to me, is full of pulsating big bangs.
With this, there no need of a story of a creator and all the misery that
those stories bring. We are in charge of our own evolving selves.

I understand your point. But you must realize that your original post is a statement, not a question. It is an assertion based on non-observable facts.

Then, you are disagreeing with what we can observe and prove, which is that the universe did come from nothing. You choose to disregard that, then give the consequences of disregarding it.

Your answers are within your own statements. You do not like that science tells us, based on observations, that the universe came from nothing. But you have no proof for the assertion that it was simply here forever. The physical science says otherwise.

Science has proven the need for an initial cause. And you have stated that you make a conscious choice to ignore that.

I am just interpreting your statements and non-questions.

Good science goes wherever the observations lead, even to places where you may not feel comfortable and would prefer otherwise.

Science also humbly questions rather than simply stating what it hopes is true.

God can be experienced, but not if you assume he does not exist and think and act accordingly. You will pass right by him.