How does God move the world?

[Muzhik]

I would say that God moves not only the world but everything in the universe by the applications of scientific laws which are also part of God’s creation.

As far as proving the existence of God in answering how God moves the world, I believe is an exercise in futility since I believe that only God can “prove” that God Is.

Yes! It is this belief that “God created the laws of the Universe”, and that these laws are rational and consistent, that have been one of Christianity’s greatest contributions to science! Christian Cosmology means that Man can use his own curiosity and intellect to discover and use these laws.

In Islamic cosmology, everything is due to the direct action and will of Allah. When you drop an object, it is not falling because it is reacting to a force (gravity) that is acting on it in predictable ways. It is falling because Allah has willed that it should move in this way at this time. We don’t know WHY Allah is willing this at this time, and we cannot claim to know the will of Allah by stating that the next time you drop the ball it will move in the same way.

In this view, there can be no miracles. Miracles are when there has been a suspension or modification of the laws of nature that G_D created, i.e., the object falls sideways, thereby missing the baby crawling at your feet.

 

[ynotzap]

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.

When I say Catholic Christians, I do mean those that are faithful to and practice Church teachings. I also throughout many posts made it clear that we have nominal Catholics who haven’t really been converted for lack of Evangelization, and a lack of being Christio-centric, that secularism had crept into the church. The Pope has even emphasized the need for Evangelization. When the first Christians disagreed there were no Bibles to decide what was right or wrong. They held councils which made binding decrees (Act l5: 1-20) It wasn’t till the fourth century that the books of the Bible had to be determined. Sacred Tradition and Authority were necessary for the Bible to exist.

inocente:

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

When you dismiss the teachings of St.Thomas, and his (name removed by moderator)ut into the teachings of the Church, teachings which are intimately involved with her doctrines, you are arguing with Catholicism. I don’t pretend that you are, I know that you are, you may not be aware of it but I am. We do not idolize St.Thomas, but we do acknowledge his teachings as containing essential truths pertaining to doctrine. The church has even given him the title of “Angelic Doctor” for the great insight and understanding of our faith. He is one of the Great teachers of our Faith, a man who loved Christ and his faith. And we do venerate him for his God-given sanctity. I am well aware of sectarianism, and secularism, and materialism, and consumerism and empiricism,and heresy.

inocente:

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

The vast majority of Catholics don’t have to hear of the Summa Theologica or read it or understand it. But those in spiritual leadership are encouraged to do so. Because they will encounter those that do reject the faith for their own reasons and beliefs. St.Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians: Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us , either by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thess 2;l5, see also I Cor.ll:2…) I am not judging anyone, but relating to my own experience It is not my place to judge, but if my brother or sister strays from the truth and I am able to help them, then I am obliged to do what I can to help them. If I say I don’t know what I know about the truth, then I’m a liar. Does that make me a self-invented Thomist elite? Charitas!

 

[Tom_Baum]

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.

I disagree with you concerning “the axioms of mathematics” and other things that God has created.

I believe that God has given us, at least some of us, the ability to “prove” at least some of God’s creation but that we do not have the ability to “prove” that God Is.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Tom, I’m basically in agreement with what you said, but I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here:

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 am not an engineer nor a physicist but what I am saying or attempting to say, is that in my opinion, God created space and time and all of the physical laws that govern space and time.

It doesn’t matter to me if “the laws that govern the behaviour of physical matter ‘is’ a property of the matter itself” or any other way that one may look at it, I just believe that if God created, God created out of nothing, God didn’t rearrange.

In other words, I do not think that the “universe” was there and God added some touches to it, so to speak, but that God created it out of nothing.

And I am talking about a “nothing” that I believe is beyond our “conception”, no atoms, no subatomic matter, just plain old nothing.

As far as the “laws” governing matter being a property of the matter, sounds right to me, that is how the creation was created, at least that is how it seems to me.

I don’t have a clue just how God created everything but I do not believe that God created it as a “set piece”, so to speak, but as something that builds upon itself somehow.

And not just the “living” part of creation but the “non-living” part of creation itself, in other words, all of creation.

I would say that creation is an ongoing thing both living and non-living aspects of creation.

As far as your question, “could the same matter have been created in such a way that it behaves differently?”

If it was, we wouldn’t know it because the “laws” that might be “different” would be the “laws” that we would know, just as some know what some of the “laws” governing nature are now.

Language can be a strange thing, since the word “law” is quite different in meaning in “scientific laws” and “human made laws”.

I believe that we are in agreement also, concerning how scientific laws works, whether or not we are in agreement with where they came from is another question.

I believe that we have the ability to be able to figure out quite a bit about nature and by nature, I mean everything in the natural world and since I believe in God, I believe that God gave us that ability for numerous reasons.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I believe that God has given us, at least some of us, the ability to “prove” at least some of God’s creation but that we do not have the ability to “prove” that God Is.

As we do not have the ability to prove the truth of the axioms of mathematics.

That is what an axiom is, if by “proof” you mean cerebral truth.

God does not give us cerebral truth of the** certainty **of his existence, but he gives us so much cerebral proof of the **plausibility **of his existence that the head is powerless to contradict the heart.

Moreover, God’s existence by his very nature cannot be disproven, nor seem to be absurd, such as the existence of a square circle or a teapot circling the earth do seem absurd.

 

[inocente]

When you dismiss the teachings of St.Thomas, and his (name removed by moderator)ut into the teachings of the Church, teachings which are intimately involved with her doctrines, you are arguing with Catholicism. I don’t pretend that you are, I know that you are, you may not be aware of it but I am. We do not idolize St.Thomas, but we do acknowledge his teachings as containing essential truths pertaining to doctrine. The church has even given him the title of “Angelic Doctor” for the great insight and understanding of our faith. He is one of the Great teachers of our Faith, a man who loved Christ and his faith. And we do venerate him for his God-given sanctity. I am well aware of sectarianism, and secularism, and materialism, and consumerism and empiricism,and heresy.

There are hundred of saints, so it would be very difficult for anyone to know all of their works, let alone venerate all their works. Many Catholics wouldn’t even know who Thomas is, so there’s no way they could possibly venerate his works.

Various lay posters say that anyone who isn’t a fan of their pet notion is a heretic, but no, of course laity can’t do say that, and no, criticizing one work by one saint isn’t criticizing Catholicism, that’s illogical, no matter how much a fan you are for Thomas.

The vast majority of Catholics don’t have to hear of the Summa Theologica or read it or understand it. But those in spiritual leadership are encouraged to do so. Because they will encounter those that do reject the faith for their own reasons and beliefs. St.Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians: Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us , either by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thess 2;l5, see also I Cor.ll:2…) I am not judging anyone, but relating to my own experience It is not my place to judge, but if my brother or sister strays from the truth and I am able to help them, then I am obliged to do what I can to help them. If I say I don’t know what I know about the truth, then I’m a liar. Does that make me a self-invented Thomist elite? Charitas!

The CCC says “11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine” and “12 This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis”, yet it doesn’t say anything about those in spiritual leadership reading Summa Theologica.

You’re obviously a big fan for Thomas, but even so it’s a little strange to see you quote Paul as if he was talking about Thomas, who wasn’t even born for another 1,200 years.

We’ve gone way off subject here, by all means have the last word.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You’re obviously a big fan for Thomas, but even so it’s a little strange to see you quote Paul as if he was talking about Thomas, who wasn’t even born for another 1,200 years.

We’ve gone way off subject here, by all means have the last word.

You need some training in logic, so it’s easy to see why you hate Catholic philosophy and probably philosophy in general.

Is this the last word?

Anyway, I see you are still busy, as ever, trying to demonstrate some weird contradictions among Catholics.

As I’ve told you so many times before, this is a transparent and losing strategy.

 

[ynotzap]

There are hundred of saints, so it would be very difficult for anyone to know all of their works, let alone venerate all their works. Many Catholics wouldn’t even know who Thomas is, so there’s no way they could possibly venerate his works.

Various lay posters say that anyone who isn’t a fan of their pet notion is a heretic, but no, of course laity can’t do say that, and no, criticizing one work by one saint isn’t criticizing Catholicism, that’s illogical, no matter how much a fan you are for Thomas.

The CCC says “11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine” and “12 This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis”, yet it doesn’t say anything about those in spiritual leadership reading Summa Theologica.

You’re obviously a big fan for Thomas, but even so it’s a little strange to see you quote Paul as if he was talking about Thomas, who wasn’t even born for another 1,200 years.

We’ve gone way off subject here, by all means have the last word.

The teachings of St.Thomas give metaphysical reason and ways on how God moves the world. Humanism and the Lutheran Reformation threw discredit on Scholasticism, it had a rebirth through John Capreolus (died l444) who defended the thoughts of St.Thomas. After the Council of Trent Scholasticism, especially Thomistic doctrine, resumed it upward movement through great theologians most of them Spanish: Francisco de Victoria, Melchior Cano, Dominic Soto, and many more They were of the Franciscan Order.
But Lutheranism obliged the theologians to defend the correct interpretation of Holy Scripture and the doctrinal patrimony of the Fathers, hence the large development of exegesis and of the historical element of theology. the Jesuit theologians deserve the greatest credit Card.Bellarmine (l6l2), Salmeron and Maldonatus, and D.Petavius (l652). In the l8 century was another period of decadence, from which which Scholastic theology arose after the French REvollution This revival was characterized by a renovation of Scholasticism upon contact with modern philosophy and by a flourishing of positive theology in harmony with progress in historico-biblical studies. the restoration began in Germany with Kleutgen and Liebermann, and gained strengh in Italy with the Jesuits, John Perrone (l876) Dom.Palmieri, and Camillo Mazzilla.

Neo-Thomism and Neo Scholasticism have gained ground in all the Catholic universities
they call back to saner traditions philosophical thinking lost in the labyrinths of the conflicting trends of the nineteenth century

Theology born with patristics (early Fathers) has its first milestone in the work of St.Augustine; with Scholasticism it attains the highest peak of acute and serene speculation, in full harmony of reason with Faith (St.Thomas).

The spiritual leaders I referred to are those Fathers and Theologians, Bishops and Priests whose job it is to guide the Faithful. This also includes the qualified Laity.

I for the most part agree with your Christian beliefs, but I do see more that is there that you don’t see, or agree with. I try to agree where I can, and disagree where I must, and I love you as my sister in Christ, and someday there will be unity as Christ desires that we all be One in truth and love. Pace!

 

[inocente]

You need some training in logic, so it’s easy to see why you hate Catholic philosophy and probably philosophy in general.

Is this the last word?

Anyway, I see you are still busy, as ever, trying to demonstrate some weird contradictions among Catholics.

As I’ve told you so many times before, this is a transparent and losing strategy.

Reported.

 

[inocente]

The teachings of St.Thomas give metaphysical reason and ways on how God moves the world. Humanism and the Lutheran Reformation threw discredit on Scholasticism, it had a rebirth through John Capreolus (died l444) who defended the thoughts of St.Thomas. After the Council of Trent Scholasticism, especially Thomistic doctrine, resumed it upward movement through great theologians most of them Spanish: Francisco de Victoria, Melchior Cano, Dominic Soto, and many more They were of the Franciscan Order.
But Lutheranism obliged the theologians to defend the correct interpretation of Holy Scripture and the doctrinal patrimony of the Fathers, hence the large development of exegesis and of the historical element of theology. the Jesuit theologians deserve the greatest credit Card.Bellarmine (l6l2), Salmeron and Maldonatus, and D.Petavius (l652). In the l8 century was another period of decadence, from which which Scholastic theology arose after the French REvollution This revival was characterized by a renovation of Scholasticism upon contact with modern philosophy and by a flourishing of positive theology in harmony with progress in historico-biblical studies. the restoration began in Germany with Kleutgen and Liebermann, and gained strengh in Italy with the Jesuits, John Perrone (l876) Dom.Palmieri, and Camillo Mazzilla.

Neo-Thomism and Neo Scholasticism have gained ground in all the Catholic universities
they call back to saner traditions philosophical thinking lost in the labyrinths of the conflicting trends of the nineteenth century

Theology born with patristics (early Fathers) has its first milestone in the work of St.Augustine; with Scholasticism it attains the highest peak of acute and serene speculation, in full harmony of reason with Faith (St.Thomas).

The spiritual leaders I referred to are those Fathers and Theologians, Bishops and Priests whose job it is to guide the Faithful. This also includes the qualified Laity.

I for the most part agree with your Christian beliefs, but I do see more that is there that you don’t see, or agree with. I try to agree where I can, and disagree where I must, and I love you as my sister in Christ, and someday there will be unity as Christ desires that we all be One in truth and love. Pace!

And to you. We’ll probably never agree on this, but as you say, we also agree on much.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Thread Warning:

Discuss the topic, not each other.