M
mamlukman
Guest
Bingo! You’ve got it!
- Status
M
mamlukman
Guest
Maybe I should get you a subscription to Scientific American? Quantum physics ring a bell?
M
mamlukman
Guest
I don’t think you read my posts carefully: I never said prayer is “useless” or never “has any effect whatsoever on what occurs in this world.” What I did say what that I don’t really understand how prayer works (does anyone?) and that because of God’s omniscience, He would know what prayers you would offer before creating you and would respond before the creation of the universe. It’s all built in. I just don’t think God sits there waiting for Billy to pray, swoops down to break any natural laws necessary to help out Billy, and then goes back to sit down and wait for the next prayer. That just seems bizarre and more akin to a Marvel comic than religion, except perhaps the religion of the ancient Greeks.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Truth is truth. Science does not conflict with revealed truth; bad science does, as does what passes as science found in movies and the media.
It is difficult apparently for some people to conceive that He who creates all time and space, creates all time and space, from the smallest to the biggest.
It is truly incredible what can be accomplished if One spans eternity and infinity.
It is difficult apparently for some people to conceive that He who creates all time and space, creates all time and space, from the smallest to the biggest.
It is truly incredible what can be accomplished if One spans eternity and infinity.
A
Aloysium
Guest
No one but yourself suggests that.
I take it back, atheists do interpret Catholicism in that manner.
M
mamlukman
Guest
“No one but yourself suggests that…” and yet…the online Encyclopedia of Philosophy published by Stanford U. gives exactly my position in parts 2 and 3 below. (Perhaps a little more elegantly phrased.)
I didn’t know of the existence of this before your post–which is why I am on this site. I’ve always wondered if I just have personal quirky opinions or if I am simply re-discovering basic things other people ignore. I have learned that I am–in different situations–parroting Augustine, Aquinas, and now Stanford U. So I honestly thank you for your comments because without them I wouldn’t have dug a little deeper! So, in turn, I hope this broadens your understanding too.
As for atheists interpreting Catholicism the way I do, I agree with atheists on many things. So do you and Tony. And we disagree on some things. Please bear in mind that I have been a practicing Catholic my entire life and that I am a big fan of Cardinal Ratzinger. On virtually every scale you could construct, I am on the traditional far right religiously. But I’m not a big fan of piety or emotionalism in religion.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/petitionary-prayer/ Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
“Petitionary Prayer”
First published Wed Aug 15, 2012
- Divine Omniscience
A different puzzle concerning the effectiveness of petitionary prayer arises in connection with divine omniscience, the idea that God knows everything that can be known. If God already knows the future, for instance, then how can petitionary prayer make a difference? The future, after all, is just the set of things that will happen. If God knows the future in all of its detail, then it seems that there is no room for petitionary prayers to be effective: either the thing requested in prayer is something that God already knows will be done, or it isn’t, and either way, it looks like the prayer can make no difference. Like many other questions in theology, this puzzle raises an interesting question about the limits of God’s knowledge. Is it possible for anyone, including God, to know the future in all of its detail? Philosophers disagree sharply about this. Here we will explore briefly three possible answers to this question. (For more on this, see Borland 2006 (Other Internet Resources) and the entries on omniscience and prophecy.)
Second, there something called the “middle knowledge” view. This positions hold that God knows the future in all of its detail as a result of knowing both (1) what everyone and everything would do in any possible situation and (2) which situations everyone and everything will be placed in actually (see Flint 1998). According to this picture, God knows the future in all of its detail, but what God knows about the future free choices of human beings depends on what they would choose—and that is something that is up to the human beings in question, not up to God. Even though God knows what you will do in the future, according to this picture, it is still up to you. In fact, when you make a free choice, you have the ability to do something such that were you to do it, God would have always known something different from what he knows in fact. (This is often called having “counterfactual power” with respect to God’s knowledge: see Flint 1998.)
According to the proponents of middle knowledge, then, **petitionary prayer can still make a difference because God can take into account those prayers that be offered in the future when God plans how to create the world over time. **The mere fact that God knows the future in all of its detail does not mean that this future is determined. So the proponents of middle knowledge have a way to answer the puzzle concerning omniscience. But the theory of middle knowledge is very controversial; critics wonder whether there are truths about what everyone and everything would do in every situation, and even if there were, how God could know such things (see the entry on prophecy.) and Zagzebski 2011).
Finally, defenders of a view called “timeless eternity” hold that God knows all of history at once, from a point of view outside of time altogether (see the entry on eternity.) Like the proponents of middle knowledge, the defenders of timeless eternity will say that just because God knows the future, this does not mean that God determines it. They will also say that God’s single act of creation from outside of time has many effects in time, including, perhaps, answers to prayers that God anticipates from the point of view of eternity. In this way, the defenders of timeless eternity can answer the puzzle concerning omniscience. But like open theism and the theory of middle knowledge, the idea that God is timelessly eternal is controversial too (see Hasker 1989 and Zagzebski 2011)."
T
tonyrey
Guest
- Do miracles occur in answer to prayer?
- Have miracles occurred since the time of the Apostles?
- Is the Church’s canonisation process valid?
- Does God ever intervene to prevent - or minimise the effects of - natural disasters?
- Is the entire process of human development solely determined by physical events?
- Was Shakespeare wrong when he referred to “the Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune” and “the thousand Natural shocks that Flesh is heir to”?
- Is the Catechism misleading when it states that “the evils in nature seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures”?
M
mamlukman
Guest
Maybe–but whatever you want to call them they were factored in before creation. I personally doubt that God suspends or breaks laws He Himself has created for the convenience of anyone–even before creation. I should caution that people in this thread seem to be using “miracle” in two different senses: #1–a wonderful thing; a marvel. In that sense, there are miracles all around us: a rose is a miracle. #2–God’s deliberate suspension of or breaking of His own natural laws. I always use “miracle” in sense #2. I don’t think God does that.
I don’t think so. I would need proof to believe otherwise.
Sure. If they want to say that St. So-and-So caused a miracle, good for them. The canonization process is simply declaring that St. So-and-So is in Heaven and is a worthy model for our own actions. If they want to declare something a “miracle,” they can. But they’re not going to ex-communicate me if I disagree and don’t think it’s a miracle.
No. They are part of creation. Why, we don’t know. It’s a mystery.
At some point a soul was inserted into a human being. But the physical part is entirely determined by physical events–including chance.
Depends on what that means. To me he’s talking about chance or luck. I’m all about chance and luck, so great. “Natural shocks that Flesh is heir to”??? Natural weaknesses??? More bad luck??? Sure.
Ah, #385. You seem to be almost quoting one of your own posts from 2013. What does this sentence mean? To me, “an evil in nature” is a tornado, a hurricane, an earthquake, or a disease. And what is “a limitation proper to creatures”? That we are not immortal? Not clear to me. And of course it uses the key word “seems”…which is certainly not a very strong endorsement of any position. And the following sentence in that section talks about St. Augustine, and how he could never figure out the reason for evil in the world either. I personally don’t think “natural evils” have anything to do with mankind. After all, we know the same events (volcanoes, hurricanes) take place on other planets where they don’t effect man at all. So I don’t see any link between natural evils and man. Nor do I see any point in trying to figure out why there are natural evils in the world. It’s not an issue we can solve, so there’s no point trying. (Apologies to Bart Ehrman…you can always read my review of his book The Problem of God on Amazon.)
T
tonyrey
Guest
R
Richca
Guest
Well, I wouldn’t consider a St Augustine, a St Thomas Aquinas, or countless other fathers, doctors, saints, and other theologians of the Church “dreamers” who teach that everything happens in the universe precisely according to God’s plan down to the smallest details. Absolutely nothing occurs outside the order of the providential plan God has established for the universe from all eternity. There is no such thing as a “chance” event that can occur outside the order of the eternal providential plan. Everything is subject to God’s eternal knowledge and divine will. This is also the teaching of the Church (cf. the teaching on God’s providence in the CCC) as well as Holy Scripture.
“She [Wisdom] reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well” (Wisdom 8:1).
“But you have disposed all things by measure and number and weight.” (Wisdom 11: 20).
The architect of the universe is God who has infinite knowledge and power and who is infinitely perfect. It is not possible that when God devises a plan, anything can escape Him for “No creature is concealed from him, but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account.”( Hebrews 4:13). Nor is it possible that in the execution of this plan which depends on the divine will, anything can happen that is not subject to the divine will and power. Creation is finite and God is infinite and there is no proportion between the two. Everything happens for a reason, purpose, and for good. The goal of the christian life is the perfection of charity, union with God and conformity to the divine will, this is what all the saints teach us. We cannot be conformed to the divine will and at the same time subject to “chance” events. Seemingly “chance” events we know by faith to be the divine will.
It is not by accident that we were born into the world at some place and time, that we have the parents and brothers and sisters we have, the school we went too, the job we may now have, a wife or children. Nor is it going to be by accident the time and place we die. The psalmist says : “Your eyes saw me unformed;
in your book all are written down;
my days were shaped, before one came to be.” (Psalm 139: 16).
M
mamlukman
Guest
I think at this point I’ll withdraw from the field.
Tony seems to be intent on insisting that there is only one possible interpretation–his. In all my posts I have emphasized that other people are welcome to their opinions and beliefs–even if I don’t share them. I can’t prove my opinions; I can simply point out that others share them and that they are logical. Tony et al. can’t prove their opinions–or even prove that the Catechism supports their positions.
I will note that in his last post Tony actually re-phrases one of my points as if it is his. Why not simply say we agree?
As for “rejecting the knowledge and wisdom of experts,” I will simply say that the same “experts” believed in witches and a lot of other superstitions. I don’t. If you want to, good for you.
As for Richca, there is a world of difference (intentional choice of words) between believing that God created natural laws, including chance, and that the world unfolds because of these laws and believing that God has a “plan” in which everything that happens is directly caused by God. Again, no one can prove anything. We’re speculating. Tony and Richca seem to have opposing views on this one–perfect plan vs. plan that God has to adjust constantly. Again, I’ll refer everyone to the Tower of Siloam story in the Gospels where Jesus tells the Apostles that the tower fell and killed people, but not because of their sins.
Finally, a purely practical point. Let’s say you were involved in the tsunami in Thailand. You survived, but your wife and five children were killed, and your village was destroyed. Which belief would be more comforting: 1) That the tsunami was caused by an earthquake that happened at that moment because of natural forces–set in motion by God, but allowed to work themselves out by their own laws-- and it was sheer bad luck that it caused all the damage or 2) that God deliberately and directly caused the tsunami, knowing exactly who and what it would destroy?
Tony seems to be intent on insisting that there is only one possible interpretation–his. In all my posts I have emphasized that other people are welcome to their opinions and beliefs–even if I don’t share them. I can’t prove my opinions; I can simply point out that others share them and that they are logical. Tony et al. can’t prove their opinions–or even prove that the Catechism supports their positions.
I will note that in his last post Tony actually re-phrases one of my points as if it is his. Why not simply say we agree?
As for “rejecting the knowledge and wisdom of experts,” I will simply say that the same “experts” believed in witches and a lot of other superstitions. I don’t. If you want to, good for you.
As for Richca, there is a world of difference (intentional choice of words) between believing that God created natural laws, including chance, and that the world unfolds because of these laws and believing that God has a “plan” in which everything that happens is directly caused by God. Again, no one can prove anything. We’re speculating. Tony and Richca seem to have opposing views on this one–perfect plan vs. plan that God has to adjust constantly. Again, I’ll refer everyone to the Tower of Siloam story in the Gospels where Jesus tells the Apostles that the tower fell and killed people, but not because of their sins.
Finally, a purely practical point. Let’s say you were involved in the tsunami in Thailand. You survived, but your wife and five children were killed, and your village was destroyed. Which belief would be more comforting: 1) That the tsunami was caused by an earthquake that happened at that moment because of natural forces–set in motion by God, but allowed to work themselves out by their own laws-- and it was sheer bad luck that it caused all the damage or 2) that God deliberately and directly caused the tsunami, knowing exactly who and what it would destroy?
M
mamlukman
Guest
A final comment, which illustrates our approaches to fundamental questions.
362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.
364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232 [fn]
Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233 [fn]
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 [fn] i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235 [fn]
So what’s this all about? It’s simply stating what I would agree with completely–it is wrong to think of “man” as simply a body (materialism) or simply a soul (Gnosticism? dualism of various types). Man is both body and soul. This unity is stressed by pointing out that we believe that both body and soul will be re-united in Heaven–they are an inseparable unit, divided at death, but restored to unity at the end of time. #365 is pretty much parroting Aquinas in his Summa, and of course Aquinas was concerned with the issues of his time, including various forms of dualism that considered the material world (including the body) evil.
There is nothing in there that even remotely contradicts the idea that humans evolved over time according to the natural laws of evolution. At some point in the evolutionary continuum, man acquired a soul and became “man” in the religious sense. And if you want to call this person “Adam,” it’s fine with me. Better than calling him “man #1.”
Quoting #365 from the Catechism out of context (!) is misleading. It does not mean what Tony tries to make it mean. Let’s take a look at the sections before it (starting with the first sentence of that main section):
362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.
364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232 [fn]
Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233 [fn]
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 [fn] i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235 [fn]
So what’s this all about? It’s simply stating what I would agree with completely–it is wrong to think of “man” as simply a body (materialism) or simply a soul (Gnosticism? dualism of various types). Man is both body and soul. This unity is stressed by pointing out that we believe that both body and soul will be re-united in Heaven–they are an inseparable unit, divided at death, but restored to unity at the end of time. #365 is pretty much parroting Aquinas in his Summa, and of course Aquinas was concerned with the issues of his time, including various forms of dualism that considered the material world (including the body) evil.
There is nothing in there that even remotely contradicts the idea that humans evolved over time according to the natural laws of evolution. At some point in the evolutionary continuum, man acquired a soul and became “man” in the religious sense. And if you want to call this person “Adam,” it’s fine with me. Better than calling him “man #1.”
A
Aloysium
Guest
:twocents:
God is the eternal Source of all Beauty, Goodness, Truth and Life.
He is the God of the living.
All creation is alive and fresh in Him, emerging through His act of creation, from outside of time.
All exists in relation to the Father.
He brings the physical universe into being, in its entirety, all time and all space.
Each particle through all its transformations and interactions within the whole that is the cosmos, exists within its continuum in time because it is centred on the transcendent Ground of creation.
The totality of time is brought into existence, not temporally but ontologically simultaneously.
Thus the heavens proclaimed the coming and birth of our Lord Jesus Christ,.
And, this is not because anything was changed, but because that is how it is set up - beginning to end.
And, that is how miracles happen, and how our prayers factor in.
Our bodies are continuous with this universe.
If this were all to it, its behaviour would be completely determined by the natural inclinations of matter.
But it isn’t.
The soul, with its rational mind and free will, cleaves time and space, thereby producing the impression of a past, present and future.
That there is a future for us which has yet to happen, is solely because we have a choice in deciding how it will evolve.
Were our existence be solely material, we would be just another chunk of vegetable in the wholeness of a cosmic minestrone.
But, we are individuals; we are persons; as such we relate to God in every instance of our existence.
When God speaks to us, He has foreknowledge. This is not something He knows about the future, but rather something He knows because He is creating it, as He creates the moment in which He is there with us.
Since we have free will, He guides us to Him. When He speaks, He gives us a choice.
We choose the future from the options He has given us.
Because He creates that moment as well as the moment in which we are being given the choice, He knows our answer.
He knows who we could be, all our trials, our failings and our successes. He is the only one who can judge, because He is Love.
God is the eternal Source of all Beauty, Goodness, Truth and Life.
He is the God of the living.
All creation is alive and fresh in Him, emerging through His act of creation, from outside of time.
All exists in relation to the Father.
He brings the physical universe into being, in its entirety, all time and all space.
Each particle through all its transformations and interactions within the whole that is the cosmos, exists within its continuum in time because it is centred on the transcendent Ground of creation.
The totality of time is brought into existence, not temporally but ontologically simultaneously.
Thus the heavens proclaimed the coming and birth of our Lord Jesus Christ,.
And, this is not because anything was changed, but because that is how it is set up - beginning to end.
And, that is how miracles happen, and how our prayers factor in.
Our bodies are continuous with this universe.
If this were all to it, its behaviour would be completely determined by the natural inclinations of matter.
But it isn’t.
The soul, with its rational mind and free will, cleaves time and space, thereby producing the impression of a past, present and future.
That there is a future for us which has yet to happen, is solely because we have a choice in deciding how it will evolve.
Were our existence be solely material, we would be just another chunk of vegetable in the wholeness of a cosmic minestrone.
But, we are individuals; we are persons; as such we relate to God in every instance of our existence.
When God speaks to us, He has foreknowledge. This is not something He knows about the future, but rather something He knows because He is creating it, as He creates the moment in which He is there with us.
Since we have free will, He guides us to Him. When He speaks, He gives us a choice.
We choose the future from the options He has given us.
Because He creates that moment as well as the moment in which we are being given the choice, He knows our answer.
He knows who we could be, all our trials, our failings and our successes. He is the only one who can judge, because He is Love.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Do you really believe - like Calvin - that every misfortune is** directly **willed by God?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Please provide concrete evidence that “I insist that my interpretation is the only possible one”. Your assertion is an excellent example of an argumentum ad hominem. It would be more to the point to address each of my points than make false allegations.
Yet another unsubstantiated assertion.
Please specify which experts you are referring to?
You haven’t explained how that event fitted into God’s plan…
Do you really believe it is more comforting to believe God willed the tsunami to maim and kill specific individuals? If so why?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Once again you have ignored the points I have made:
Time is irrelevant. If God intervenes He intervenes. If He “factors in” events it doesn’t mean He is enslaved by the laws of nature. He causes them and they wouldn’t otherwise occur. He is well aware they cannot cater for every contingency but He also knows there has to be a framework of order for life to survive and for us to lead a rational existence.** There is nothing to stop Him from preventing disasters whenever He chooses and if He didn’t do so the world would be far more chaotic and catastrophic.** It is easy to take for granted the miraculous nature of life and its survival for billions of years in an extremely violent universe but to appreciate it is another matter altogether.
Very significant…
You are again taking refuge in obscurity - as if no explanation is better than one that undermines your argument even though you have already conceded there is an element of chance in the outcome of events. This is precisely the reason why God intervenes to minimise disasters. If everything proceeded according to plan He wouldn’t need to act but it clearly doesn’t. It is unreasonable to argue that natural evil is an insoluble mystery when the cause is staring us in the face. There is no link between natural evils and man but there is an incontrovertible link between natural evil and fortuitous events which are an inescapable part of a physical existence. The atheist Jacques Monod believed in Chance and Necessity and you believe in God and Necessity but a more balanced view is that there is an element of Chance within the framework of God’s Design.
According to you since the time of the Apostles God has left the whole of the human race entirely to their own devices.
A
Aloysium
Guest
With regards to Calvinism and God’s direct involvement in every facet of our lives:
I would think it a self-referential distortion, to consider every situation as having been done specifically to and for us.
Everything is willed by God, but bad things can happen purely as a result of natural forces, the way the physical world works, and through the free will of people.
Acknowledging that the environment is a very fragile system that respondes to any change, I would say that, as Jesus quelled the storm, it might be possible, maybe, for God to do likewise with any storm, but what would be the point?
God wills us to come to Him, and I believe He utilizes each situation in our lives as an opportunity to guide us closer to Him.
It would seem best to try to derive meaning from each event that happens in our lives, to learn from it and use it to deepen our understanding and love of God.
I would think it a self-referential distortion, to consider every situation as having been done specifically to and for us.
Everything is willed by God, but bad things can happen purely as a result of natural forces, the way the physical world works, and through the free will of people.
Acknowledging that the environment is a very fragile system that respondes to any change, I would say that, as Jesus quelled the storm, it might be possible, maybe, for God to do likewise with any storm, but what would be the point?
God wills us to come to Him, and I believe He utilizes each situation in our lives as an opportunity to guide us closer to Him.
It would seem best to try to derive meaning from each event that happens in our lives, to learn from it and use it to deepen our understanding and love of God.
R
Richca
Guest
R
Richca
Guest
R
Richca
Guest
I forgot to mention, I would also highly recommend reading what St Thomas Aquinas says concerning God’s providence in both the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles. It is a very fascinating study where we will find that God, indeed, is not far from us but as St Paul says “In Him, we live, and move, and have our being.”
- Status