First Cause is sentient

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
There are many individuals who claim that they know the truth either directly or by God. I don’t have any criteria which tells me which one is correct.
Click to expand...
Certainly on the Catholic Answers Forum you accept the Holy Scripture of the Catholic Church as authoritative, thus you must admit that God is conscious, knows, etc. That is full proof - a direct assertion by an authority. An authority does not need to prove anything to anyone, but simply declare.
Any claimant to knowing the truth must show his authorization directly comes from the Catholic Magisterium, else he is no authority and is only opining.
 
John_Martin said:
Certainly on the Catholic Answers Forum you accept the Holy Scripture of the Catholic Church as authoritative, thus you must admit that God is conscious, knows, etc. That is full proof - a direct assertion by an authority. An authority does not need to prove anything to anyone, but simply declare.
Any claimant to knowing the truth must show his authorization directly comes from the Catholic Magisterium, else he is no authority and is only opining.
Click to expand...
I have respect for your belief. I am not questioning that in this thread. I am interested in a proof which states that God is conscious. It would be nice of you if you allow to focus on OP. You are free to open another thread on the subject of your belief and why you choose it among many other religions. I would be happy to join there.
 
Aquinas11 said:
what’s your proof that “there is no other scenario”?
Click to expand...
It is a complement to laws of contradiction. Something is either at this or that state. In another world, something cannot be at both states in the same instance. Alive and dead for example.
 
Last edited:
John_J_Bannan said:
Sure, there’s another scenario. God has a mysterious uncaused mind. But, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Click to expand...
Here, we are discussing that there is no other scenario because there are only two states of affair in a situation when each state of affair negates another state of affair. Alive or dead for example. To say that there is another state is equal to saying that the law of noncontradiction is not correct.
 
STT said:
Something is either at this or that state. In another world, something cannot be at both states in the same instance. Alive and dead for example.
Click to expand...
This is one of those statements that seems like it’s undoubtedly true, but you have to be very, very careful in defining your parameters, otherwise you’ll find that the premise doesn’t necessarily hold up.
 
Aquinas11 said:
what’s your proof that God is subject to law of contradiction?
Click to expand...
Here we are discussing that there are only two statements involved in a situation where one of statement negate another one. God is either dead or alive. There is no other state of affair.
 
Aquinas11 said:
If that was true, he wouldn’t be God since he’d be necessarily mortal.
Click to expand...
Mortality is not related to other two states of affair which negate each other. God is alive and mortal. Mortal simply explains that the state of affair, living God, is permanent. Living is not negate of mortality.
Aquinas11 said:
You haven’t provided sufficient proof.
Click to expand...
A statement is either false or true. What would be another option?
 
Last edited:
STT said:
I heard this several times in this forum. I was wondering if there is any proof for this. By sentient, I mean that the First Cause has Intellect and is conscious.
Click to expand...
Why can’t the question be ‘WAS the first cause sentient?’

If you believe there was a first cause then why assume that it still exists? Without begging tbe question.
 
Bradskii said:
40.png
STT:
I heard this several times in this forum. I was wondering if there is any proof for this. By sentient, I mean that the First Cause has Intellect and is conscious.
Click to expand...
Why can’t the question be ‘WAS the first cause sentient?’

If you believe there was a first cause then why assume that it still exists? Without begging tbe question.
Click to expand...
It might depend on who he’s asking. If he’s asking as a follow up to, say, Aquinas’ First Way and for the sake of argument is willing to accept the First Way but is unsure of how intelligence follows, then it makes sense, because the First Way if taken as valid shows the First Cause must always exist and still exist.
 
Aquinas11 said:
What’s the evidence for that? You’ve made several assertions now not supported by evidence or proof
Click to expand...
Sorry. I should have said that God is immortal and alive by your definition. I have no proof for God being immortal or not. Here, I am saying that God is either mortal or immortal. It cannot be both. It cannot be another thing. I would be happy to hear an example.
 
STT said:
40.png
Bradskii:
If you believe there was a first cause then why assume that it still exists? Without begging the question.
Click to expand...
I am not begging question.
Click to expand...
No, I meant if someone does claim it still exists they can’t use the argument: ‘because if it didn’t then it wouldn’t be God’.
 
John_J_Bannan said:
N/A means “not applicable”. It means the question cannot be answered true or false, because the question cannot be answered with regard to the subject in terms of true or false.
Click to expand...
Could you please provide a statement which is neither true or false? Of course we are not talking about meaningless sentence.
 
What if alive and dead are the same thing? What if they are both derivative properties of the same underlying physical constructs? Emergent properties are called that because they emerge from underlying systems. Carbon can form crystalline or non crystalline structures. And yet it’s all carbon and energy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top