M
MrWhy
Guest
Don’t you have a problem because the cosmological proof is not about a specific god? What are you going to accomplish with proof for a generic god?
- Status
J
john_doran
Guest
well, at the very least that there ***is ***a god rather than none at all…
but you can take the proofs a little further and conclude that the god whose existence is demonstrated by the arguments must be personal - i.e. have intelligence and free will. you can also move onto uniqueness and all kinds of other attributes…
but, you’re right - the cosmological proof on its own doesn’t get you past “there is some kind of god”.
J
JimG
Guest
Jesus *as man * occupied time and space, had a human body and soul, and was born and died.
The Eternal Word, Second Person of the Trinity, assumed a human nature. Human nature by its essence is subject to the limitations of space and time. In his human nature, Jesus was subject to those limits. In his divine nature, he is not.
L
LDSBOB
Guest
Hi everyone. I hope an LDS perspective can chime in. I believe that matter has always existed (Scientific Community Agrees). God took existing matter to organize it into a Universe. I believe there is organized matter under the control of God and unorganized matter not under the control of God. When God needs more matter to organize a World or Planetary Systems then He takes un-orgainized matter and organizes it.
This is heavy duty stuff we are talking about.
I respectfully disagree with Catholic Theology that says that God pre-existed matter and created matter out of nothing. If God is Eternal, why can’t matter be eternal?
R. Hyatt
This is heavy duty stuff we are talking about.
I respectfully disagree with Catholic Theology that says that God pre-existed matter and created matter out of nothing. If God is Eternal, why can’t matter be eternal?
R. Hyatt
B
buffalo
Guest
Because it is created.
R
robins
Guest
believing that the earth is eternal is faith in something other than the truth that we have been handed by our Lord. there isn’t proof. the only knowledge we have is what we were given in the bible. the scientist can not measure that kind of stuff. i don’t care what anyone says. they weren’t around to know. as Fr. Groschel (spelling) says how do you know were you weren’t there.
it seems that just about every conversation comes back to all this. then ends up an arguement.
why is there always a need to put a wedge in between Catholics and their faith?
it seems that just about every conversation comes back to all this. then ends up an arguement.
why is there always a need to put a wedge in between Catholics and their faith?
D
DeFide
Guest
Read the Kalam Argument carefully and you’ll see why matter cannot be eternal:
peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#6
R
REOSpeedwagon
Guest
Ah no! - I don’t know where you got this from but Third Year WMAP data in conjuction with galaxy surveys (SDSS, 2dFGRS etc) - is entirely consistent with a flat infinitely spatial universe. Furthermore there are perfectly acceptable no-boundary-condition models even if we accept a Big Bang.
Much of what you say is logically meaningless, and no more than speculative hypothetical propositions stated as fact.
R
REOSpeedwagon
Guest
And these are more statements that are logically meaningless - the foundation of Aquinas’s proofs have been shown to be logically flawed for more than 150 years. Cleaving to them is intellectually equivalent to holding to a literal biblical creation.
‘Angels exist aeviternally (or eternally)’ is utterly menaingless as angels have not been shown to exist, not been shown to exist eternally, not been shown to be contingent and the word aeviternal (eternal) is improperly defined. Other than that the statement is full of meaning
R
REOSpeedwagon
Guest
Kreeft’s discussion contains logically meaningless terms and does not disallow an infinite universe in time or space. Kreeft relies on question begging and arm waving and his argument is only compelling to one predisposed to accept it.
R
REOSpeedwagon
Guest
john doran:
Ah no! The proofs for god contain more holes than Peter’s net. Compared to the proof for all triangles having 180 degrees in Euclidean geometry, ‘the proofs for god’ are poor broken things that are nowhere near being proofs at all. In the opinion of many philosphers, not only are they not proofs, they are not even meaningful statements.
In other words you can build a mountain of jello on a foundation of sand.
Actually it doesn’t come close to getting you that far.
R
REOSpeedwagon
Guest
So you say, but, given a little thought, you will accept that that is a circular argument and, therefore, worthless
R
REOSpeedwagon
Guest
Read the Kalam argument carefully, with a good philosophical guide, and you’ll see why it is an empty vessel, entirely unhelpful to faith.
M
Mike_O
Guest
And I know that you, the vaunted “REOSpeedwagon,” will naturally proceed to disabuse 21st century Catholics of their Thomistic holdings, what with you laying claim to so much more a prestigious intellectual talent than St. Thomas Aquinas. He’s only a Church doctor. How could this compete with REOSpeedwagon, who can find solace in the 6 useless meanderings he’s penned on a Catholic message forum hundreds of years after the fact!
Really, before you haphazardly spit out the gems you’ve culled from infidels.org, consider actually giving them a read. Statements such as “the foundation of Aquinas’s proofs have been shown to be logically flawed for more than 150 years,” in addition to begging the question in the WORST sort of way, are themselves instances of hysterical hypocrisy.
But I assume that everyone who’s read the smallest part of your acidic returns is naturally on the edge of his seat awaiting your reasoned, measured, even, and smooth dismantling of centuries-old, renowned philosophical thought. Please, begin. If nothing philosophically substantive emerges–and it won’t–, the general hilarity of watching you fumble through the attempt should be amusing. So far, the gist of your 6 posts can be summed up as “Theism is illogical/irrational/distasteful because I said so. So there!”
J
JimG
Guest
Only if you consider all philosophical metaphysics to be logically meaningless, from Aristotle to Aquinas, to Sheed, to Kreeft. The basic concept is that of spirit–something real which is not made of matter. I’m guessing you are a materialist; if so, you would not accept the existence of non-material being, not even your own soul, or your own mind. But if your mind is nothing more than matter, then this whole discussion is pretty much pre-determined by existing forces of matter and energy over which neither you or I have any control.
A
Angainor
Guest
The universe can be infinitely old. No problem.
Time as we know it is a created entity. As such, God could have created a universe whose “beginning” stretched into the infinite past.
If it helps to think of it this way…
Before God created the universe there was nothing. After God created the universe, it existed. All of it, for all time. If that means the existence of the universe stretches into the infinite past, so be it.
D
DeFide
Guest
The problem with this is that you’re completing an infinite (boundless) task which cannot be done.
Since we’ve reached today, an infinite number of days cannot have preceeded today, otherwise an infinite task would have been completed which cannot be done.
Someone might ask, “Can an infinite task be completed in infinite time?” The answer is “no”, since infinite time is never-ending, the task would never be completed.
(See the Peter Kreeft [Kalam] link in this thread)
Remember, time is merely the measure of that which changes. If there is no “that which changes” (matter, for example) there is no time.
A
Angainor
Guest
It is not an ifinite task. It is one task, the creation of the universe, which may just happen to be infinitly old.
D
DeFide
Guest
Spanning an infinite amount of time by temporal succession is an infinite task.
A
Angainor
Guest
Temporal succession is the key. Yes it would be an infinite task if God had to define each step in the sequence, but he does not have to. The universe generally (leave out man for the moment) behaves according to physical laws. It is not an infinite task to create something that is going to go off on its own.
If God creates a ray of light, that light will simply travel forever, farther and farther into the emptyness. The finite task of creating a ray of light that will endure forever is complete.
Just as “where the light is going” is determined by physical laws, so is “where the light has been”. It is a little more difficult for us to imagine, but it is also not an infinite task to create a ray of light that came from the infinite past. The temporal succession goes backwards as well as forwards.
God can create a light ray that comes from the infinite past and travels into the infinite future because he is not determining each step in the sequence. The steps in the sequence are determined by physical laws.
- Status