N
NeoScotist
Guest
This is confusing, can anyone tell me what we mean by univocity in this discussion? are we talking of univocity as meaning same genus (AKA pantheism) or merely coceptual univocity?
- Status
N
NeoScotist
Guest
There are many scientists, laymen and philosophers who say explicitly or implicitly that the behavior of matter is due metaphysical necessity. Just google it, they have been common since Descartes.
Saying that the universe works under regularities is just the denial that laws of matter or metaphysical determinism are real. it does not spell chance: sfu.ca/~swartz/physical-law/regularity_theory.htm
well, I did not say that free-will does not work under regularities (andI did not say that we do not have reasons for doing what want to do). I said free-will cannot be product of determinism or mere regularities.
N
NeoScotist
Guest
This is confusing, what is the meaning of univocity in this discussion? Are we talking of univocity as meaning same genus (AKA pantheism) or merely coceptual univocity?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
All correct so far.
Good. I like that. Hang on to it.
Correct. Let’s just say that God, is One and that in a manner we cannot hope to comprehend His " thoughts " are His Oneness, His Goodness, His Existence,etc.
Here, you are getting into trouble. This is not Thomisim and is contrary to Church Doctrine. God does not " share " his substance. The substance or being of created beings is absolutely " other than " the Being or Substance of God.
No. " Ipsum Esse Subsistens " means Subsisting Being Itself. And This is not the being of all things. God is His own being, he is Unchangeable, Uniquely One, Undivided, Unshared.
The Being of God is One Thing, the being of creation is something altogether different. If God could be diminished, shared, or divided in his Essence/Existence/ Being, he would not be God. Because in God there is no potency or potentiality to be anything more or less than Pure Being Itself. Above all, Ineffable, Untouched.
I don’t mean to be picky but we have to get things straight. When Thomas uses the word " participates " he means " is caused to be by. " Yes the beings of creation " paticipate " in the Being of God only in the sense that He is their cause in being, not that they share in His Being. The beings of creation have their own being and it is not a part of the Being of God. Their being came to be from no prior existing matter or being - not even God’s.
Thus the human soul, for example, has its own being which properly is the substantial form of the human being. And the human soul, though spiritual ( as God is ) is limited. It is a spiritual Form that has existence and it has a potency for the human body, for which it is the proper substantial form. God on the other hand is Pure Existence, His Essence is His Existence, he does not " have " existence, He is Existence, in Whom there is no potency whatsoever ( as explained above), no potency to be more or less than he is.
God’s creative act, his ongoing causality, etc does not diminish his Existence or Being. And although He is absolutely other than His creation of time, space, and creatures, He operates innermostly in every being, moves it, sustains it, and directs it toward its proper end as its primary cause. Individual beings themselves move/change/act as secondary causes.
Reading Part 1 of the Summa Theologiae should help clearify things. Also see " Aquinas " by Edward Feser.
E
edwest2
Guest
Very good images. We have so-called Neanderthal DNA. Neanderthals were completely human but just as the Negroid, Asiatic and Caucasion races, there are different physical features.
Science can say nothing about the soul because there is no scientific evidence the soul exists.
Peace,
Ed
T
Theophorus
Guest
Univocity of being in the sense Duns Scotus presented. God and created creatures have exactly the same being(ens) not simply the same genus but the same species of being. The difference is not in the notion of being, but that God is infinite being, man is finite being, the being is the same, God’s being is simply (infinitely) further along the scale of being.
Pig may not have used the word univocity but it is, I believe, implied in pigs arguments. seeming to take it slightly further by implying the substance is the same.
Sorry Pig if I am misunderstanding your arguments
T
Theophorus
Guest
I agree with you that matter does not make God more complete. But if God and created creatures have exactly the same being it would be a problem.
St. Thomas’ presentation of God as subsistent being and everything else as contingent being would not be a problem as our being is being by analogy and extension. Being of God and being by participation [although being a Socratic, probably not in the same way you mean participation and ideas
]are not the same Being, not the same substance.
B
Bradski
Guest
You don’t think that you are mentally superior to your ancestors? And what’s with the scare quotes?
P
pig
Guest
No need to apologize, I don’t see the confusion. In all of reality there is only one, thing, lets call it. Does that help your confusion?
P
pig
Guest
somebody thought they were superior to their ancestors, I wondered what the ancestors looked like.
P
pig
Guest
Stone-age ancestors could build very large stone-walled forts and melt melt the granite stones together. I cannot do that because I would have enclose a 100 meter by 30 meter fort in a kiln or furnace and raise the temperature using only wood to well over 1200 degrees C and control it. And that is just not possible. But they could do it. Very smart, I’d like to see them do it.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
B
belorg
Guest
And other scientists, laymen and philosophers aren’t sure about that.
Why don’t we hold our judgemant until we have some degree of certainty about this?
I’m afraid I do not understand what you are saying here.
Probably not, but it is not at all clear how indeterminism and irregularities would do any better in this respect.
N
NeoScotist
Guest
Well, I said we have reasons for doing things, no?
G
grannymh
Guest
Neanderthals are not completely human. They are highly sentient subhumans which became extinct. Humans descend directly from two fully-complete human beings and we are extant.
Humans do not have Neanderthal DNA. Humans have a few genes out of 20,000 to 25,000 human genes which are similar to some genes extracted from Neanderthal fossils.
P
pig
Guest
I don’t like to think of that neanderthal girl as being sub-human, she certainly does not look sub-human.
Here is some artwork from Spain 40,000 years old and possibly, maybe neanderthal art. Poignant sense from seeing that art, but have seen young girls doing that sort of artwork with fun.
From very little knowledge I see neanderthal people as being in the vanguard of human migration north following the great european rivers through impenetrable forest. And becoming isolated in valleys they lost touch with their ancestors and were overtaken by another race of people.
They began dying out or disappearing at the same time as ‘modern’ humans arrived in europe.
In terms of evolution of the soul I cannot believe that neanderthal girl and even cro-magnon man did not have human souls. The first humans arrived in the world long before neanderthals and they did not have less of a human soul for being older.
E
edwest2
Guest
There is no convincing evidence, either from science, or Church teaching that identifies sub-humans.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121004201046.htm
sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111102161141.htm
If they could breed with modern humans then they were fully human.
Peace,
Ed
G
grannymh
Guest
Subhumans, or pre-humans if you prefer, are beings that do **not **have a fully-complete human nature as defined in Catholic doctrines.
E
edwest2
Guest
This is a mythology being spread here. As I wrote, there is no evidence for pre-, sub- or almost humans. Whatever these creatures were, we have no relationship to them.
"Adam and Eve: Real People
"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).
“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”
Peace,
Ed
I
inocente
Guest
Not so Ed. A supernatural soul could not be detected but its interaction in animating the physical body could.
In fact, if you think about the information rate, a signal large enough to overcome thermal noise in cells would light up like a Christmas tree on any medical scan.
The absence of this evidence means we can scientifically rule out many theories of soul, for instance all forms of substance dualism.
- Status