L
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
He does it by his Will. See Summa Theologicae, Part 1 on Creation and the Nature of God and Knowledge in God.I am the OP.
I started this thread for a personal and interesting quest.
In the writings of many religions, God is immutable.
He does cause changes and does “act.” But how?
I was trying to come up with analogy of a being (gravity) that acts but does not change. The beings around it change, but gravity (in a sense) does not change–it remains "perfect and does not gain or loose anything. It was a philosophical idea about religion.
Also, this is what Revelation tells us and what the Catholic Church teaches.
Have you forgotten Edward Feser so soon?
Linus2nd
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Linus
I could not live without believing in God.
We inherit eternal life by love. Love rules faith and all other things in our faith.
St. Thomas demonstrates the existence of a superior being; we call Him God.
The Creed says: “I believe in God.”
St. Augustine says: “I believe in order to understand, and not understand in order to believe.”
St. Thomas says: “We believe because He revealed Himself. We do not believe because of our silly little arguments.”
Concerning gravity, it was St. Thomas’ statement and distinction of act and function. I cannot recall the phrase. You might know it, it goes something like this, act means movement, but power from function does not imply change. I am at home and not at the office so I cannot get the correct words–you might know it.
Gravity filled the bill for me–it “acts” but does not gain or loose; it does not change, we do. God does not change, we do.
Back to a first being that is necessary, uncaused cause, unmoved mover, best of all beings, and governor of the universe. IF I READ ST. THOMAS CORRECTLY, HE SAYS THIS IS SELF-EVIDENT FOR A MATURE INTELLECT. WE IN CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM, ISLAM AND IN PHILOSOPHY CALL THAT NECESSARY BEING GOD. IF I UNDERSTAND ST. THOMAS, ALL OF THE ABOVE CALL THAT NECESSARY BEING GOD. WE CHRISTIANS BELIEVE HE HAS MADE A COVENANT WITH US AND SENT HIS WORD INTO HUMAN NATURE.
**THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. IF I AM INACCURATE PLEASE PRAY FOR ME. I AM NOT A SCHOLAR, BUT OF AVERAGE ABILITY. I REALLY ENJOY PRAYING, READING AND LEARNING.
**
I could not live without believing in God.
We inherit eternal life by love. Love rules faith and all other things in our faith.
St. Thomas demonstrates the existence of a superior being; we call Him God.
The Creed says: “I believe in God.”
St. Augustine says: “I believe in order to understand, and not understand in order to believe.”
St. Thomas says: “We believe because He revealed Himself. We do not believe because of our silly little arguments.”
Concerning gravity, it was St. Thomas’ statement and distinction of act and function. I cannot recall the phrase. You might know it, it goes something like this, act means movement, but power from function does not imply change. I am at home and not at the office so I cannot get the correct words–you might know it.
Gravity filled the bill for me–it “acts” but does not gain or loose; it does not change, we do. God does not change, we do.
Back to a first being that is necessary, uncaused cause, unmoved mover, best of all beings, and governor of the universe. IF I READ ST. THOMAS CORRECTLY, HE SAYS THIS IS SELF-EVIDENT FOR A MATURE INTELLECT. WE IN CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM, ISLAM AND IN PHILOSOPHY CALL THAT NECESSARY BEING GOD. IF I UNDERSTAND ST. THOMAS, ALL OF THE ABOVE CALL THAT NECESSARY BEING GOD. WE CHRISTIANS BELIEVE HE HAS MADE A COVENANT WITH US AND SENT HIS WORD INTO HUMAN NATURE.
**THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. IF I AM INACCURATE PLEASE PRAY FOR ME. I AM NOT A SCHOLAR, BUT OF AVERAGE ABILITY. I REALLY ENJOY PRAYING, READING AND LEARNING.
**
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
@jim-some I ever expressed thoughts similar to some of yours a month ago and wrote an open letter to Tyson about it.
Lewis Powell:
Tysons response is referenced on the page. He had made c a comment at the bottom of the page…
Neil DeGrasse Tyson:
Lewis Powell:
To see the rest go here.…As an early modernist, the list of philosophers I study has pretty striking overlap with lists of early modern chemists, physicists, and biologists. That’s not to say I think we were wrong to start distinguishing between the two forms of inquiry; it is just to point out that figures like Newton and Leibniz, were scientists, mathematicians and philosophers. …
Tysons response is referenced on the page. He had made c a comment at the bottom of the page…
Neil DeGrasse Tyson:
Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.Thanks for your interest in my utterances. My comments and views on Philosophy are best represented in this link:
bit.ly/1ouBEJA
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Thinking
WOW!
I will read it soon.
WOW!
I will read it soon.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Thinking:
I have to work. I do not have time to cipher the information.So forgive my simple mind and question: are you **Lewis Powell?
I am unable to put it all together, sorry!
**
I have to work. I do not have time to cipher the information.So forgive my simple mind and question: are you **Lewis Powell?
I am unable to put it all together, sorry!
**
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
No, he did not think the existence of God was self-evident. Remember his Five Ways?Linus
I could not live without believing in God.
We inherit eternal life by love. Love rules faith and all other things in our faith.
St. Thomas demonstrates the existence of a superior being; we call Him God.
The Creed says: “I believe in God.”
St. Augustine says: “I believe in order to understand, and not understand in order to believe.”
St. Thomas says: “We believe because He revealed Himself. We do not believe because of our silly little arguments.”
Concerning gravity, it was St. Thomas’ statement and distinction of act and function. I cannot recall the phrase. You might know it, it goes something like this, act means movement, but power from function does not imply change. I am at home and not at the office so I cannot get the correct words–you might know it.
Gravity filled the bill for me–it “acts” but does not gain or loose; it does not change, we do. God does not change, we do.
Back to a first being that is necessary, uncaused cause, unmoved mover, best of all beings, and governor of the universe. IF I READ ST. THOMAS CORRECTLY, HE SAYS THIS IS SELF-EVIDENT FOR A MATURE INTELLECT. WE IN CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM, ISLAM AND IN PHILOSOPHY CALL THAT NECESSARY BEING GOD. IF I UNDERSTAND ST. THOMAS, ALL OF THE ABOVE CALL THAT NECESSARY BEING GOD. WE CHRISTIANS BELIEVE HE HAS MADE A COVENANT WITH US AND SENT HIS WORD INTO HUMAN NATURE.
**THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. IF I AM INACCURATE PLEASE PRAY FOR ME. I AM NOT A SCHOLAR, BUT OF AVERAGE ABILITY. I REALLY ENJOY PRAYING, READING AND LEARNING.
**
Linus2nd
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Nope. I am but a simple Software Engineer and not a philosopher. I think Lewis teaches at a school, but I am not sure.So forgive my simple mind and question: are you **Lewis Powell?
I am unable to put it all together, sorry!
**
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
But against this is the following. No one can think the opposite of anything that is self-evident, as Aristotle makes clear about the first principles of demonstration in Metaphysics IV and Posterior Analytics I. But according to Psalm 52 “The fool has said in his heart that there is no God,” so the opposite of the proposition that God exists can be thought. Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident.
I reply by saying that that something can be self-evident in two ways; in one way, in itself but not relative to us; in the other way, both in itself and relative to us. For what makes a proposition self-evident is the fact that its predicate is included in the concept of its subject, e.g., man is an animal, for animal is included in the concept man. Therefore, if the concept of the predicate and the concept of the subject are known by all, the particular proposition will be self-evident to everyone, as is clearly the case with the first principles of demonstrations, whose terms are common concepts that no one is ignorant of: e.g., being and non-being, whole and part, and the like. However, if the concepts of the predicate and the subject are not known by us, the particular proposition, considered in itself, will be self-evident, but it will not be self-evident relative to those who are ignorant of its subject and predicate. And it therefore happens, as Boetius says in his book de Hebdomadibus, that certain conceptions of the soul are familiar and self-evident only relative to the wise, e.g., that incorporeal things have no place.
Part One, q. 2, art. 1
I understand him to be saying: it is evident to those that have studied the problem.
Also, my memory says that this question and all of its articles are a preamble to faith. They are not a part of our faith. They are philosophy, human reasoning. To intellectually see a that there must be a being always in act or existence and not moved to act, is rational and self-evident to those that have been fortunate enough to have some teacher show them.
This is the sentence that I was interpreting: “Thus, we necessarily arrive at some primary mover, which is moved by nothing; and everyone understands this primary mover to be God.” Part One, q. 2, art. 3.
I reply by saying that that something can be self-evident in two ways; in one way, in itself but not relative to us; in the other way, both in itself and relative to us. For what makes a proposition self-evident is the fact that its predicate is included in the concept of its subject, e.g., man is an animal, for animal is included in the concept man. Therefore, if the concept of the predicate and the concept of the subject are known by all, the particular proposition will be self-evident to everyone, as is clearly the case with the first principles of demonstrations, whose terms are common concepts that no one is ignorant of: e.g., being and non-being, whole and part, and the like. However, if the concepts of the predicate and the subject are not known by us, the particular proposition, considered in itself, will be self-evident, but it will not be self-evident relative to those who are ignorant of its subject and predicate. And it therefore happens, as Boetius says in his book de Hebdomadibus, that certain conceptions of the soul are familiar and self-evident only relative to the wise, e.g., that incorporeal things have no place.
Part One, q. 2, art. 1
I understand him to be saying: it is evident to those that have studied the problem.
Also, my memory says that this question and all of its articles are a preamble to faith. They are not a part of our faith. They are philosophy, human reasoning. To intellectually see a that there must be a being always in act or existence and not moved to act, is rational and self-evident to those that have been fortunate enough to have some teacher show them.
This is the sentence that I was interpreting: “Thus, we necessarily arrive at some primary mover, which is moved by nothing; and everyone understands this primary mover to be God.” Part One, q. 2, art. 3.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.