Is it a mortal sin

[JRKH]

Is the belief currently held still that one immediately goes to hell (no excuses) if he dies in a state of mortal sin?

Short answer is that yes it is still a teaching that if one dies in a state of Mortal sin, then one goes to hell.

As for your “no excuses” reference, excuses, or more specifically reasons that might mitigate something being a mortal sin, may come into play. That is why we leave judgement up to God.

Peace
James

 

[Spock]

Well, I am baaaack. The trip was fine, and I conducted the experiment. To make the positive outcome as probable as I could, I chose the St. Peter’s Cathedral in the Vatican. I figured that there is no holier place on Earth for the intercession. It was not easy to find a quiet corner, due to the horde of turists. But fortunately I am very good at filtering out the outside noises.

The result is, obviously negative. There was no special “sign” of any nature. Maybe you will say that there was no sign as of yet. Maybe. But if I have to wait for an unspecified length of time, then this “challenge” by Dostoyevskyfan was not more helpful, then the other suggestions: “if you ask for it long enough, sincerely enough… then eventually you will get an answer”. Of course seeing the museum in the Vatican was a great experience on its own right, so the trip was not wasted at all . Though to see the results of the “Great Castration” made me very angry at those barbarians who performed just abysmal acts, in the name of “decency”.

Anyhow. I did not expect a positive outcome, though I was hoping for it. But if we look at such experiments with the eyes of an outsider, there is nothing surprising about it. After all the cause was rather frivolous, the fate of a heathen’s “soul” might not merit God’s attention. Especially since millions of Catholics pray the rosary for much more important reasons, and there is no visible sign of them succeeding.

One more remark. The clause “thy will be done” is pretty funny. Obviously God’s will will be done, whether we “agree” to this or not. So, at best it is a meaningless “filler”. But there is more sinsiter meaning to it. It is used as a “get out of jail free” card. If you pray for something and somehow there is “fulfillment” of the prayer, then you can boast about it, declaring it as a positive result. If, however, there is no result, then the failed experiment is swept under the rug, as if it did not happen. You say that it was not God’s will, and as such it is fine. It sure sounds as if you would say: “if it is heads, I win, if it is tails, you lose”. Very convenient.

To Windfish: Well, the question may sound weird at first glance. But it was my experience that the final “excuse” when the believer runs out of all arguments, is: “but it was never an infallible teaching of the church”. So I decided that from now on I will only accept only those answers which can be substantiated by an official, infallible declaration of the church. The rest I will discard as a personal opinion - possible shared by a plethora of other Christians. But the number of people who share an opinion is not relevant. If it cannot be shown to be an official, infallible teaching of the church, it is of no relevance. Of course, if the argument can be proven (adequately substantiated) by fully secular means, than your argument will be accepted, and no infallible teaching will be asked for.

 

[tonyrey]

The basis of mortal sin is our power of self-determination and the reality of evil. When a man (or woman) knows in his heart of hearts he is utterly selfish and couldn’t care a damn he damns himself! It is not a momentary decision but the result of a lust for power and an accumulation of many decisions. He passes judgment on himself by rejecting any higher authority, making himself incapable of co-existing in harmony with anyone else or even recognising God, i.e. the reality of Love. Hubris has made him spiritually blind and he is doomed to isolation in his own kingdom.

“Hallowed be my name, my will be done.
I don’t need your bread or forgiveness because You don’t exist!”

 

[Mark1124]

Anyhow. I did not expect a positive outcome, though I was hoping for it. But if we look at such experiments with the eyes of an outsider, there is nothing surprising about it. After all the cause was rather frivolous, the fate of a heathen’s “soul” might not merit God’s attention. Especially since millions of Catholics pray the rosary for much more important reasons, and there is no visible sign of them succeeding.

What “more important reasons” are you referring to? I think I can safely say that nothing, other than loving God, is more important than the salvation of souls.

One more remark. The clause “thy will be done” is pretty funny. Obviously God’s will will be done, whether we “agree” to this or not. So, at best it is a meaningless “filler”. But there is more sinsiter meaning to it. It is used as a “get out of jail free” card. If you pray for something and somehow there is “fulfillment” of the prayer, then you can boast about it, declaring it as a positive result. If, however, there is no result, then the failed experiment is swept under the rug, as if it did not happen. You say that it was not God’s will, and as such it is fine. It sure sounds as if you would say: “if it is heads, I win, if it is tails, you lose”. Very convenient.

It is not meaningless. When we say “thy will be done” it is not just a petition but also a commitment to submit ourselves to God’s will. St. Teresa of Avila (who is a Doctor of the Church) says this when describing this clause: “We are preparing ourselves for the time, which will come very soon, when we shall find ourselves at the end of our journey and shall be drinking of living water from the fountain I have described. Unless we make a total surrender of our will to the Lord, and put ourselves in His hands so that He may do in all things what is best for us in accordance with His will, He will never allow us to drink of it.”
Perhaps there are some people who treat unanswered prayers “as if it did not happen.” I am not one of them. For example, I count being rejected from Yale as one of the greatest blessings in my life, because if that prayer had been answered I would not have met the amazing people I met at college, and I don’t even know if I would still be Catholic. (On a somewhat unrelated note, since I didn’t actually pray about these, breaking my arm a few years ago was also one of the greatest blessings in my life, and so was Franciscan University of Steubenville’s lack of a major in geophysics.)

To Windfish: Well, the question may sound weird at first glance. But it was my experience that the final “excuse” when the believer runs out of all arguments, is: “but it was never an infallible teaching of the church”. So I decided that from now on I will only accept only those answers which can be substantiated by an official, infallible declaration of the church. The rest I will discard as a personal opinion - possible shared by a plethora of other Christians. But the number of people who share an opinion is not relevant. If it cannot be shown to be an official, infallible teaching of the church, it is of no relevance. Of course, if the argument can be proven (adequately substantiated) by fully secular means, than your argument will be accepted, and no infallible teaching will be asked for.

Not everything that is not infallibly declared is merely “personal opinion.” Here’s some more information about infallibility: beginningcatholic.com/infallibility.html

 

[Spock]

What “more important reasons” are you referring to? I think I can safely say that nothing, other than loving God, is more important than the salvation of souls.

Your opinion is yours. I think that saving people from unnecessary suffering would be a much more efficient way to lead people to God. Countless Catholics and other Christians pray every day to lessen the suffering, to bring rain to the draught-stricken areas, to get medication to the sick people, to stop wars, stop tortures… and stuff like that. There is no sign that God fulfills these prayers. The point is that I did as Dostoyevskyfan suggested. I prayed honestly. Prayed the rosary in the most hallowed place I was aware of, the St. Peter’s Cathedral. There was no positive sign. That is the case.

It is not meaningless. When we say “thy will be done” it is not just a petition but also a commitment to submit ourselves to God’s will. St. Teresa of Avila (who is a Doctor of the Church) says this when describing this clause: “We are preparing ourselves for the time, which will come very soon, when we shall find ourselves at the end of our journey and shall be drinking of living water from the fountain I have described. Unless we make a total surrender of our will to the Lord, and put ourselves in His hands so that He may do in all things what is best for us in accordance with His will, He will never allow us to drink of it.”

That is the superficial way to see it, based totally on blind faith. We have absolutely no information of what God’s will “might be”. Many people assert that God speaks via their mouth. Why should anyone take them seriously?

Perhaps there are some people who treat unanswered prayers “as if it did not happen.” I am not one of them. For example, I count being rejected from Yale as one of the greatest blessings in my life, because if that prayer had been answered I would not have met the amazing people I met at college, and I don’t even know if I would still be Catholic. (On a somewhat unrelated note, since I didn’t actually pray about these, breaking my arm a few years ago was also one of the greatest blessings in my life, and so was Franciscan University of Steubenville’s lack of a major in geophysics.)

Sorry, this is a typical example of “sour grapes” (or explaining it away). How could you possibly know that getting to Yale would have not given you a chance of meeting even more amazing people? The answer is: you cannot. It is an empty assertion. Fact is that you prayed for something, and God did not “deliver”. Millions and billions of people pray for worthy and not-so-worthy causes. How many are followed by a “positive” response? Is it one millionth of one percent? Maybe even less? If the very few “positive” results are displayed as evidence that prayer “works”, then why are not the billions of “negative” results are accepted as evidence that prayer does not “work”? The excuse that “it was not God’s will” is wearing very thin. How do you know what God’s will might be?

Not everything that is not infallibly declared is merely “personal opinion.” Here’s some more information about infallibility: beginningcatholic.com/infallibility.html

Collective opinion is just a bunch of personal opinions, which happens to coincide. Is the link you quoted an official, infallible statement of some Pope, declared ex-cathedra? Come to think of it, what are the precise, exact methods, which make a statement officially infallible? There should be a formula, like: “I, XXXX pope, declare infallibly, taking ex-cathedra, that…”. Now that would be the way to do it. No possible way to misinterpret it.

 

[Mark1124]

Your opinion is yours. I think that saving people from unnecessary suffering would be a much more efficient way to lead people to God. Countless Catholics and other Christians pray every day to lessen the suffering, to bring rain to the draught-stricken areas, to get medication to the sick people, to stop wars, stop tortures… and stuff like that. There is no sign that God fulfills these prayers. The point is that I did as Dostoyevskyfan suggested. I prayed honestly. Prayed the rosary in the most hallowed place I was aware of, the St. Peter’s Cathedral. There was no positive sign. That is the case.

You believe that it is more important to save people from suffering for a little while on earth than to save them from suffering forever? Keeping one soul out of hell prevents infinitely more suffering than ending all suffering on earth. And have you ever noticed that the people who suffer most are often the closest to God? They recognize that they need God, while many people who experience very little suffering feel that they are fine on their own. Clearly, the suffering on earth isn’t “unnecessary.”

That is the superficial way to see it, based totally on blind faith. We have absolutely no information of what God’s will “might be”. Many people assert that God speaks via their mouth. Why should anyone take them seriously?

Sorry, this is a typical example of “sour grapes” (or explaining it away). How could you possibly know that getting to Yale would have not given you a chance of meeting even more amazing people? The answer is: you cannot. It is an empty assertion. Fact is that you prayed for something, and God did not “deliver”. Millions and billions of people pray for worthy and not-so-worthy causes. How many are followed by a “positive” response? Is it one millionth of one percent? Maybe even less? If the very few “positive” results are displayed as evidence that prayer “works”, then why are not the billions of “negative” results are accepted as evidence that prayer does not “work”? The excuse that “it was not God’s will” is wearing very thin. How do you know what God’s will might be?

I don’t know God’s will in every detail, but I do know that God wills:
-“that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life” (John 6:40)
-“to unite all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth” (Ephesians 1:10)
-that we “[render] service with a good will as to the Lord and not to men” (Ephesians 6:7)
-that we “rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks” (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18)
-“that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2:15)
-“that not one of these little ones should perish” (Matthew 18:14)
-“that [we] should be sanctified: that [we] should avoid sexual immorality; that each of [us] should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him” (1 Thessalonians 4:3-6)

And I know that I am better off where I am then I would have been at Yale because, as you pointed out, God’s will will be done, and since “the will of God is that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:2), it follows that it is good, acceptable, and perfect for me to be where I am.

Collective opinion is just a bunch of personal opinions, which happens to coincide. Is the link you quoted an official, infallible statement of some Pope, declared ex-cathedra? Come to think of it, what are the precise, exact methods, which make a statement officially infallible? There should be a formula, like: “I, XXXX pope, declare infallibly, taking ex-cathedra, that…”. Now that would be the way to do it. No possible way to misinterpret it.

You’re starting to sound like a Protestant (or I suppose Eastern Orthodox would be more accurate). Catholics follow official Church teachings, whether or not they believe them to be infallibly declared, and whether or not they in fact have been infallibly declared.

 

[Spock]

You believe that it is more important to save people from suffering for a little while on earth than to save them from suffering forever?

Since we only know about this existence (the alleged continuation is just a hypothesis) it makes much more sense to work on the known, and existing problem (suffering here) then on the possible and unproven continuation. But, that being said, you present a nonexisting dilemma. Why would it be impossible to work on both problems?

And have you ever noticed that the people who suffer most are often the closest to God?

No, I did not, and no one else ever did. Do you have evidence for what you say? People suffer equally, whether they are Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists or atheists. There is no “advantage” or “disadvantage” to being a catholic. God seems to be an equal opportunity dispenser of good and bad, of love and hate, of happiness and misery, of health and sickness. As Isiah 45:7 says: “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.”

I don’t know God’s will in every detail, but I do know that God wills:
-“that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life” (John 6:40)
-“to unite all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth” (Ephesians 1:10)
-that we “[render] service with a good will as to the Lord and not to men” (Ephesians 6:7)
-that we “rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks” (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18)
-“that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2:15)
-“that not one of these little ones should perish” (Matthew 18:14)
-“that [we] should be sanctified: that [we] should avoid sexual immorality; that each of [us] should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him” (1 Thessalonians 4:3-6)

Actually, you know quite well, what some people thought God’s will might be. There is no reason to believe that those “rules” actually come from God.

And I know that I am better off where I am then I would have been at Yale because, as you pointed out, God’s will will be done, and since “the will of God is that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:2), it follows that it is good, acceptable, and perfect for me to be where I am.

Again, just a cop out. You can justify anything and everything with this “method”. God did not intervene when a toddler was burned close to death, therefore it was God’s will that he should be burned, and as such it was in the best interest of this toddler.

You’re starting to sound like a Protestant (or I suppose Eastern Orthodox would be more accurate). Catholics follow official Church teachings, whether or not they believe them to be infallibly declared, and whether or not they in fact have been infallibly declared.

I am just an athiest, who is frustrated by seeing all the cop-outs, coming from the lack of officially endorsed teachings. Sorry to say but your previous text (right above) is an example of it. So many times I have seen the final “rebuttal”: “…but it was never the official, infallible teaching of the church!”. Let me tell you, there is no official, infallible list of what even the dogmas are. There are few internet sites, but none on them has been officially endorsed by the Church. How can you hope to conduct a meaningful conversation with someone, if there is no official platform where the conversation might start?

 

[Mark1124]

No, I did not, and no one else ever did. Do you have evidence for what you say? People suffer equally, whether they are Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists or atheists. There is no “advantage” or “disadvantage” to being a catholic. God seems to be an equal opportunity dispenser of good and bad, of love and hate, of happiness and misery, of health and sickness. As Isiah 45:7 says: “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.”

I never said that Catholics suffer more or less than anyone else. I said that suffering brings people closer to God. I’m sure there are many non-Christians who are much closer to God than many Catholics-after all, Jesus said “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21). And I do have evidence: the testimony of someone very familiar with suffering, Mother Teresa. thecypresstimes.com/article/Christian_News/Christian_Opinion/THE_DAY_MOTHER_TERESA_TOLD_ME_YOUR_POVERTY_IS_GREATER_THAN_OURS/31411

Again, just a cop out. You can justify anything and everything with this “method”. God did not intervene when a toddler was burned close to death, therefore it was God’s will that he should be burned, and as such it was in the best interest of this toddler.

That’s the point: no matter what happens to you, you should praise God for it, because no matter how it may appear to you, it is for the best. And how could you possibly know that it is not in the best interest of that toddler?

As to the rest of your comments, I don’t understand why you are debating in a Catholic forum if you reject Catholic teachings (include some of the infallible ones, such as the existence of heaven and hell) when discussing God. The ironic part is that you’re violating your own principle:

Always argue on the playing field of you opposition.

 

[Spock]

That’s the point: no matter what happens to you, you should praise God for it, because no matter how it may appear to you, it is for the best.

Sorry, that is just another empty assertion. What you say here is that this is the best of the possible worlds, that any deviation from this world would be worse. That God constantly interferes, and “tinkers” with this existence. It is impossible, because the “best possible world” cannot be dynamic and this existence is not static, it is dynamic. Besides, even the actions of the Catholic Church contradict what you say. The Church maintains hospitals around the world (a very noble and praiseworthy endeavor) with the aim of preventing and lessening the suffering.

And how could you possibly know that it is not in the best interest of that toddler?

The duck principle. I hope you are familiar with it. But I am willing to listen to your arguments. Tell me why would it be in the best interest of that toddler to be burned? While you at it, tell me why is it in the best interest of billions of animals to perish in natural disasters. If this is the “best possible world”, then you must have some argument for your side. Just to repeat that God made it happen, or allowed it to happen is not an argument.

As to the rest of your comments, I don’t understand why you are debating in a Catholic forum if you reject Catholic teachings (include some of the infallible ones, such as the existence of heaven and hell) when discussing God. The ironic part is that you’re violating your own principle:

Actually, I don’t violate it, I want your ground to be substantiated. Zillions of Catholics have zillions of different interpretations and all of them assert that theirs is the “real one”. There is no “Catholic ground” where I could argue. Moreover, Catholics do not renounce rationality (at least not in words). Therefore when I argue on fully rational, secular grounds (which exist) that is also accepted (or should be accepted) by Catholics as well.

By the way, I asked a question in my previous post: “Why would it be impossible to work on both problems?”. What is your view on it?

 

[Mark1124]

Sorry, that is just another empty assertion. What you say here is that this is the best of the possible worlds, that any deviation from this world would be worse. That God constantly interferes, and “tinkers” with this existence. It is impossible, because the “best possible world” cannot be dynamic and this existence is not static, it is dynamic. Besides, even the actions of the Catholic Church contradict what you say. The Church maintains hospitals around the world (a very noble and praiseworthy endeavor) with the aim of preventing and lessening the suffering.

The duck principle. I hope you are familiar with it. But I am willing to listen to your arguments. Tell me why would it be in the best interest of that toddler to be burned? While you at it, tell me why is it in the best interest of billions of animals to perish in natural disasters. If this is the “best possible world”, then you must have some argument for your side. Just to repeat that God made it happen, or allowed it to happen is not an argument.

Actually, I don’t violate it, I want your ground to be substantiated. Zillions of Catholics have zillions of different interpretations and all of them assert that theirs is the “real one”. There is no “Catholic ground” where I could argue. Moreover, Catholics do not renounce rationality (at least not in words). Therefore when I argue on fully rational, secular grounds (which exist) that is also accepted (or should be accepted) by Catholics as well.

By the way, I asked a question in my previous post: “Why would it be impossible to work on both problems?”. What is your view on it?

All I can say is read the Catechism. Once you know what you’re talking about we can have a meaningful conversation. Until then,

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end, Amen.

Immaculate Heart of Mary pray for us now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Eternal Father, I offer you the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world.

For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

O Blood and Water, which gushed forth from the Heart of Jesus as a fount of mercy for us, I trust in you!

 

[Spock]

All I can say is read the Catechism.

I did. Not all of it, of course. (I have it under my favorites, along with two links to the links of dogmas".) At this URL: Catecism. Obviously the first question is: “is this website or its content endorsed officially by the Vatican?”. Because if it is not, then I just wasted my time on reading something that can be disputed.

But, even if it would be officially endorsed, I found it seriously lacking. It said in III.36: “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason. (Vatican Council II, GS 19 § 1.)” When I first saw it, I became quite excited. I was hoping to see the official explanation of “how” can one know God’s existence by reason alone (without referring to faith). The disappointment came swiftly. It was a bare assertion, without any details. The first logical problem comes, of course: “from the created world”. It presupposes that the world was “created”. That is what should be proven, not assumed. A very serious logical fallacy, indeed!

In II.32 it mentiones: “The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.” - which is also just a bunch of unproven bare assertions. These sound like the five ways of Aquinas, which have been refuted ages ago. I was hoping for something more substantial than that.

So, no, my friend. Until I see something official, which cannot be later denied, I am remaining interested, but not hopeful. This last experiment suggested by Dostoyevskyfan was interesting, but, as I said, God remined quiet. There was no indication, even though I performed the “required actions”.

Once you know what you’re talking about we can have a meaningful conversation.

I think, you are under the assumption, that once one reads the catecism, one will automatically accept it. But that is not the case. As I said before, I am open to arguments, but the arguments must start on “my” playing field, and follow from that in a logical fashion.

 

[Mark1124]

Something just occurred to me: If you don’t mind me asking, when you prayed the rosary, were you merely reciting the vocal prayers, or were you also trying to meditate on the mysteries? And if you were trying to meditate, did you use anything (pictures, scripture verses, etc) to help you meditate?

 

[Spock]

Something just occurred to me: If you don’t mind me asking, when you prayed the rosary, were you merely reciting the vocal prayers, or were you also trying to meditate on the mysteries? And if you were trying to meditate, did you use anything (pictures, scripture verses, etc) to help you meditate?

I tried to get into a proper mindset - being serious and honest about it. Unfortunately I see no mysteries, only a bunch of contradictions.

 

[Shike]

In II.32 it mentiones: “The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.” - which is also just a bunch of unproven bare assertions. These sound like the five ways of Aquinas, which have been refuted ages ago. I was hoping for something more substantial than that.

Don’t mind me, I’m just a lurker. Enjoyed the conversation; I see good points on both sides and errors on both sides, not equally however.

As far as I know, the five ways of Aquinas have not been refuted ages ago, nor today. What have been refuted are unimpressive caricatures or misunderstandings of said ways. I would guess that most people, in this age of the internet, just fire up their browser and read Aquinas’ five ways straight up without any background knowledge. It seems to me that in such a scenario a person would have to be a genius to properly understand what he was reading about. No, really. Add to that 800 years or so of the evolution of philosophical terminology and one is particularly primed for misunderstanding. Even so-touted-philosophical-elites are badly informed about said ways. Tenured professors who should know better. Meh, I should be more patient; we are just starting to come out of the historical dark ages with regards to the dark ages.

A good intro is* Aquinas: A beginner’s guide* by Edward Feser. Check out more of his books if you desire to unravel a particularly important and interesting philosophical thread.

By the way, the Catechism didn’t intend to philosophically prove that God’s existence can be proved by natural reason. So it’s not fair to criticize it as failing the standards of logical argumentation. Also, in response to a comment ages ago, the proposition that theism is true doesn’t by itself logically entail Catholicism. Hopefully sound philosophy and education can turn a relatively nascent trend around.

Earlier in this discussion mention was also made of the Euthyphro Dilemma. A bit of an understanding in Aristotelianism and Thomism work wonders at making such a claim trivial. I am always somewhat shocked that so eminent a logician as Betrand Russell didn’t do his history homework. But such is not the trend in that school of philosophy, right?

I could comment on much more with regards to these exchanges in this thread… but… I don’t have time. Hopefully I will check back sometime soon.

ciao,
Michael

 

[Spock]

As far as I know, the five ways of Aquinas have not been refuted ages ago, nor today.

The concepts those proofs were built upon are way obsolete nowadays. We know today that there is no such thing as absolute space and time. I am constantly amazed that those philosophers are regarded as founts of wisdom.

By the way, the Catechism didn’t intend to philosophically prove that God’s existence can be proved by natural reason.

Why not? It is supposed to be the definitive summary of Catholic teachings. To make a statement, and leave it unsubstantiated is “sloppy” at best. Besides, I cannot see anything more important than to prove God’s existence without referring to faith. If such a proof would be available, there would be no ground for atheism. Imagine someone doubting the Pythagoras theorem after having been exposed to the rigorous proof of it? The self-proclaimed purpose of the Catholic Church is to spread the “good news”. The best way is to place the whole house of the teachings unto a fully rational grounds. From that moment on it would be a piece of cake.

Earlier in this discussion mention was also made of the Euthyphro Dilemma. A bit of an understanding in Aristotelianism and Thomism work wonders at making such a claim trivial.

Again, the reference of those old thinkers. In their times they were advanced, but today? Just an example: back then there was no biology to speak of. People proposed an “animating” principle and called it a “soul”. Of course this animating principle was rendered irrelevant since then. But people still cling to the concept as if it had any meaning. It does not.

Philosophy, (especially metaphysics) in general is empty speculation. It had a place under the sun in those old times, when there was no science to speak of. Today it should be thrown unto the junkpile of history.

 

[Mark1124]

I tried to get into a proper mindset - being serious and honest about it. Unfortunately I see no mysteries, only a bunch of contradictions.

Could you please elaborate a bit?

 

[Spock]

Could you please elaborate a bit?

Sorry, which part? What kind of mysteries did you have in mind?

 

[Shike]

Why not? It is supposed to be the definitive summary of Catholic teachings. To make a statement, and leave it unsubstantiated is “sloppy” at best.

Yes, a summary. You answer your own question. There are many other reasons why such a proof would not be offered in the Catechism as well. My guess is that this is not a fruitful question to pursue, so I will stop here.

The concepts those proofs were built upon are way obsolete nowadays. We know today that there is no such thing as absolute space and time. I am constantly amazed that those philosophers are regarded as founts of wisdom.

The concepts those proofs were built upon are not inextricably attached to the nature of space and time (that is one reason why the arguments are so interesting). The proofs in question are not scientific nor philosophical hypotheses, but strict philosophical demonstrations. That you would say this tells me that you don’t understand the nature of the proofs and, therefore, the proofs themselves.

Again, the reference of those old thinkers. In their times they were advanced, but today? Just an example: back then there was no biology to speak of. People proposed an “animating” principle and called it a “soul”. Of course this animating principle was rendered irrelevant since then. But people still cling to the concept as if it had any meaning. It does not.

Philosophy, (especially metaphysics) in general is empty speculation. It had a place under the sun in those old times, when there was no science to speak of. Today it should be thrown unto the junkpile of history.

I do understand how science could displace your faulty understanding of the nature of philosophy and metaphysics. What I don’t understand is how science can displace the role of philosophy and metaphysics.

Do you even realize that this quote here…

Philosophy, (especially metaphysics) in general is empty speculation. It had a place under the sun in those old times, when there was no science to speak of. Today it should be thrown unto the junkpile of history.

…is a peace of reasoning that contains many presuppositions about the nature of the world, many of which are metaphysical presuppositions?!! Metaphysics is more certain that either death or taxes; you can’t escape it.

I have seen this type of attitude before with regards to philosophy and science; it is equivalent to a magician trying to pull himself out of a hat.

I will include this because there is a good probability that it will be of some benefit (I admit I am making a further assumption): “The claim that science is the sole criterion for truth cannot itself be reached by the scientific method.”

Ciao,
Michael

 

[Mark1124]

Sorry, which part? What kind of mysteries did you have in mind?

There are 20 mysteries of the rosary, divided into sets of 5:
Joyful: rosary-center.org/joyful.htm
Luminous: rosary-center.org/luminous.htm
Sorrowful: rosary-center.org/sorrow.htm
Glorious: rosary-center.org/glorious.htm

You are supposed to meditate on one of these mysteries for each decade of the rosary-the links I listed make it even easier by giving you something to meditate on for each Hail Mary. These mysteries are the most important part of the rosary, not the vocal prayers- the mysteries are its “soul” while the vocal prayers are its “body.” I’m sorry if we didn’t make this clear before your experiment. If you didn’t meditate on the mysteries, then the experiment was invalid and should be repeated, with the meditations. I’d recommend finding a group of Catholics to recite it with, if possible, when you repeat the experiment, since that will give you even more grace and will probably help you to meditate, since I’m assuming you haven’t memorized the prayers yet. I’d also recommend the sorrowful mysteries if you’re only saying one rosary, but that’s a personal recommendation you are free to ignore.

 

[Spock]

There are 20 mysteries of the rosary, divided into sets of 5:
Joyful: rosary-center.org/joyful.htm
Luminous: rosary-center.org/luminous.htm
Sorrowful: rosary-center.org/sorrow.htm
Glorious: rosary-center.org/glorious.htm

You are supposed to meditate on one of these mysteries for each decade of the rosary-the links I listed make it even easier by giving you something to meditate on for each Hail Mary. These mysteries are the most important part of the rosary, not the vocal prayers- the mysteries are its “soul” while the vocal prayers are its “body.” I’m sorry if we didn’t make this clear before your experiment. If you didn’t meditate on the mysteries, then the experiment was invalid and should be repeated, with the meditations. I’d recommend finding a group of Catholics to recite it with, if possible, when you repeat the experiment, since that will give you even more grace and will probably help you to meditate, since I’m assuming you haven’t memorized the prayers yet. I’d also recommend the sorrowful mysteries if you’re only saying one rosary, but that’s a personal recommendation you are free to ignore.

This is good stuff, but new to me. Will have to read your links. I only went according to the guidelines what Dostoyevskyfan suggested. Maybe I will repeat the process using your guidelines, as well. Could you tell me in detail what am I to do contemplating those questions?

One short remark. These “special” circumstances are interesting, but I am certain that none of them is “necessary”. If God does not accept an honest, but solitary prayer, then he is one strange being. I thought that honesty is the only important guideline, and the frills are just “icing on the cake”.