Philosophical Proof of a Creator/Beats Aquinas!

[JDaniel]

has anyone discussed copleston on aquinas yet?

Not yet, to my knowledge.

jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

I have said on another link about Aquinas and the Trinity that my proof of God is in nature aswell as divine revelation. God is in the three states of matter, the three primary colours in light, the three primary colours in art, the three dimensions of objects, the past, present, future of time. Somebody has said something about God being in language I-me-you but this doesn’t make sense to me as “I” and “me” are the same. I’m sure God is in language aswell.

This is my theology on the Trinity. God the Father is represented by solid, God the Son by liquid although there are certain aspects of solid about him too, and God the Holy Spirit by gas. The Holy Spirit is the oxygen of the soul and we breathe in the Holy Spirit.

For scientific proof, the atoms of a solid do not move a lot and do not have a lot of energy, the atoms of a liquid have more energy but they stay together and do not expand over a large surface area, the atoms of a gas are the fastest and they can move great distance. God the Father is pretty static, God the Son is a mover and shaker across a small surface area, but God the Holy Spirit is the greatest mover and shaker over a larger surface area.

Where did you get these ideas from? You do realize that you are promoting hardcore pantheism don’t you?

 

[greylorn]

I mentioned this in passing on another thread, which really wasn’t, I realize in retrospect, appropriate. Therefore, I ‘m posting this again on its own thread as from reading here it is evident that many are interested in philosophical proofs of a creator. So here is my humble offering. Although it takes but ten minutes or so tops to read, it’s too long to post here. Therefore, I shall provide the URL.

Although it was also published on Ezine Articles, a large online publication service where one may have his or her nonfiction articles published, if accepted, I’d rather it be read in its original version at my website. In order to meet their guidelines, I had to edit it somewhat.

The proof is based upon the implications of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. Although it does not purport to prove the existence of God per se, I do claim to prove the existence of some sort of universal creator, a first step in the process. As I state in its conclusion, although my arguments might transpose to a typical intelligent design thesis, it transcends such and cannot be so easily dismissed because it utilizes the prevailing paradigm in which modern physics is formulated.

And, oh yes. I’m quite aware that Dr. Einstein had been a self-professed atheist. Ironic, isn’t it? If there are any atheists or agnostics reading here, can you refute my reasoning? I’m always educable.

wwwdnschneidercom.xbuild.com/#/miscellaneous-7/4526495432

I tried, but your presentation got in the way. I don’t have time to filter out whatever tidbits of argument there might be from a dozen pages of what I’d best describe as, “Blather in fine print against an obfuscating background of promises and long sentences,”

How about condensing the crux of your argument to a clearly formatted page without any hype? I don’t want to know about you until I see that you have interesting ideas. Then, format it cleanly, get rid of the gray background, and use a font spec which allows blind old people like me to increase the typesize.

Thanks.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Where did you get these ideas from? You do realize that you are promoting hardcore pantheism don’t you?

egads!

 

[Don_Schneider]

I tried, but your presentation got in the way. I don’t have time to filter out whatever tidbits of argument there might be from a dozen pages of what I’d best describe as, “Blather in fine print against an obfuscating background of promises and long sentences,”

How about condensing the crux of your argument to a clearly formatted page without any hype? I don’t want to know about you until I see that you have interesting ideas. Then, format it cleanly, get rid of the gray background, and use a font spec which allows blind old people like me to increase the typesize.

Thanks.

Dear Grey,

I like your style! Unfortunately, I’m no spring chicken myself and my tech prowess and a buck twenty-five (at 7-Eleven, that is; most decidedly not at Starbucks!) would get me a cup of coffee. I thought a gray background was easy on one’s eyes.

Anyway, a slightly edited version of the essay was presented on Ezine Articles. Perhaps you would find that easier to read for a number of reasons. If interested, here is the URL:

http:ezinearticles.com/?Proof-of-a-Creator—A-Rejoinder-to-Theodore-Schick,-Jr&id=1295289

Best regards,

Don Schneider

 

[greylorn]

Dear Grey,

I like your style! Unfortunately, I’m no spring chicken myself and my tech prowess and a buck twenty-five (at 7-Eleven, that is; most decidedly not at Starbucks!) would get me a cup of coffee. I thought a gray background was easy on one’s eyes.

Anyway, a slightly edited version of the essay was presented on Ezine Articles. Perhaps you would find that easier to read for a number of reasons. If interested, here is the URL:

http:ezinearticles.com/?Proof-of-a-Creator—A-Rejoinder-to-Theodore-Schick,-Jr&id=1295289

Best regards,

Don Schneider

Here’s a proposal: Instead of going out to SBucks or CK for crummy coffee, work up a clear and straightforward copy of your argument, and I’ll send you a pound of first rate coffee. But you’ll need to grind the beans and pour hot water over them.

Give me a good argument that you can defend, and I’ll send a coffee grinder. (Used, but good!) Anything beyond that I’m willing to negotiate.

I tried your link, twice. Each time, it brought up an ask.com browser. I hate ask.com. The people behind this site have found many ways to intrude upon the internet activity of people, without permission. They do not “ask.” They remind me of old fashioned door-to-door salesmen who think that getting a foot in one’s door is the key to sales.
I’d not use that site if my life depended on it, which it will not.

Would you consider Plan B?

How about you dumbing down your argument for this thread, and presenting it here within the limits of a single post?

This will not have the filtering effect provided by your site, and will allow a number of unqualified individuals to make enough sense of your material to imagine that they are qualified to comment thereon. I am likely to be one of them. Lucky you!

Yep, that means a rewrite. I hate rewrites. Everyone should dote upon every word I figure out how to emit, but because of their ignorance and incompetence, they don’t. Not even any of my wives— go figure! So I’m paying you back for all the rewrites I’ve done, and those unappreciative but interesting wives, simply by being ornery.

Surely you know that rewrites and retries are the price paid by anyone courageous enough to introduce interesting ideas into a public forum.

 

[greylorn]

Dear nkbeth,

You wrote:
*
“My question is, if God is the Sole Adequate* Cause of new existence, isn’t HE also the Sole Sufficient Reason of new existence as well? If so, in what sense are other causes described as (extrinsic) sufficient reasons?”

That is an incisive and SPLENDID question.

God is, indeed, the sole adequate cause for “new existence,” and also the sole sufficient reason of “new existence” as well. But God gives to creatures their finite natures which exert genuine secondary causality – and thus function as extrinsic reasons in their own order of nature. Gilson makes this point. God’s power is manifested in an even more perfect manner when he creates finite beings which can actually participate in real causality. The “new existence” which is produced when they act, as when I hit a ball and make it move, ultimately originates in God. But He enables that act whereby that new perfection comes to be to be truly MY act, since I am the agent who hits the ball. MY nature is that of a “hitter” with certain limited strength and directional control which affects and effects how that “new existence” is manifested.

Thus, God and creature conjointly produce new effects in the world. He is the ultimate source and power behind the new existence manifested each and every time a creature acts, but the acts of the creature truly belong to its own nature, since it is in and through this particular finite agent that the “new existence” is realized. The creature is the immediate agent of the production of such effects, and its finite nature specifies and determines what kind of acts or effects occur. That is why we come to know the natures of things through the activities they perform and the ends their acts attain.

[edited]

The most fundamental laws of physics are the Three Laws of Thermodynamics. I’ll assume that having a Ph.d.in any subject relevant to the question of creation or of human existence implies understanding of these laws and their profound implications for creation.

Which of the three laws are extrinsic to God, and which are intrinsic?

And, is mathematical logic extrinsic or intrinsic to God?

 

[MindOverMatter]

[edited]
greylorn;5481347:

Let’s deal with the issues you’ve mentioned. Here is a less than “SPLENDID” question.

The most fundamental laws of physics are the Three Laws of Thermodynamics. I’ll assume that having a Ph.d.in any subject relevant to the question of creation or of human existence implies understanding of these laws and their profound implications for creation.

And what are those profound implications? Let me just say here that the laws physics does not create Ultimate-Existence; Ultimate-Existence creates the laws of physics. Does that make sense to you?

And, is mathematical logic extrinsic or intrinsic to God?

Logic exists because of Gods being. Logic is a natural result of Gods existence as being. If there were no existence/being, there would be no logic. [edited]

 

[greylorn]

Whats your problem? Do you have a Ph.d? I doubt that anybody who has had a debate with you has much respect for your intellectual abilities either, and probably doubt very much that you have one. If somebody wants to present themselves as a Ph.d then you will have to accept it unless you can prove that they are not Ph.d. What reason do you have for making the implication of dishonesty?. How about you stop telling people what to do. How about you do some real philosophy!!?

And what are those profound implications? Let me just say here that the laws physics does not create Ultimate-Existence; Ultimate-Existence creates the laws of physics. Does that make sense to you?

Logic exists because of Gods being. Logic is a natural result of Gods existence as being. If there were no existence/being, there would be no logic. Do you understand that?

Actually, no elements of your annoying rant made sense to me. Certainly this is a measure of my incompetence and has nothing to do with your innovative grammar.

I’m just not capable of understanding things at your level. Darn! I wish some Ph.d. would anoint me as her spokespin— spokesperson. I’ll enroll in First Grade this September in hopes of qualifying for the job. .

Thank you for the thoughtful, erudite reminder of my deficiencies, even though my post was not addressed to you. I appreciate kindnesses in any form from the followers of Christ’s teachings, especially those which remind me of my lowly place in their esteem. .