I am baffled, please explain

[PRmerger]

Awareness from subject matter can only justify what we believe as truth.

Sure.

 

[Aloysium]

Truth is truth whether we believe it or not.

 

[PRmerger]

Here’s a longer answer:

I’m reasonably mathematically minded. I could prove Pythagoras’s Theorem in a few lines if required. But anything beyond that is beyond me. I haven’t spent a lifetime studying maths, physics and cosmology.

Interesting that you mention this. Just yesterday I watched a video of my favorite atheist convert, Leah Libresco.

She is a math geek, and it was, oddly enough, her understanding of the transcendency of mathematics, which led her to understand the similar transcendency of morality, which, logically MUST lead to the belief in God.

(Transcendency: knowledge that is independent of us. That is, we* discover* mathematical truths. We don’t invent them. These truths would exist whether we knew them or not. Similar to morality).

 

[Peter_Plato]

Facts are premises in logic.

Propositions are premises in logic. Whether all propositions are “facts” depends a great deal on what you mean by facts.

If you mean “verifiable in the observable universe,” then I would suggest not all propositions are facts in that sense.

“Rape is morally wrong,” is not verifiable in the observable universe, but it still is a proposition and could function as a premise in a logical argument.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Facts are premises in logic.

How do facts provide the basis for logic?

They do.

This is just sloppy thinking on your part. Facts do not provide the “basis” for logic, what they provide is some of the content which logic helps us to parse and understand.

Logic is grounded in the basic structure of the intellect and how anything can be understood or made intelligible.

Facts are grist for the mill of logic. Facts are not the mill itself. Logic turns facts into useable knowledge by “getting at” their meaning and significance - the kernels that the intellect can do something with.

 

[Bradski]

…my favorite atheist convert…

Mine’s the Pope.

 

[PRmerger]

Mine’s the Pope.

Him, too.

#Iloveconversionstories

 

[Peter_Plato]

Him, too.

#Iloveconversionstories

The Pope was once an atheist?

I don’t take that to mean what Bradski might insist is true, i.e., that everyone is born an atheist. If that were true, then we’d have to allow that rocks, trees and slugs are atheists, as well, since none of these have a belief in God, either.

 

[PRmerger]

The Pope was once an atheist?

I don’t take that to mean what Bradski might insist is true, i.e., that everyone is born an atheist. If that were true, then we’d have to allow that rocks, trees and slugs are atheists, as well, since none of these have a belief in God, either.

That’s how I took it.

We’re all born atheist. And then we choose to believe, or choose not to believe.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

The Pope was once an atheist?

I don’t take that to mean what Bradski might insist is true, i.e., that everyone is born an atheist. If that were true, then we’d have to allow that rocks, trees and slugs are atheists, as well, since none of these have a belief in God, either.

I don’t believe Brad’s contention that we’re all born atheist, if, indeed, that was his contention. Even people who have never heard of God (and those are very few today) have some moral compass. People seem to know intuitively, that killing another is wrong, that harming innocent others is wrong, etc. From where does this moral compass come?

And, I think most people would agree that either the atheistic view of the world is right, or the view that God exists is right. If the atheistic view is right, again, from where does this innate moral compass spring? Even small children, below the age of reason, to a lesser extent, know that killing an innocent person is wrong. They seem to know, intuitively, that mistreating a playmate is wrong. This holds true for children who have not received any parental guidance as well. If the atheistic view is correct, an innate moral compass makes no sense at all. Everyone would be free to do as he or she wished since there is no guiding principal, or Principle.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

We’re all born atheist.

Correct. We are all born without any beliefs at all, because to believe something requires a thought process, and newborns do not have the necessary complexity to believe or not to believe ---- anything.

And then we choose to believe, or choose not to believe.

Not so fast. We all start to “believe” what we are told is “true”. It is a fully passive way to acquire a belief system without any “choice” at all. The proper word is “brainwashing”, but unfortunately this word has a very negative connotation. For quite a long time children have absolutely no critical skills, they believe what they are told.

This is why there is an almost 100% correlation between the beliefs of the parents and the beliefs of the children. Only later start the children question what they were told, especially in the teen-age years, when they rebel against the authority of the parents. But the more deeply ingrained the belief system is the more difficult it is to question it. Especially, when the children are told that questioning is a “sin”.

Is this a process of a volitional “choice”? Not really. People choose to question, but the end result is not volitional. You cannot “choose” to believe what you instinctively find ludicrous and unbelievable. To prove it to yourself, start to “choose” that Santa Claus is real. No matter how hard you try, you cannot believe that there is the big guy at the North Pole.

Not that all this has anything to do with the topic of the thread.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

The Pope was once an atheist?

I don’t take that to mean what Bradski might insist is true, i.e., that everyone is born an atheist. If that were true, then we’d have to allow that rocks, trees and slugs are atheists, as well, since none of these have a belief in God, either.

I believe that rocks, trees, slugs, etc. are born believers, Peter. They all grow into what God intended them to be. They have no free will to do otherwise. Humans, however, do not always grow into what God intended them to be, but most of them begin life that way, so I would say most begin life as believers even if they are not aware of that fact.

 

[Aloysium]

Matthew 18:3
And He said, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

 

[PRmerger]

Correct. We are all born without any beliefs at all, because to believe something requires a thought process, and newborns do not have the necessary complexity to believe or not to believe ---- anything.

Yep.

Not so fast. We all start to “believe” what we are told is “true”. It is a fully passive way to acquire a belief system without any “choice” at all. The proper word is “brainwashing”, but unfortunately this word has a very negative connotation. For quite a long time children have absolutely no critical skills, they believe what they are told.

This is why there is an almost 100% correlation between the beliefs of the parents and the beliefs of the children. Only later start the children question what they were told, especially in the teen-age years, when they rebel against the authority of the parents. But the more deeply ingrained the belief system is the more difficult it is to question it.

Ok.

But that indicts everything. Not just religion.

Are you sure you want to do that?

Especially, when the children are told that questioning is a “sin”.

Annnnddd it’s a good thing that Catholicism obligates us to question.

Is this a process of a volitional “choice”? Not really. People choose to question, but the end result is not volitional. You cannot “choose” to believe what you instinctively find ludicrous and unbelievable. To prove it to yourself, start to “choose” that Santa Claus is real. No matter how hard you try, you cannot believe that there is the big guy at the North Pole.

That would, again, make practically everything just brainwashing.

Including everything you believe.

Are you sure you want to do that?

You really want to stick with this story?

You just are brainwashed into your atheism?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Matthew 18:3
And He said, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

I really don’t know what that means. Does he want us to be like children who cannot think for themselves? I never could reconcile that verse with the rest of the bible.

 

[Aloysium]

Because it is simply a saying no to what one thinks or thought others believe, atheism is a failed attempt to emerge from brainwashing. Rather than awakening, the person merely shifts into another dream.

Most positive things one can say about reality can be discussed: the source and nature of suffering, it’s cure, for example.

I’m pretty sure I could spend endless hours speaking with the Dalai Lama; Richard Dawkins, I wouldn’t exchange anything more than introductory pleasantries.

 

[Aloysium]

I really don’t know what that means. Does he want us to be like children who cannot think for themselves? I never could reconcile that verse with the rest of the bible.

You may be too cerebral.
I think we may have touched on this before.
God is love.
To exist is a manifestation of His love; to know, His compassion.
Kids come into the world with an open heart.
Observe how everyone instantly begins smiling and cooing the moment a baby enters the room.
In fact, when this does not happen there is much brokenness that results in the human psyche.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s irrelevant. If I said I knew what it was, then I might be in error. But I have no idea what the Best Path means. I have no idea what the Best Path entails. I have no idea where the Best Path leads. All I know is that, by its very definition, the Path is the Best one. That is, obviously, there are possible paths that are not the best one. That is, obviously, and as Lily explicitly says: He chooses the best path for us.

If God has (or is or will or whatever bloody tense you want to use) chosen a particular path as being the best, then, obviously, He knows the outcome. If you want to cry ‘Free will!’ then go for it. It makes no difference. God knows the outcome whether you have free will or not. And whatever that path is, it will entail scenarios that will occur as a result of that path being chosen (for you, by God).

But nobody wants to admit that whatever scenarios those are, God bears responsibility for them. Yet they occur on a path that He has chosen.

Ok…

Let’s try this, friend.

I know today, July 4, that you wrote the above post. I know it now. Even though you wrote it on June 30.

Did I cause you to write it?

Am I responsible for you writing it?

No?

Even if I know that you wrote it now?

The answer is still no?

Now…

Try to take yourself out of a linear model of thinking.

Think about the Eternal Now.

There is One Being that has this position of the EN. (Ok, there’s 3 Persons but that’s scope for another thread)

So in the EN, God bears no more responsibility for Hitler’s choice in 1939 than I do for your choice on June 30.

Try not to think linearly.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

You may be too cerebral.
I think we may have touched on this before.
God is love.
To exist is a manifestation of His love; to know, His compassion.
Kids come into the world with an open heart.
Observe how everyone instantly begins smiling and cooing the moment a baby enters the room.
In fact, when this does not happen there is much brokenness that results in the human psyche.

Thank you.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, indeed. The usual level of informational content one can expect around here… chirping of the crickets.

Crickets? We’ve currently got 48 pages of discussion – that’s crickets?!?

Why am I not surprised?

Maybe because you think we’re at your beck and call, and don’t have real lives that take us away from the keyboard?

But I looked into the Catholic Encyclopedia

People around here seem to love the online Catholic Encyclopedia. Here are my normal caveats about using that resource: First, it’s the 1917 edition; if you want to catch up to 21st century theology, you’d do better to look up a copy of the New Catholic Encyclopedia (published in this century ). Second, it’s not an official exposition of Catholic doctrine. So, while the articles have merit, and are useful as a reference, they’re not what you’ve been asking for – and ‘official exposition of the doctrine of the Catholic Church.’ Now, with that in mind…

He knows them individually or singularly in their finite multiplicity, knows everything possible as well as actual

Also:
God knows creatures and their acts, whether there is question of what is actual or merely possible both of which clearly indicate the knowledge of counterfactuals… in other word, the molinist “middle knowledge”.

PA, I know you’re already rankling when you hear this, but I’ve got to go there again: you’re misinterpreting what you’ve read.

In this context, ‘actual’ speaks to things that (already) exist or will come to exist. In this context, ‘possible’ speaks not to counterfactuals, but those things which might have come to pass or might come to pass in the ‘future’ … given those conditions which existed or exist or will exist in the future. It’s a subtle distinction, but a critical one, in order to understand what the Molinists are asserting.

In the article, you’ve already read the following: “[the Jesuit] school therefore maintains that to the actual as such and the purely possible we must add another category of objects: hypothetical facts that may never become actual, but would become actual were certain conditions realized.” (Emphasis mine.) See the distinction here? The ‘possible’ isn’t the Molinist “[that which] may never become actual,” as you assert. The ‘possible’, therefore, refer to truths which God ‘already’ knows, based on what is ‘real’.

Now, your question on omniscience is really predicated on your assertion to us that ‘middle knolwedge’ is true; so, let’s put that assertion to rest right now. This is the heart of my post; if there’s one thing you read here, please direct your attention to this: Since you’re asserting not only that Molinism is official Catholic teaching, but also that the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia states that it is, I’ll direct your attention to another quote from the article you cite: “The Jesuit school, on the other hand — with whom probably a majority of independent theologians agree — using the scientia media…”. The meat of the Molinist controversy, as we have discussed it here, is the proposed ‘middle knowledge’ of God – the scientia media. Please note what the article is saying here: not only is the question disputed (with Dominicans saying “no way” and the Jesuits saying “you betcha”!), but also, the author admits that this is a question still under consideration by theologians – and even they don’t agree on the matter! In other words: Molinism is not Catholic doctrine; rather, it’s a philosophical/theological question that’s still being debated.

Thanks for helping prove that your assertion – that the Catholic Church officially teaches Molinism – is untrue. You’ve been a real trooper in demonstrating the falsity in your own argument.

Is the Catholic Encyclopedia “official enough”?

As I already mentioned, no it isn’t.

By calling it to be a “mystery” the Church admits that it does not know what it is talking about when attempting to reconcile the divine foreknowledge and human free will. Another instance when I fail to be surprised.

LOL! That’s one way to take it. Of course, if that’s our hermeneutic, then we Christians should say “well, atheists admit that they do not know what they’re talking about when discussing the origins of the universe. Another instance when I fail to be surprised.” But… that would be unfair, uncharitable, and counterproductive. :sad_yes:

So on one hand, God’s foreknowledge does NOT depend on what we do, and our actions are NOT dependent on his foreknowledge

That’s the definition of ‘free will’… right…

… what we have here is a colossal, truly astronomical, incredible coincidence… it just so happens that God’s knowledge and our actions are independent, yet they happen (magically, I suppose) coincide

No: ‘coincidence’ isn’t what’s being argued here. ‘Lack of determinism’ is what’s being argued.

Well, I think I learned enough for one day.

One hopes. Otherwise, this thread will have been a colossal waste of time.