I know that once you have deicide to believe you have closed your eyes forever for whatever may challenge your And I respect that, but I have no idea what somebody like you is doing in a philosophical discussion.It is not an insult to call you a spade if you are a spade, or a liar if you are a liar. And if you say you are beginning from Catholic Doctrine and deriving that God cannot create, then you are a liar. If you wish to clear your name of that charge, then clearly present the logic that goes from Catholic Doctrine to “God cannot create.”
Obviously, that is impossible, so obviously, you were lying. Love tells the truth, and that is what I have done.
Creatio ex nihilo means that there is no material cause, not that there are no possible beings. How is this a violation of Catholic doctrine?Since you have creatures in potency, this is not creatio ,ex nihilo. This is a violation of Catholic doctrine.
You wish that I lose the debate, but I haven’t. Creation does not start from absolute nothingness. That is your fundamental misunderstanding. Creation start from the fact that there are possible beings that can be created. And there are possible beings because there is a God who can create them.Once you admit, as you do, that potency is necessary, you have already lost the debate.
No, you can’t. if you don’t belive me, read what Linus has to say on this. He’s a Catholic.Creatio ex nihilo means that there is no material cause, not that there are no possible beings. How is this a violation of Catholic doctrine?
{QUOTE]
Now, I know you are going to try to get around this by saying that the ‘everything’ in Catholic doctrine actually means everything that actually exists, and does not include that things that only exist in potency, but fact is that you cannot account for the potency of these beings, so you have to admit that your brand of theism cannot answer the question why there is something rather than nothing.{/QUOTE]
Yes I can explain the potency of possible beings. They have a potency to exist because there is an Omnipotent God who can give them actual existence. If there is no God, then there cannot be any possible being, and you will have absolute nothingness.
Of course axioms cannot be arrived at by using scientific methods. science starts from certain assumptions (axioms).First, by using naturalistic hypotheses scientists do not attempt to arrive at the ultimate causes of things. They are satisfied in merely finding the mathematical equations that would describe physical reality for them. This is why science does not have much explanatory power. They have postulates (assumptions), but not axioms; they have theories, but not theorems.
Of course the firsut baal does not have to start by being stationary. that’s the whole point. the first ball isn’t stationary, it is moving, so it is not an unmoved mover. The difefrence with other movers is that the first mover moves out of itself.COLOR=“red”]Every analogy derived from nature is imperfect. But the point of the analogy is that the first ball does not have to start by being stationary (state of potency to motion) first, and then be moved by another to again kinetic energy, before it can move the second ball. It is enough that it already has kinetic energy (actuality) to be able to move (or impart kinetic energy) to the second ball.
I do not belive that creation starts from absolute nothingness either, but unfortunately, Catholic doctrine does believe that,as is shown in Linus’ post.You wish that I lose the debate, but I haven’t. Creation does not start from absolute nothingness. That is your fundamental misunderstanding. Creation start from the fact that there are possible beings that can be created. And there are possible beings because there is a God who can create them.
God is eternal. God is someone. God exists always. God created the universe and it creatures. Catholic doctrine says creation starts with God, not nothingness. Your arguement is invalid based on the the strawman fallacy that you have employed.I do not belive that creation starts from absolute nothingness either, but unfortunately, Catholic doctrine does believe that,as is shown in Linus’ post.
Argumentum ad hominem the whole way through.I know that once you have deicide to believe you have closed your eyes forever for whatever may challenge your And I respect that, but I have no idea what somebody like you is doing in a philosophical discussion.
I truly feel sorry for yoi, for you are so deeply indoctrinated that you can only feel Hate4All who don’t agree with you, but I think you are beyond help.
Since you have creatures in potency, this is not creatio ,ex nihilo. This is a violation of Catholic doctrine.
Now, I know you are going to try to get around this by saying that the ‘everything’ in Catholic doctrine actually means everything that actually exists, and does not include that things that only exist in potency, but fact is that you cannot account for the potency of these beings, so you have to admit that your brand of theism cannot answer the question why there is something rather than nothing.
There is also the fact that there are various natruralistic hypotheses that describe how things can come into existence from a state of potency. Once you admit, as you do, that potency is necessary, you have already lost the debate.
As for your last analogy: a ball can only move another ball if the first ball trensfers its kinetic energy to the second one. That means the first one must be moving or it cannot move the second one.
So, I am supposed to take “Belorg is a troll” as good reason to believe that God can create without mutating.Argumentum ad hominem the whole way through.
You can’t possibly believe that your assertion of my closed-mindedness and hatred amounts to a convincing argument that God cannot create without mutating.
Whenever you decide (or “deicide,” as some say) to step down from your omniscient judging seat, and re-enter the argument, I’ll welcome that.
To remind you, we are now at the point where you were about to present a cogent argument supporting your as yet unsupported conjecture that God cannot create without mutating in that process. We have been at that point for several posts by now, so far we have seen several clever dissembling and distracting techniques from you. Hint: if I valued your opinion, I would have a much lower opinion of myself. Thank God I assess opinions on their merit rather than on how deeply they attempt to cut me! In any case, you are not doing anything constructive by attempting to discern my motives or maligning my character. That is all your feeble, transparent, and failed attempt to avoid addressing the central point, which is that in order to assert “God must mutate to create,” you need to support it, you need to give a good reason why anyone should believe that.
“Because I, belorg, said so,” is not a good reason.
“Because you, Love4All, are actually filled with hate,” is not a good reason.
“Because you, Love4All, are closed minded and not a philosopher,” is not a good reason.
Kindly refrain from wasting more of my time and your time, posting the inanities you have been posting, and start putting forth a real argument. For someone who accuses others of being bad philosophers, you’re a terrible philosopher. You’d get laughed right out of any college, “arguing” the way you do. Argument is a series of statements aiming at a definite point. Ad hominems and character judgments are no part of it. Cease and desist from your libelous commentary and get to arguing!
You are supposed to get over yourself, stop taking offense at the things I say, and get back to arguing.So, I am supposed to take “Belorg is a troll” as good reason to believe that God can create without mutating.
I accept this. It is an article of faith that the universe of actual beings was produced by God out of nothing. The key here is to understand what the Church means by “nothing.” I think that by this the Church simply means “no pre-existing thing.” I got a confirmation of this from the CCC #296:Catholic Doctring on Creation, De Fide
All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing ( ex nihil ) by God. ( Vatican 1 )
Therefore, the dogma of creation does not exclude the fact that a creature, before creation, was merely a possible being, which means that it has no actual existence. As a possible being (or essence without entitative esse) we can in no way regard it as a pre-existent thing; so in a sense it is truly “nothing.”296 We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance. God creates freely "out of nothing.” vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P19.HTM
There are two kinds of potency in relation to existence. There is subjective potency and *objective potency. *Subjective potency is the potency that you find in a real subject. In relation to the act of existence it is the potency of essence as it exists in, and is created at the same time as, the creature. It is potency properly understood, and is an intrinsic principle of the composite subject. You are CORRECT: creatures in the world are not derived from this kind of potency.One cannot properly say then that the universe is derived from a certain potency, since " potency, " properly understood, exists only as a principle of created substances which are a composit of a potency principle ( essence or form ) and an active principle ( act ). To say that creation flows from God as from a " potency " is absolutely incorrect.
Yes, I can. Please read my comments to Linus’ post.No, you can’t. if you don’t belive me, read what Linus has to say on this. He’s a Catholic.
I think you got your terms mixed up. Axioms are not assumptions. They are self-evident principles that are accepted as true without proof. But let’s not get sidetracked by this.Of course axioms cannot be arrived at by using scientific methods. science starts from certain assumptions (axioms).
In this analogy the actuality is represented by the state of being in local motion, and the potentiality by the state of being at rest. The point is that the white ball causes a second ball to be actual (changed to the state of local motion) insofar as it itself is in actuality (state of local motion), and not because it mutated by first being in potentiality (state of rest) and then moved to actuality (state of motion). If the white ball happened to be in a state of perpetual local motion (which represents the actuality of Pure Act), then no mutation is required just to give the second ball the actuality of local motion. You see, Belorg, if you pay attention to the terms of the analogy, you should see that the local movement of the white ball does not represent the mutation of the cause, but the actuality of the cause.Of course the firsut baal does not have to start by being stationary. that’s the whole point. the first ball isn’t stationary, it is moving, so it is not an unmoved mover. The difefrence with other movers is that the first mover moves out of itself.
This last paragraph is about as far from Thomism as you can get. So, it is completely irrelevant to my argument.Yes, I can. Please read my comments to Linus’ post.
I think you got your terms mixed up. Axioms are not assumptions. They are self-evident principles that are accepted as true without proof. But let’s not get sidetracked by this.
In this analogy the actuality is represented by the state of being in local motion, and the potentiality by the state of being at rest. The point is that the white ball causes a second ball to be actual (changed to the state of local motion) insofar as it itself is in actuality (state of local motion), and not because it mutated by first being in potentiality (state of rest) and then moved to actuality (state of motion). If the white ball happened to be in a state of perpetual local motion (which represents the actuality of Pure Act), then no mutation is required just to give the second ball the actuality of local motion. You see, Belorg, if you pay attention to the terms of the analogy, you should see that the local movement of the white ball does not represent the mutation of the cause, but the actuality of the cause.
This thread has been going on for more than 50 pages now, and all you have been able to come up with is sheer nonsense like “If we have a reality consisting of only one entity, then, if we describe this as a set, we have two entities”.,You are supposed to get over yourself, stop taking offense at the things I say, and get back to arguing.
You are supposed to prove that God cannot create without mutating. The default position is Catholic Doctrine, remember? You were supposed to demonstrate a contradiction in that.
And to state something utterly obvious, if you can’t, then you are a troll. Simple. Which is it going to be, belorg? The default position is that Catholic Doctrine is correct and belorg is a troll. Also, if belorg attempts to claim that he was accepting for the sake of argument that Catholic Doctrine is correct, he is a liar.
I am not using anything other than YOUR CLAIMS on this very thread, to reach my conclusions above. Prove me wrong, if you think you can.
Yes, what you say is orthodox in every way. The only problem I have is the use of " objective potency " in place of the Ideas God has of all possible beings. It is O,K. to think of it that way in one’s own mind but when one uses it in a debate or discussion, people can use it to justify reaching an incorrect conclusion. Thomas does discuss the fact that all creation " comes from God " but he goes on to explain that this is not to be interpreted as coming from God as from " some pre-existing matter. "I accept this. It is an article of faith that the universe of actual beings was produced by God out of nothing. The key here is to understand what the Church means by “nothing.” I think that by this the Church simply means “no pre-existing thing.” I got a confirmation of this from the CCC #296:
Therefore, the dogma of creation does not exclude the fact that a creature, before creation, was merely a possible being, which means that it has no actual existence. As a possible being (or essence without entitative esse) we can in no way regard it as a pre-existent thing; so in a sense it is truly “nothing.”
There are two kinds of potency in relation to existence. There is subjective potency and *objective potency. *Subjective potency is the potency that you find in a real subject. In relation to the act of existence it is the potency of essence as it exists in, and is created at the same time as, the creature. It is potency properly understood, and is an intrinsic principle of the composite subject. You are CORRECT: creatures in the world are not derived from this kind of potency.
However, there is another kind of potency, called objective potency, which represents the potency of a possible being as an object of God’s Power, or as an object of God’s Knowledge. A possible being has no actual existence (no entitative esse). Yet it exists virtually in God’s Power (virtual esse), and cognitively in God’s Mind (cognitive esse). This is the kind of potency that I am talking about. It is the objective potency of a possible being to be an actual being by God’s creative act. Before anything is created, it already exists – not entitatively, of course, – but virtually in God’s Power and cognitively in God’s Mind (as a being of reason).
If there is an all-powerful God, then anything that has no intrinsic contradiction would be possible for Him to create. The possibility of things – which I have defined as “objective potency” - is therefore rooted in Divine Omnipotence (See S.T. Part 1, Q. 25, Art.3). Take God out of the picture and nothing would be possible. The result would be absolute nothingness. In that state of absolute nothingness, nothing will ever come to be.
Aquinas’ first mover argument only proves the existence of God in His aspect as Prime Mover. The Catholic God, of course, is more than just a Prime Mover. In fact, St. Thomas also had other arguments that show God as First Cause of being, as Highest Being in the order of Goodness and Perfection, as Intelligent Governor of the world, etc.Aquinas’s first mover argument doesn’t prove the existence of god at all; it says nothing to prove that the first mover is a conscious being, much less the Catholic god or any god for that matter.
As a matter of fact, Aquinas showed that philosophy alone cannot prove whether the universe had a beginning or whether it always existed. He said that it was an article of faith that the world was created in time. However, the fact that we have a mutable world indicates that the world is not a necessary being, but a contingent being. If that is the case, and the world always existed (eternal), then it means that the world is eternally dependent on God.What I think no one has ever considered, is that perhaps there is no beginning or end, only an infinite continuum of universes and time. Perhaps every motion made in this universe is countered by one in another balancing the movers; we simply do not know yet. However, claiming this lack of knowledge to be proof for god is irrational and fallacious, because it says nothing to prove the nature of the “mover”.
Misrepresenting my position doesn’t do anything to help yours.This thread has been going on for more than 50 pages now, and all you have been able to come up with is sheer nonsense like “If we have a reality consisting of only one entity, then, if we describe this as a set, we have two entities”.,
Other than that you have thrown some insults at me.
I am going to be charitable and assume you are in good faith. You really believe that somehow or other you have presented a successful argument. I read through this whole thread and didn’t see it, which is why I (along with several others) have been asking you for a formal statement, all to no avail. But I will go the extra mile. I will go through all your previous posts, and find the closest thing I can to something that probably made you think, while writing it, that you were soundly trouncing Saint Thomas.The conclsuion: I have pressented an argument against Thomism, and nobody in this thread has been able to refute it. So, unless somebody comes up with something completely new, Good-bye