Nothing to something

[STT]

I think you’re mistaken. You’re talking about a local relative vacuum, right?

For now I am talking about the fact that you could have time, without any need for material entities and motion.

 

[STT]

Looks like you have some reading to catch up on.

Form vs. Matter (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Here is the definition of form: “For example, he deploys it in his Metaphysics , where he argues that form is what unifies some matter into a single object.” Could we agree on this?

 

[Gorgias]

For now I am talking about the fact that you could have time, without any need for material entities and motion.

I understand that. However, the argument you’re making doesn’t address “no material entities”, since it presents itself in the context of the physical universe, which becomes the “material entity” under which time exists.

Here is the definition of form: “For example, he deploys it in his Metaphysics , where he argues that form is what unifies some matter into a single object.” Could we agree on this?

We can agree that this is one way of talking about form.

In the case of a corpse, the “unification of matter into a single object” might be “that pile of putrifying goo over there.”

 

[quaestio45]

So, without a universe, there’s no ‘time’

Okay, so what would it mean to be “outside of time” or “timeless” then? For if time is merely a measurement, then you can’t be “timeless” I’d think, but rather simply in a state of zero change, correct? As such, there is no timeless, yes?

No. Space exists . It has extension.

Could we say the same with time but with “temporality”? As, even if there was complete time minus being (if we assume it to be a dimension and not a measurement to view its consistency with space as a dimension) is there no way to concieve of a changing entity to think of a passage of time in an area the same way you can measure a coordinate plane?

I think it’s a perception issue. Calling it a ‘dimension’ helps with the math, but it doesn’t change what time itself is – a means of measuring something that’s somewhat orthogonal to physical objects, per se.

Well I am curious, if its a perceptual issue, how can it be interacted with? I mean, you can’t really interact with abstract measurements, yet time and it’s condition is very much dependent upon matter. Is this merely a scientific equivocation on the philosophical term of “time”, and that what they describe is something different, or is time merely an exception?

 

[STT]

I understand that. However, the argument you’re making doesn’t address “no material entities”, since it presents itself in the context of the physical universe, which becomes the “material entity” under which time exists.

No. I am talking about the solution of space-time when there is no mass.

We can agree that this is one way of talking about form.

In the case of a corpse, the “unification of matter into a single object” might be “that pile of putrifying goo over there.”

So corpse has a form.

 

[Gorgias]

Okay, so what would it mean to be “outside of time” or “timeless” then? For if time is merely a measurement, then you can’t be “timeless” I’d think, but rather simply in a state of zero change, correct? As such, there is no timeless, yes?

I would affirm “zero physical change”. And, naturally, we would posit God as immutable. But, it would be intuitively reasonable to think that there’s something that’s “akin to time”, but not actually “time” as we know it. I guess we just won’t know until the eschaton…

Gorgias:

No. Space exists . It has extension.

Could we say the same with time but with “temporality”?

My gut feel is “no”. Time just measures the way that space changes. So, it’s related to space, but isn’t able to be extrapolated as space.

is there no way to concieve of a changing entity to think of a passage of time in an area the same way you can measure a coordinate plane?

I think that it’s possible to come up with a construct that helps our understanding that attempts to do something like that. But, I don’t think it changes the nature of time, which depends on the presence of the universe for its existence, as such.

I mean, you can’t really interact with abstract measurements,

Except… I can. I can walk “ten feet” or “two miles”. Heck, I can even say that I walked “for two hours” (even though what that really means is “I walked such-and-such a distance at a particular average velocity”).

Is this merely a scientific equivocation on the philosophical term of “time”, and that what they describe is something different, or is time merely an exception?

It seems to me (from a philosophical perspective) that what scientists are doing is developing models about how these measurements of change operate. They’re not static, but that doesn’t give them being, as such, in the way that the physical universe can be described in that way.

No. I am talking about the solution of space-time when there is no mass.

As a local solution, but not as the entirety of the universe. (And, even so, you’re not accounting for energy and fields, which – I would argue – would count as physical ‘stuff’ sufficient to assert that it’s not the case that there’s “nothing”.)

So corpse has a form.

Honestly? I’d argue that it’s undergoing a change – the “passing-away” change. So, it used to have the “form of human body”, but it’s moving to other forms. I would argue that it doesn’t have its own distinct form, as such.

 

[quaestio45]

Except… I can. I can walk “ten feet” or “two miles”. Heck, I can even say that I walked “for two hours” (even though what that really means is “I walked such-and-such a distance at a particular average velocity”).

Allow me to clarify what I mean by “interaction”. A measurement, in order to be accurate and meaningful must be consistent across all possibly measurable things, such as my table or my stool or my body or the cosmos; the thing measured changes, the metric used to measure does not. Now, to interact with something is to change it in a way, let’s say. But a metric must be consistent like an essence or definition. Therefore, we can’t “interact” with it like an object or mind. But, time is something which does seem to change dependent on perspective, location, and physical conditions; as such, I don’t believe it can be considered a metric for change because metrics are definitionally consistent. The thing measured may not change but the measurement does; as when I enter a black hole whilst you observe me entering. We both end up having different ideas of when I entered.

 

[Latin]

Catholics believe in primary and secondary causation:

I believe in primary and secondary causation.

Something to think about:

1 Cor.4:7; For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?
.
Please @Gorgias consider you have a big empty box.
You (no one else) putted things into your box.

Question:
Can you take out something from that box what you did not put into it? The answer is no.

.
By the same above principle;
God created us (nothing is in us what God did not infused into us), God infused into us many good things.
.
FOR EXAMPLE
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott;

For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary, (De fide dogma).
.
The three Divine or Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity are infused with Sanctifying grace, (De fide dogma).
.
CCCS 1990-1991; “In this gift, faith, hope, charity, and OBEDIENCE TO GOD’S WILL are given to us.”
.
COUNCIL OF TRENT Session 6 Chapter 8
. . . None of those things which precede justification - whether faith or works - merit the grace itself of justification.
.
CCCS 1996-1998; Justification comes from grace (God’s free and undeserved help) and is given to us to respond to his call.
This call to eternal life is supernatural, coming TOTALLY from God’s decision and surpassing ALL power of human intellect and will.”
.
There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will, (De fide dogma) .
.
CCC 1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.
.
Without the special help of God the justified cannot persevere to the end in justification, (De fide dogma). – It is God’s responsibility TO KEEP US SAVED by His grace of Final Perseverance, not even ono receiver can end up in hell, infallible teachings of the Trent.
.
CCC 2016 The children of our holy mother the Church rightly hope for the grace of final perseverance.
.
Question:
Did God infuse disobedience into us?

If yes, by our disobedience we are obeying the will of God and in the Scripture referring to our disobedience, use non literal language. – As CCC 390 explains it concerning the non literal language in other parts of the Scripture.

If not, we can never disobey God, because disobedience is not in us, we cannot have what we never received.

Faith, hope, charity, and OBEDIENCE TO GOD’S WILL are infused into us, why would then God infuse disobedience into us.

Personally I don’t believe God infused disobedience into us.
.
What do you think @Gorgias?
.
God bless

 

[Gorgias]

Question:
Can you take out something from that box what you did not put into it? The answer is no.

Evil is a privation, not an entity unto itself.

Question:
Did God infuse disobedience into us?

He gave us free will, and its misuse is not only disobedience, but sin. We do not obey the will of God when we sin.

 

[Latin]

Catholics believe in primary and secondary causation: although primary causation rests in God, He nevertheless grants us the free will that allows us secondary causation. So, when we do something freely, we are doing what God wills. However, He does not will the particular thing done, since that will and act comes from the human actor.

He gave us free will, and its misuse is not only disobedience, but sin. We do not obey the will of God when we sin.

Don’t you @Gorgias believe any longer your first explanation of primary and secondary causation?
.
THE CHAIN OF CAUSALITY
The Mystery of Predestination by John Salza. (Catholic apologist.)
Page 84. St. Thomas properly explains the chain of causality:

"It is to be observed that where there are several agents in order, the second always acts in virtue of the first: for the agent moves the second to act.

And thus all agents act in virtue of God Himself: and therefore He is the cause of action in every agent. ST, Pt I, Q 105, Art 5.

Because God is the cause of action in every agent, even man’s free will determination to do good comes from God."

.
DOGMATIC TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIK CHURH ON THE CHANE OF CASUALITY

There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will, (De fide dogma).
.
CCC 2022; The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man.
.
CCC 308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator.
God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes:
"For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it.
.
Aquinas said, "God changes the will without forcing it. But he can change the will from the fact that he himself operates in the will as he does in nature,” De Veritatis 22:9. 31. ST I-II:112:3. 32. Gaudium et Spes 22; "being …

.
The Divine will is cause of all things that happen, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 1 seqq.). Therefore all things are subject to fate.

The same is true for events in our lives. Relative to us they often appear to be by chance.
But relative to God, who directs everything according to his divine plan, nothing occurs by chance.

Hence if this divine influence stopped, every operation would stop.
Every operation, therefore, of anything is traced back to Him as its cause. (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III.)
.
St. Thomas teaches that God effects everything, the willing and the achievement. S. Th.II/II 4, 4 ad 3.
.
As we see above @Gorgias, God is the first cause of every our act, no exception.

So, we can NEVER EVER disobey God, because God would never permit us a single act which act He is not the first cause.
.
God bless

 

[Montrose]

So, we can NEVER EVER disobey God, because God would never permit us a single act which act He is not the first cause.

God did not create us to be disobedient. You keep posting screeds and none of it shows that.

 

[Latin]

I understand the first statement and I agree with it.
I’m sorry @Montrose, I don’t understand what does not shows.

God Bless

 

[Montrose]

I understand the first statement and I agree with it.
I’m sorry @Montrose, but I don’t understand what does not shows.

God Bless

Okay. Maybe I replied to the wrong poster. In this thread I thought you said in your own words that God created us to be disobedient and to deny him?
If yes, then my unclear remark means that nothing you have quoted from any source in all your posts has shown that to be correct.
If you didn’t say that then I apologise.

 

[Latin]

I’m sorry @Montrose, I will answer in the morning.
In Australia 00:56 minutes.

God bless

 

[Gorgias]

Don’t you @Gorgias believe any longer your first explanation of primary and secondary causation?

Of course I do! Perhaps you misunderstand it, though?

As we see above @Gorgias, God is the first cause of every our act, no exception.

Right: and when that cause determines that we have free will, then we are the cause – secondary, but determinative – of that act! Therefore, its goodness may proceed from God’s initiative, but any evil or sinfulness proceeds from our deficiency, and not from God’s will, per se.

So, we can NEVER EVER disobey God, because God would never permit us a single act which act He is not the first cause.

Invalid conclusion. The fact that God is the “first cause” does not absolve us from culpability in our disobedience. You’re misreading the theology, friend.

Maybe I replied to the wrong poster. In this thread I thought you said in your own words that God created us to be disobedient and to deny him?

No, you didn’t. Latin did make that claim, but seems to have backed away from the assertion (although he still holds to the invalid proposition).

It’s confusing.

 

[lelinator]

He gave us free will, and its misuse is not only disobedience, but sin. We do not obey the will of God when we sin

But in the thread “Free will? I don’t think so” you claimed that God “influences” us to do exactly what He wants us to do. So why is there sin in the world if we all do exactly what God wants us to do? Unless God wants there to be sin in the world.

The only two choices would seem to be that either God can’t influence us to do what He wants us to, or God wants there to be sin in the world.

 

[Gorgias]

But in the thread “ Free will? I don’t think so ” you claimed that God “influences” us to do exactly what He wants us to do.

I said that He can do so, if He wishes. Nevertheless, He allows us to exercise our free will unencumbered.

So why is there sin in the world if we all do exactly what God wants us to do? Unless God wants there to be sin in the world.

No, it’s because we choose freely to sin.

The only two choices would seem to be that either God can’t influence us to do what He wants us to, or God wants there to be sin in the world.

You’re missing the elephant in the room, friend: the third option is that God gave us the free will to choose differently than He would. Doesn’t mean He couldn’t force our hand, per se (although He would never do so), nor that He wants sin (He wants free will, and ‘sin’ is a possible outcome of the exercise of free will).

 

[lelinator]

You’re missing the elephant in the room, friend: the third option is that God gave us the free will to choose differently than He would. Doesn’t mean He couldn’t force our hand, per se (although He would never do so), nor that He wants sin (He wants free will, and ‘sin’ is a possible outcome of the exercise of free will).

But now you’re back to the original problem again. How does God get human history to turn out exactly the way it does? In the other thread your claim was that God “influences” us to do what He wants us to do, but now it appears that you’ve changed your story, and God doesn’t influence us at all.

Color me confused, does God influence us to do what He wants us to do, or doesn’t He? If He doesn’t, then how does God ensure that human history turns out exactly the way it does? If He does influence us to do what He wants us to do, then why is there sin in the world?

 

[Gorgias]

In the other thread your claim was that God “influences” us to do what He wants us to do, but now it appears that you’ve changed your story, and God doesn’t influence us at all.

No. Apparently you took my comments in a different direction than I intended them. Let me try again:

• God creates the universe according to His will
• Part of that will is to allow humans to exercise their own free will
• One potential side-effect of this exercise of free will is that humans may decide to sin and to do things that God does not explicitly wish
• God sustains all of creation in all its existence
• God also provides means to help us act in virtuous ways – most obviously, He provides the gratuitous gift of grace
• God makes good come out of the evil we commit. That doesn’t mean that He wills the evil, or that He “does evil so that good may result” (the “ends justify the means” notion). It just means that He is able to cause good to triumph.

If He doesn’t, then how does God ensure that human history turns out exactly the way it does?

I think that God’s providence rightly centers on our end (‘telos’) and not on the “outcome of human history”.

If He does influence us to do what He wants us to do, then why is there sin in the world?

Because He suggests but does not force.

 

[STT]

As a local solution, but not as the entirety of the universe. (And, even so, you’re not accounting for energy and fields, which – I would argue – would count as physical ‘stuff’ sufficient to assert that it’s not the case that there’s “nothing”.)

No. That is not a local solution.

Honestly? I’d argue that it’s undergoing a change – the “passing-away” change. So, it used to have the “form of human body”, but it’s moving to other forms. I would argue that it doesn’t have its own distinct form, as such.

Of course there is a change in form. You have a form of a corpse after death which it cannot animate the body anymore. Before death the form was able to animate the body.