How do you answer this question?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyt3000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Holy Scripture tells us that God was moving and walking around in a garden on earth thousands of years before Christ.
Why in the world would God have to walk in the Garden when He was sustaining the Garden with His creative powers? Your interpretation is fundamental, literal, not metaphysical. Your way of interpretation is understandable for one who is not familiar with a deeper interpretation. The bible stories are stories stated in a humanistic way, but for a theologian, or metaphysician contains in-depth understanding which is not common to the general population. If one is humble enough,because a lack of in-depth understanding, will acknowledge that theologians, and metaphycisians have their place in the interpretation of scripture. This is why we have them in the Catholic Church. If you can not understand that, then this is your loss. Private interpretation is another obstacle to proper interpretation. The magisterium of the Catholic Church was appointed by Jesus Christ to teach and lead the faithful in matters of faith, and morals, with the Pope as it’s head.
 
Why in the world would God have to walk in the Garden when He was sustaining the Garden with His creative powers? .
God did not have to walk around in a garden on earth, but witnesses say that He did. Further, God is moved by our prayers, since He responds to them. God is moved by the prayers of the Mass, as He transforms the Bread and Wine into His Body and His Blood.
I can’t go along with the idea that God does not move, when the facts show that He does respond to our prayers.
 
God did not have to walk around in a garden on earth, but witnesses say that He did. Further, God is moved by our prayers, since He responds to them. God is moved by the prayers of the Mass, as He transforms the Bread and Wine into His Body and His Blood.
I can’t go along with the idea that God does not move, when the facts show that He does respond to our prayers.
From a human perspective this is understandable, we pray, God answers. But the fact that we pray we are responding to His Spirit which causes us to pray. So God causes us to pray by the influence of His Spirit. Prayer is the manifestation of faith in God, otherwise why pray if you didn’t believe He existed. Faith is a free gift through Jesus Christ who gives us His Spirit of prayer and holiness. God didn’t move, we did, we are responding to Him who wishes us to be united to Him The priest response to Jesus (God-man) when in faith he follows Jesus directive and repeats the words of Consecration , again we respond to Him, through faith The Faith is always there, free to all who desire it, God provides it, but we must accept it, and our prayers did not cause it to exist, or merit it. God moves without moving, because every motion starts with Him, even in prayer. If it didn’t start with Him, then who caused Him to move? God is the beginning, and the end, the Alpha and the Omega, and nothing exists or moves without Him , nothing! Incidently who were the witnesses that saw God walking in the Garden?
 
One of the arguments for the existence of God is that He is the first mover. This argument works if one assumes that there has not been an infinite amount of movement in the universe. Here is the question:

Is it possible that the universe has been in motion for eternity/infinity and that we just don’t know it’s origin or may not be able to?
I would answer it 2 ways:

Via science. Science has demonstrated that the universe did indeed have a beginning.

And via philosophy and logic: “An infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man, one should think, whose judgement is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit of it.–Scottish Philosopher and humanist David Hume” genius.com/David-hume-an-enquiry-concerning-human-understanding-chap-122-annotated
 
Incidently who were the witnesses that saw God walking in the Garden?
Adam and Eve heard God walking in the garden:
Genesis 3:8
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as He was walking in the garden in the cool of the day.
 
What about the law of non-contradiction?
God can not contradict Himself, if that were so He would be fallible, and wouldn’t be God, for God is infallible, incapable of making mistakes. How would being the Unmoved Mover be a contradiction? Humans are Moved Movers, moved by God, if God was moved that would be a contradiction, because He then wouldn’t be God. God is the Supreme Being, supernatural, divine , we are human beings, natural God is the only one who can give existence and motion to things because Existence is His nature, I Am Who Am. If God was moved, then again He wouldn’t be God, but moved by someone else who would be greater then He, impossible!
 
God can not contradict Himself, if that were so He would be fallible, and wouldn’t be God, for God is infallible, incapable of making mistakes. How would being the Unmoved Mover be a contradiction? Humans are Moved Movers, moved by God, if God was moved that would be a contradiction, because He then wouldn’t be God. God is the Supreme Being, supernatural, divine , we are human beings, natural God is the only one who can give existence and motion to things because Existence is His nature, I Am Who Am. If God was moved, then again He wouldn’t be God, but moved by someone else who would be greater then He, impossible!
You said: “God moves without moving,” which is a contradiction.
 
Adam and Eve heard God walking in the garden:
Genesis 3:8
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as He was walking in the garden in the cool of the day.
God can make His presence known anyway He chooses without contradicting Himself. Whether it is literally true, I do not know, how would the writer know if he wasn’t there? How pertinent to the truth is this part of the story? I do not see where this would alter the main theme of the scriptures. Would I be justified in thinking that somehow you are trying to trap me, because I thought that I gave you reasons for my statements.🙂
 
You said: “God moves without moving,” which is a contradiction.
No. This is a contradiction: God moves and doesn’t move at the same time.

“God moves without moving” is a paradox, not a contradiction.
 
You said: “God moves without moving,” which is a contradiction.
Applied to humans it would be a contradiction, but applied to God it is no contradiction. You are applying human standards to God which is wrong. Like I said, we agree to disagree 🙂
 
No. This is a contradiction: God moves and doesn’t move at the same time.

“God moves without moving” is a paradox, not a contradiction.
God does not move as we understand movement at any time (potency to act), and God is not restricted to time which applies to humans not to God, God is Pure Act, the Unmoved Mover, if you disagree, then your argument is with St.Thomas Aquinas, a Teacher in the Catholic Church
We can apply the principle of contradiction to human thinking when one contradicts himself, but to use this principle and apply it to God’s action is a misuse of the principle, and a lack of understanding Metaphysics in dogma
 
God can not contradict Himself,
God does not contradict Himself is surely true. But it is also surely true that the conclusions from your line of reasoning are contradictory. When a line of argumentation leads to a contradiction, it means that either your reasoning was faulty or that your assumptions were faulty and must be thrown out.
Correct me if I am wrong but
your line of reasoning says:
It is possible for God to move.
It is impossible for God to move.
Those two statements are contradictory and therefore the only conclusion is that your assumptions are wrong or that your reasoning is wrong, or both.
My guess is that your assumptions are wrong. If something is completely immobile, it cannot cause a change in some other object because observation tells us that motion is mutually caused in the sense that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
 
God does not contradict Himself is surely true. But it is also surely true that the conclusions from your line of reasoning are contradictory. When a line of argumentation leads to a contradiction, it means that either your reasoning was faulty or that your assumptions were faulty and must be thrown out.
Correct me if I am wrong but
your line of reasoning says:
It is possible for God to move.
It is impossible for God to move.
Those two statements are contradictory and therefore the only conclusion is that your assumptions are wrong or that your reasoning is wrong, or both.
My guess is that your assumptions are wrong. If something is completely immobile, it cannot cause a change in some other object because observation tells us that motion is mutually caused in the sense that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
It is clear to me that you do not know the reasoning on a Metaphysical level,if you did you would not draw the conclusions that you have. Just keep the faith and leave the reasoning to Theologian and Christian Metaphysicians:)
 
So God moves but He does not move?
I should have said to be more clear "God does not move as you understand . God is the Unmoved Mover, this is not a contradiction, so don’t put your words and meaning into my statments God moves others as Prime Mover, but doesn’t move Himself Look up St. Thomas Aquinas’s proof for the existence of God proven by the argument taken from motion. If the argument proves me wrong, then I retract my statements. To continue this debate is useless.
 
To continue this debate is useless.
You are involved in a logical contradiction. Your line of reasoning shows:
It is possible for God to move.
It is not possible for God to move.
Your contradictory conclusions prove that your assumptions or your reasoning or both are untenable,.
God is not a contradiction. God is pure truth. And the law of non-contradiction is a universal law that applies to all reasoning.
 
ynotzap
According to Scholastic Philosophy it is impossible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect only in different respects. Potency and Act is covered in Ontology
In ontology there is no self effective and certainly no oppositional dualism. Potency and act are the same thing. The phenomena of existence is a monism. Is all one. God does not appear to be opposed to material, nor phenomenal existence, because they are the same thing.
The moment is a moving part of time not eternity, and it will continue to move in an ever changing world. The Prime Mover is infinite, not that which is moved which is finite, there is not instant in time, there is a condition of constant change in the Universe
Change is relative to a comparison of 2 or more distinct moments with the reference point being also from the relative view of what is necessarily a new moment. There is no change in the moment. The moment is all potential for change. We can’t see change in the moment. If we see change, it is first and foremost relative to our biased point of view and is second, not measurable at all and third, is not exhaustive of the moment of full time, which we cannot see in totality. Remember, any quantity, however great, divided by infinity, is zero. Zero is the change with respect to the universe. If the relative change involves all infinity, then this proves the universe is one.
Only in the conceptual world is time divided into segments, seconds, minutes, and hours, not in the objective world around us. Time in a Metaphysical sense is change, time in a conceptual world of ideas is measurable as stated, on a quantitative level, not a qualitative level So I agree with part of your statement. We do apply the principles of math and are able to give some practical measurement to change, but it will never approach perfection because in the objective world things are always changing, in the world of math, the principles do not change, there is a relationship between the unchanging principles, and the unchanging God from whom they proceed. These principles are spiritual in nature, of the intellect, just like the One they proceed from. In order that things even though they have relationships, there must be something stable and permanent in these relationships, otherwise truth becomes relative, and relationships have no stability or permanence
There is a continuity between the conceptual world and objective world around us. This is why change is not measurable but is assigned to the physical world. Because the instrument of measure exists on the same continuum of reality, our measure is unreliable. It is like saying, “What are you now thinking?” The best you can do is answer, but as soon as you answer, the moment when you had the thought is lost, and so you must use memory to recall. Your answer may exposit the moment’s thought, but you cannot be sure it answers the original question of the past moment. In your world, the concept is all detached hallucination, and the sound which triggered the conceptual response has no bearing on the formulated thought. We might as well not listen to lectures, but just write essays.
Time in the sense that it is change will continue, because it’s part of our nature even in Heaven, God will sustain the change, we will spend an eternity being filled by God . Change was not going on until something was created, because change is part of the creation. God alone is unchanging because He is Pure Being, Existence, and Pure Act, we are finite, dependent, matter and form, essence and existence, and potency and act, all put together, created. We were given all of these things, we came from nothing. This is the way I understand it.
Change is not a potency. Because it can’t be measured, it doesn’t happen.
When you lose something and then find it: Did it really move, or did you just relocate it where it always was?
The universe is all potency because it has the ability to become something it never was.
Where no change is perceived, we say there is stillness. The moment seems like a circle stretched into a ellipses, more and more eccentric as stillness lasts. But the underlying perfection of the circle is always present. Somewhere out in time, a creative mind is perfecting the circle above and below, on the sides, or perpendicular to the axis of the stretch. For as far as yours or anyone’s elliptical and eccentric thinking stretches the circle, there is a God out there to show us that a perfect circle is still possible. When we help restore things to perfection, we recognize that is a battle. But God has put eternity in the hearts of men.
 
You are involved in a logical contradiction. Your line of reasoning shows:
It is possible for God to move.
It is not possible for God to move.
Your contradictory conclusions prove that your assumptions or your reasoning or both are untenable,.
God is not a contradiction. God is pure truth. And the law of non-contradiction is a universal law that applies to all reasoning.
God is pure truth. Pure truth embraces contradiction.
Contradictions are verbal representations of oppositional forces that are irreconcilable.
God can reconcile anything to himself, thus nothing can contradict him for eternity.
Even hell, where all contradict, all have knowledge also of their refusal. One might say, as I believe Dante intimated, that their stubbornness to accept him falls along the lines of a particular mortal sin and Satan does not engulf them completely. After all, there, souls are not obliterated, but only tormented according to their wrongdoing.
It is as if the “contradictory insult” to perfection is nullified by the punishment, but the appeal to reconciliation through Mercy is kept intact by their continued existence?
 
Pure truth embraces contradiction.
No. According to catholic apologetics info website::
The principle of non-contradiction states: “it is impossible for the same thing to be affirmed and denied at the same time”.
*
The principle of non-contradiction is not only a subjective law of thought, but also an objective law of reality. In other words a round square is not only unthinkable, it is also unrealizable. Not even God can create something absurd. He can make an exception to a physical Law (a miracle) but not a metaphysical law such as the law of non-contradiction.

catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/philosophy/princip.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top