I
- Status
I
inocente
Guest
This confirms that you don’t simply treat Thomas’ writings as philosophy, but as part of your religious belief.
I can’t be responsible for your friends, and it’s probably better to see people as individuals rather than lumping them into stereotypes. I’ve no way of knowing whether individual Catholics do or don’t adore various saints, and I don’t really care, that’s up to them. But my point was somewhat simpler - whereas you are free to accept or reject the claims of other philosophers on the merits of their arguments alone, you are predisposed to see Thomas’ works as true and to defend them as part of your religion. It’s not a level playing field.
T
TimothyH
Guest
I
inocente
Guest
I totally reject the notion of worshiping an unmoved mover. It’s a philosophical argument, there’s nothing worthy of worship. Perhaps there are a few poor individuals who find it so difficult to relate to others that they cannot form a relationship with Christ, and perhaps a philosophical argument is all they can worship, but I can’t imagine any of the Catholics I know in real life, including the local priest, worshiping something so mechanistic, uninspired and uninspiring as an unmoved mover.Sometimes the best place to hide something is in the most obvious place When you worship God in hymns, you are worshiping “The Un-Moved Mover”, you may not like it, but you can’t deny it.What presents a curiosity to me is that you live in Spain, a country rich in Catholic Christian belief and tradition, what is going on over there? Of course we in this country are also experiencing a lot of materialism, and secularism, and we do have a lot of nominal Catholics. I would think that Spain needs a lot of evangelizing as we do. When I learned you were Baptist I was somewhat surprised. It is true that “Christianity” can’t be past on through just knowledge, and action, but through an encounter with Christ, it is after all “A supernatural gift”, we must pray that the Lord sends workers into His vineyard.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
That was after your insulting post. And that post had nothing in it that deserved responding to - in my opinion. So to dismiss it was not an insult, or should not have been interpreted as such.
Your post #33 " The notion that Earth is at the center of the universe surrounded by celestial spheres moved by angels was thoroughly debunked several centuries ago.
The notion that matter has intentionality was QUOTEthoroughly debunked several centuries ago, along with the supposed enchanted elements of fire, air, water and earth.
Don’t color me surprised - nothing follows in the alternate reality of this thread.
Isaiah 55 may have something to say about that:
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
When something such as Pioneer’s deviation from predicted acceleration is observed, there are two mindsets. One is to start with what is not known and speculate. That’s easy, and the internet is full of such speculations, from God supposedly formed out of dark energy and consciousness to the oil industry supposedly suppressing magical motors invented by Tesla. *Much of Aristotle’s physics is such speculation, yet was held to be true for hundreds of years, a salutary lesson never to idolize anyone ever again./]
The other mindset is to start with what is known and do some hard work. In the case of Pioneer, apparently several groups independently worked out by 2012 that thermal radiation was indeed the (mundane) explanation, as ynotzap mentioned. See, for instance, planetary.org/blogs/bruce-betts/3459.html
Note: The insulting, offensive parts of this post are underlined. Then I could go back to your previous response where you engage in your usual insulting remarks, accusing me and Thomists of " gaping, " in post # 33; or also in post # 33, "… An argument so full of holes isn’t going to convince anyone that God exists. More likely the exact opposite. It convinces me that Thomists will believe anything though. " And the previous post was insulting as well.
Of course, your never see the beam in your own eye. Nor have you yet ever sincerely appoligized for any of your repeated insults. Apparently you wear blinders when it comes to interpreting insults and rule breaking.
Linus2nd
__________________*
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
H
hasantas
Guest
We are so close to each other on that issue but there are some few differences in thoughts.
If some thing is being created then that is to be a creature. And every creature has a body and entity. Angel has an entity which is beyond of our worldly physical laws. But yet angels have an entity. The soul has an entity which is alike angels.
But physical laws have not an entity. Physical laws are impact and result of manifestation of God’s power. We cannot say the matter and entity of power is that! There is no such thing. Physicists think a subatomic nucleus move and transport gravity power but they have not yet find that nucleus. And yet they cannot define how that nucleus could generate power and transport. That is merely a theory.
All laws are manifestation of God’s power which become manifest in order. And we name that manifestation and measure that manifestation with mathematical equations.
The gravity or other powers cannot be operative by themselves without God’s power and will. Because if that laws were untended there would not be any proper work in universe. But we cannot see any disorder in universe. Just think the parts and atoms of a human body. If a eternal power and will would not do that work that would be impossible for a body to be formed by chances or aimless powers. There are miraculous art, beauty, life, order etc in all parts and positions of a body. That shows an eternal power always perform that work with an eternal will and wisdom. Which of law is so intelligent?
There are no molds and tablets into which powers(scientific laws) would prompt and stick atoms. Powers has not ability of art, architectural etc. So a power without God’s power cannot establish and organize all atoms in the treu places.
.
Angels have power but God give that power. But yet that power is power of God. Angels can use that power how much God allow them. I meant that.
Man can move himself by power of God. Man only wish or decide to move then God create that action. The portion of man is to make decisions by free will. After that God create all actions.
Y
ynotzap
Guest
I have emphasized many times that St.Thomas has synthesized human reason with Faith. Again I state that he showed that it is reasonable to believe in Christianity, and by Philosophy we can show this, not erroneous philosophy and this is where a lot of arguments come in, to show where these philosophies are erroneous by logical, rational applications of ideas, dealing with objective and subjective realities. He didn’t say by reason that we could accept Christ or Chrisstianity. He is countering and encouraging at the same time people who offer reasons that Christianity is a myth, a fable, unnreasonable, showing what is wrong with erroneous beliefs, and what is true and objective and not just subjective truth
Now St.Paul makes it clear that by reason you can prove the existence of God (for those that don’t know or believe and for those that do know and refuse to accept) Rom. 1: l8-31 " For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world His invisible attrilbutes of eternal power and divinity has been able to be UNDERSTOOD and PERCEIVED in what He has made, as a result they have no excuse. For although they knew God, the did not accord Him glory or give Him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds where darkened…" A I stated before, the truth is one, from the same source, God, whether it be from science, philosophy or religion. Reason can take you to the door step of Faith, but it is the grace of God (a supernatural gift)that will carry you over the threshold.
If science, philosophy, and religion are all true, you can not separate them. But as we know it, they are not one in the minds of men. If what has been proven by philosophy, metaphysics to be true, and what Faith teaches is true, you can never have a level playing field if you accept the one and not the other. And this seems to be your problem, you do not recognize the truth of St.Thomas’s statements, although you state what you believe to be his errors. The Church recognizes the truth of his statements as they apply to faith and morals, and reason. The truths of science are not the Church’s major concern, unless they conflict with the truths of the Faith. Then the Church is obliged to protect the Faith from error.
Salvation of souls is her major concern, and it comes from Jesus Christ, so she combats heresies, erroneous beliefs and St. Thomas and St.Augustine and others have provided, by God’s providence the means to combat these evils that conflict with the true salvation of men.
I
inocente
Guest
Yet you didn’t underline anything!
All you had to do was say at the time if you felt there was anything insulting. It’s curious that you didn’t do so until after I pointed out how insulting you have been. I think your temper got the better of you once again. As I’ve perhaps said before, we’re only shooting the breeze here, no one is going to die or anything.
If you reply to this I won’t see it, as you’ll shortly have the honor of being the only person on my ignore list. I don’t like using it and will probably take you off in a week or so, but right now I think it’s best for both of us.
I
inocente
Guest
In Romans 1, Paul isn’t giving a logical proof of God’s existence. He is speaking of some unnamed group of people who believe in God (“For although they knew God…”) but no longer worship Him ("…they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him"). Yet, Paul says, they should understand him from what has been made.
Nowhere in scripture do we find logical proofs of God’s existence, instead we find repeated calls for faith. Paul himself says “we live by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor 5). Jesus says a mustard seed of faith moves the mountain.
Thomists want me to believe in something they call an unmoved mover. Another group of Americans wants me to believe in something they call an intelligent designer. Various groups tell me they have wondrous proofs, but when I look at their arguments, I see only holes.
If any watertight argument was possible, and if Jesus had wanted us to have a proof, Jesus would have given us that proof. He didn’t. He wanted us to have faith. Faith in God, not in unmoved movers or intelligent designers or whatever. Please don’t try to make that my problem, or the problem of the vast majority of other Christians, most of whom have never even heard of unmoved movers, and who live by faith in Christ, not by sight of logical “proofs”.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Actually, Jesus offered the apostle Thomas proof in his physical wounds that he was God, but he also said it was better to have faith than proof. The reason is, as Pascal argued, that God wants to live in our hearts more than in our heads.
The so-called “proofs” are not convincing to anyone who does not want to be convinced, but to anyone with an open mind they do open several doors to the possibility of faith by demonstrating that the existence of God is not really a fantastic or illogical notion.
Y
ynotzap
Guest
St. Thomas’ was concerned with the proof from reason for the existence of God, not His identity, which is only revealed in Scripture. This was again for the sake of those that offer reasons to the contrary, not to convert them, (which only God can do) but to make an account how Faith is reasonable and the possibility of disposing them to accept the Faith. When God spoke to Moses from the burning bush, How did He identify Himself? Did He not say, “I Am who Am” What would that mean to the average citizen if not explained. And how do we explain it if not Metaphysically? Jesus referred to Himself as the I Am, and the Jews used that as an excuse to crucify Him because He made Himself equal to God and said He blasphemed. There is more to Scripture than the literal interpretation of it. And Protestants (Baptists and others) restrict it to literal and private interpretation. That is where Catholic Christians differ. There is so much missed by this method. That’s why we believe in the physical presents of Christ in the Eucharist, St.Thomas explains what the words of Jesus Christ meant when Jesus said to the Apostles, "…This is my Body…this is my Bood… There is more to it then the encounter with Jesus Christ, there remains the walk with Jesus, which means to practice what He taught, which is the practice of the Theological virtues, and the moral virtues, to grow from a "spiritual infant when Baptized to an adult Christian confirmed in the Faith . To grow in the Faith we need all the grace available, which we believe are in the Sacraments instituted by Christ. Here again many faiths differ. This is the reason the Church has the Magisterium, and that too was instituted by Christ through the Apostles with Peter as the physical representative of Christ on earth by Christ’s appointment. Here we go again, people will differ.In Romans 1, Paul isn’t giving a logical proof of God’s existence. He is speaking of some unnamed group of people who believe in God (“For although they knew God…”) but no longer worship Him ("…they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him"). Yet, Paul says, they should understand him from what has been made.
Nowhere in scripture do we find logical proofs of God’s existence, instead we find repeated calls for faith. Paul himself says “we live by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor 5). Jesus says a mustard seed of faith moves the mountain.
Thomists want me to believe in something they call an unmoved mover. Another group of Americans wants me to believe in something they call an intelligent designer. Various groups tell me they have wondrous proofs, but when I look at their arguments, I see only holes.
If any watertight argument was possible, and if Jesus had wanted us to have a proof, Jesus would have given us that proof. He didn’t. He wanted us to have faith. Faith in God, not in unmoved movers or intelligent designers or whatever. Please don’t try to make that my problem, or the problem of the vast majority of other Christians, most of whom have never even heard of unmoved movers, and who live by faith in Christ, not by sight of logical “proofs”.
God is known by many names in Metaphysics, the Un-mover Mover, the Un-caused Cause, Pure Act, Pure Being, Existence,the Total Good, Pure Spirit. and the reason ,we can say this is because God said “IAm Who Am” and we know from Scripture that Jesus is the “IAm Who Am” I have experienced the truths(not all) of my Catholic ChristianFaith, by reason, by faith, (grace) and spiritual experience. Again I don’t expect you and others to agree, but I give an account for my Faith, I couldn’t deny it without being dishonest to you, others, and to myself.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
The reason we are so close is because Thomas Aquinas used the best thoughts and teachings of Aristotle, Avicenne, Averoes, and Maimonides. Of course he also disagreed with all of them on certain points.
I think we should say that every creature has an essence. Some essences, like a lump of coal or a planet, are simply bodies, but man has a body and a spiritual soul, and angels are simply spirital souls without no bodies. But the souls of men are not separate entities. Even at death the soul of man is not a proper entity, because its proper mode of existence is as the form of man’s body.
Correct.
Correct.
Correct. But God’s power, for the most part, is exercised through the activities of his creatures. He gives each creature a nature in which He has " written " and " installed " a blueprint of directions and the power to carry out follow that blueprint. In other words God gives the nature of each of his creatures the ability to carry out his will and has given them either the intelligence or the instinct or some other means to follow His desires. But of course God can and does take a direct hand in things sometimes. But mostly he operates through the actions of his creatures.
But as I just said, God can and does give creatures the power to carry out his will. Thomistic philosophers would say that inanimate creatures and entities like the elements on the periodic table have a nature such that they have an " intentionality " which God has put in their natures to carry out his will in their own sphere of activity - even in the interior activities of sub-atomic particles.
And what I said is also merely a theory or a philosophical speculation. But what I said seems reasonable.
But I would rather say that God is manifesting his power through the natures which he has given his them to follow his will and exercise the powers he has given them.
Correct. But don’t you think that the God who created the universe, could create the natures of each of his creatures in such a way that they would be able to carry out his will and that he could have given them the powers necessary to do so? For if he did not do so, why create them in the first place?
I agree totally. I just think that God, for the most part, gives his creatures a nature which he has empowered with the power and " intention " to carry out his will perfectly.
He who created the universe, can certainly create for each creature a nature designed to carry out His Will, and with the power to do it. I view the nature of each creature like a flawless computer that follows God’s Will and which He has given the power to do it.
Correct. But if God has not given creatures their own proper causality, why did he create them? So I say that, yes, God causes all things and guides all things, but he guides all things through the " instructions " he has given to the natures of each. But intelligent creatures, such as men and angels he has given intelligence and free will by which they act on their own counsel.
Correct.
QUOTE]Man can move himself by power of God.
Correct.
Yes. But God does not do the acting. Man does the acting. But God gives man the power to act and God keeps both man and his act in existnece. 'So in some mysterious way God is at work in all of man’s acts, not as causing them but as allowing them…
Man makes the decision, and he performes his own acts. Man’s acts are not creations, they are an exercise of the power God has given him. And God allows men to exercise the powers He has given him.
Linus2nd
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
And my point is that in the “initial creation of matter” the “laws”, that is scientific laws, were also created so that God’s creation could proceed as it proceeds.
It other words, the how of what makes matter “work” the way it does, was part and parcel of the what of what matter is.
I am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, I want to make that clear, but in the 70’s I took an astronomy course and I was taught at that time, that by using computer modeling, they could go all the way back to within seconds or even very small portions of seconds, I forget which, to the “big bang” but to go back farther, all of the “scientific laws” just completely fell apart, so to speak.
This is one of the reasons why I believe that the “laws of nature”, scientific laws, whatever one wishes to call them, was part and parcel of creation, not just the “matter” itself.
I hope you understand what I am trying to say in the sentence concerning the astronomy course and if you do, isn’t that pretty much where it stands today?
I, for one, do not believe anyone can prove or disprove the existence of God.
I believe that only God can “prove” that God Is.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
But then, neither can we prove or disprove the axioms of mathematics.
So long as they work, we believe in them.
So long as God works, we believe in Him. And God is always working his wonders in us.
N
Nixbits
Guest
Charlemagne III:
The difference is that we can and do continually check that the axioms of mathematics work. We believe in them based on evidence from a multitude of different aspects of life and the same interpretation of these mathematical axioms is evident to just about everyone. The same is not true of God, so the nature of belief in God is very different to the ‘belief’ in the efficacy of mathematics.
N
Nixbits
Guest
Tom, I’m basically in agreement with what you said, but I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here:
Tom Baum:
Tom Baum:
These two sentences seem to contradict each other. Are the laws that govern the behaviour of physical matter a property of the matter itself, as I believe, (and as stated in your first sentence) or are they in some way a property of the creation of that matter (as stated in your second sentence). In other words, could the same matter have been created in such a way that it behaves differently? I’m an engineer, not a physicist, so I’m not sure of the answer, but I think it’s probably ‘no’.
I
inocente
Guest
You only have to look around to see that isn’t true. There are hundreds of Catholic bible literalists posting on CAF. They include some who state categorically that Catholics are required to take the story of Adam and Eve literally. Many people (Catholics or otherwise) have no education in reading the bible, they take a verse out of context and make it read whatever they want it to read, without any respect for the intentions of the author. It seems at times that hardly any Americans have ever attended a bible study class.
I’ve made it abundantly clear that I am not arguing with Catholicism, it is disingenuous of you to keep pretending I am. If you want to be a sectarian, go to Northern Ireland in the 1970s or the Middle East today and watch people bomb each other in the name of God. That’s where sectarianism gets you.
The vast majority of Catholics in the world have never even heard of Summa Theologica, let alone read it, let alone understood it. Unmoved movers, like intelligent designers, take no part in their faith and it is not your place to judge them or me as lesser Christians than a self-invented Thomist elite. We do not want your philosophical inventions, we preach Christ crucified. Not many of us were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” 1 Cor 1
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
No difference really.
We can and do continually check that the axioms of God work in our lives.
I know this because I once lived without those axioms, and I know how living without them works.
M
Muzhik
Guest
Really? I always subscribed to the theory that the planets were being pulled around in their orbits by hordes of tiny space mice, endlessly chasing after the Great Cheese Lump that was always just around the turn.
But that’s just me…
- Status