How do you answer this question?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyt3000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomdstone said:
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
Click to expand...
Right.

So if someone said, “God is moving and not moving at the same time”, that would violate the principle of non-contradiction.

But no one has posited that.
 
Tomdstone said:
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
Click to expand...
I was referring to the embrace of the Creator, who makes the sun shine on the good and the bad. (Mt 5:45) I didn’t mean that the good and the bad are reconcilable of their own power.
The principle applied as you have it appears to me to refer to an absolute objective power that affirms or denies absolutely at one time – and in particular it looks like that one time is after or at the end of life, where they say you can’t have one foot in heaven and the other in hell forever.
I do not think it means that people can’t be unsure about God’s intent for them on a given course of action. If their approach/avoidance conflicts are real, we can reasonably infer that God intends it that way. This is very close to affirm and deny at the same time because a person is not God, but in certain circumstances, such as where God has given man dominion, man must be like God and make decisions as if he were God.
There are also regrettable but real examples of reverse psychology. For example, they say to certain parents raising certain children, be cold and distant, provide less than the minimum and show as little affection as possible. From these relationships children who love their parents are raised. Yet these parents are told that they must simultaneously love their children. To love they must show hate. What do you call that?
 
PRmerger said:
Right.

So if someone said, “God is moving and not moving at the same time”, that would violate the principle of non-contradiction.

But no one has posited that.
Click to expand...
Your brevity is eloquent!
 
Michael19682 said:
ynotzap

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.
Click to expand...
Potency and act are not the same thing: Potency: (meaning) capacity of any sort, capacity to be in some way the first source of change, capacity for perfection, a being in some way not actual or not fully actual
Act; (meaning) perfection or a perfection, what is fully real, finished, fulfilling , an actuality, a determining principle, an intrinsic principle which confers a definite perfection on a being, hence a form
Material and phenomenal existence are not the same thing Material;(meaning) that which is composed of matter, that which intrinsically depends on matter. Matter; (meaning) Being or substance in bodies and usually possessing characteristic accidents as quantity, extension, inertia, mass, weight, volume etc. Bodily substance as distinct from spirit, and from it’s own accidents.
The antonym to Act is Potency, they are not the same.

Phenomenalism:: (meaning): A theory that the only real things are phenomena, and so substance, cause, form etc. are non-existent or mere mental constructs. This all contrary to scholastic metaphysics
40.png
Michael19682:
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?
Click to expand...
Change in the proper sense is the actualization of a being in potency in as much as it is in potency
 
ynotzap said:
Potency and act are not the same thing: Potency: (meaning) capacity of any sort, capacity to be in some way the first source of change, capacity for perfection, a being in some way not actual or not fully actual
Act; (meaning) perfection or a perfection, what is fully real, finished, fulfilling , an actuality, a determining principle, an intrinsic principle which confers a definite perfection on a being, hence a form
Material and phenomenal existence are not the same thing Material;(meaning) that which is composed of matter, that which intrinsically depends on matter. Matter; (meaning) Being or substance in bodies and usually possessing characteristic accidents as quantity, extension, inertia, mass, weight, volume etc. Bodily substance as distinct from spirit, and from it’s own accidents.
The antonym to Act is Potency, they are not the same.

Phenomenalism:: (meaning): A theory that the only real things are phenomena, and so substance, cause, form etc. are non-existent or mere mental constructs. This all contrary to scholastic metaphysics

Change in the proper sense is the actualization of a being in potency in as much as it is in potency
Click to expand...
Driving through the country side, one sees a bird singing, that’s not a phenomenon. One continues and sees a cow, that is not a phenomenon, still one continues and sees a cactus, that’s not a phenomenon. But if one sees a cow singing like a bird sitting: on a cactus, that’ a phenomenon!😃 couldn’t resist.
 
ynotzap said:
Potency and act are not the same thing: Potency: (meaning) capacity of any sort, capacity to be in some way the first source of change, capacity for perfection, a being in some way not actual or not fully actual
Act; (meaning) perfection or a perfection, what is fully real, finished, fulfilling , an actuality, a determining principle, an intrinsic principle which confers a definite perfection on a being, hence a form
Material and phenomenal existence are not the same thing Material;(meaning) that which is composed of matter, that which intrinsically depends on matter. Matter; (meaning) Being or substance in bodies and usually possessing characteristic accidents as quantity, extension, inertia, mass, weight, volume etc. Bodily substance as distinct from spirit, and from it’s own accidents.
The antonym to Act is Potency, they are not the same.

Phenomenalism:: (meaning): A theory that the only real things are phenomena, and so substance, cause, form etc. are non-existent or mere mental constructs. This all contrary to scholastic metaphysics

Change in the proper sense is the actualization of a being in potency in as much as it is in potency
Click to expand...
You misunderstand the interplay of potency and act.
When does a potency, once actualized, become perfect?
The answer is never. As long as the universe continues in time, no human action is exhausted. There always remain ramifications, consequences, and reverberations that result. Thus, by your phenomenological definition, no such perfection, no such act exists for man. Qua our ordinary selves, we are nothing but potency. Pure and simple.
Yet our existence in fact finds us in the midst of taking action. Thus there is no dualism, but only potency – for lack of a perfect action the two are one.
 
Michael19682 said:
You misunderstand the interplay of potency and act.
When does a potency, once actualized, become perfect?
The answer is never. As long as the universe continues in time, no human action is exhausted. There always remain ramifications, consequences, and reverberations that result. Thus, by your phenomenological definition, no such perfection, no such act exists for man. Qua our ordinary selves, we are nothing but potency. Pure and simple.
Yet our existence in fact finds us in the midst of taking action. Thus there is no dualism, but only potency – for lack of a perfect action the two are one.
Click to expand...
Since when in time or eternity, is our being and actions independent of God’s actions? We do not act independently. God is always moving us to perfection, to the good, to the being Are you saying God’s acts are not perfect? Who does the actualizing? When things exists, given existence (having vs being), it is complete to the degree it has existence, to have existence is to have being, to have being is to have good, to have good is to have that degree of perfection. There are different forms of good, there are material goods, and there are spiritual goods The soul is a spiritual substance, and a spiritual good, and a spiritual perfection. Without the soul the body wouldn’t be a human body, the soul is the form of the body. Is that statement "phenomenalistic"in reasoning? I think that you have a misunderstanding of Scholastic Metaphysical Ontology.
Yes we start our knowledge through the senses, but we do not stop there, by abstraction consistent with objective reality we come the knowledge of substance, matter, form, law, by which phenomena exists or is produced Phenomena is something visible, immediately observable as distinguished from substance, form, force or law. How is my explanations of Potency and Act some how not in contact with Metaphysical Ontology which certainly deals with substance, form, law, force, which phenomenalism doesn’t There does exist a dualism of substance, one material and one spiritual, but not as two separate beings in humans, but as a unit, or co-principles, The soul actualizes the body, and God actualizes the body and the soul, and the soul exists independent of the body.

Nothing imperfect enters Heaven
 
ynotzap said:
The soul actualizes the body, and God actualizes the body and the soul, and the soul exists independent of the body.
Click to expand...
Does the soul actualize the body of a dog? Does the soul of a dog exist independently of the body?
 
Tomdstone said:
The good thief entered heaven.
Click to expand...
So did all those forgiven sinners who turned to Christ for salvation. There is also a purging that awaits all who still have some spiritual imperfection. And there are degrees of perfection, “In my house there are many mansions " Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”

A Bishop and a taxi driver both died and went to Heaven. St.Peter showed the Bishop a little, but neat cottage and St.Peter showed a big luxurious mansion to the taxi driver. The Bishop asked St.Peter why did he get such a small cottage and the taxi driver got a mansion, after all he led the flock, preached many sermons, gave to the poor, and did many good things. St. Peter answered and said "That New York taxi driver has scared more people into Heaven and caused more people to pray :then you did with your sermons and good works.😃
 
Tomdstone said:
Does the soul actualize the body of a dog? Does the soul of a dog exist independently of the body?
Click to expand...
The soul of a dog is a material soul, when the dog dies, the soul ceases to exist. The soul of a human, is created directly by God and is infused into the body, it is spiritual, like God, and continues to exist, it doesn’t depend on matter for it’s existence. Soul meaning the source of immanent activity (coming from within the body that is causing the body to live)
 
Tomdstone said:
It seems so because how else would an unbaptised baby get into heaven?
Click to expand...
Can you tell us where you get the idea that unbaptized babies are in heaven?

Is that in the Bible?

Or did you get this idea from private revelation?

Or are you using the Catholic meme and using Sacred Tradition to say that we can hope in their salvation?
 
ynotzap said:
Since when in time or eternity, is our being and actions independent of God’s actions? We do not act independently. God is always moving us to perfection, to the good, to the being Are you saying God’s acts are not perfect? Who does the actualizing? When things exists, given existence (having vs being), it is complete to the degree it has existence, to have existence is to have being, to have being is to have good, to have good is to have that degree of perfection. There are different forms of good, there are material goods, and there are spiritual goods The soul is a spiritual substance, and a spiritual good, and a spiritual perfection. Without the soul the body wouldn’t be a human body, the soul is the form of the body. Is that statement "phenomenalistic"in reasoning? I think that you have a misunderstanding of Scholastic Metaphysical Ontology.
Yes we start our knowledge through the senses, but we do not stop there, by abstraction consistent with objective reality we come the knowledge of substance, matter, form, law, by which phenomena exists or is produced Phenomena is something visible, immediately observable as distinguished from substance, form, force or law. How is my explanations of Potency and Act some how not in contact with Metaphysical Ontology which certainly deals with substance, form, law, force, which phenomenalism doesn’t There does exist a dualism of substance, one material and one spiritual, but not as two separate beings in humans, but as a unit, or co-principles, The soul actualizes the body, and God actualizes the body and the soul, and the soul exists independent of the body.

Nothing imperfect enters Heaven
Click to expand...
Your argument ignores freewill. Or do you believe that God impels us to sin? We house action which is true when moved by God’'s grace. Yet we are not perfect. Action and potency are equivalent for we mortals. They are equal in practical terms because commanded to not judge each other or ourselves in the spiritual sense, we cannot distinguish action from potency.
If we cannot separate them, they are equivalent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top