St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

  • Thread starter Thread starter raikou
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
belorg said:
Maybe you should refrain from replying until you actually know what you are talking about.
And judging by your insults and personal attacks I very much doubt that Amor vincit omnia. I hope that will be true, but Amor has a long way to go before it can win against your arrogance.
Click to expand...
It is amazing, and very, very telling, that you use more words to defend your self than your argument.
 
Linux said:
But even if that were the case, I fail to see why two possible states necessarily equate to two actual states. There is no possible world where God is not creating.
Click to expand...
On the contrary,

Genesis 2:2
Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work he had been doing, he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.
3
So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work he had done in creation.
 
Love4All said:
On the contrary,

Genesis 2:2
Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work he had been doing, he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.
3
So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work he had done in creation.
Click to expand...
I thought we were having a metaphysical discussion? Bible literalism is not an argument.😃
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Yes, I tried to explain that to him but I think he just brushed it off. We just have to keep in mind that God’s creative act and His activity in His creation neither subtracts from nor adds to His Essenc or Nature ( I.E. His Existence ). Linus2nd
Click to expand...
👍

I have seen this belorg phenomenon in other atheists. It is sad to see, tragic in fact, since it may very justly cost them their immortal souls. They begin, ostensibly, as lovers of truth, and they hold back assent to divine revelation for fear of straying from the truth. They become atheists because, in their words, “there is lack of compelling evidence for God.” (Although most of them use some insulting euphemism in place of “God.”) Ostensibly seeking and not finding any evidence, they begin to conclude that their atheism is correct, and then they proceed to argue it, and somewhere along the line, it seems, tragically, they fall in love with atheism and fall out of love with truth. Then their atheism becomes the litmus test of “truth” for them in all things, and finally, when they are shown that logic contradicts them, they reject logic, because they are too attached to their position, and no longer love the truth, if indeed they ever did.

Rejection of the truth that one knows is a Sin against the Holy Ghost.
 
Linux said:
I thought we were having a metaphysical discussion? Bible literalism is not an argument.😃
Click to expand...
Whether we are discussing metaphysics, Scripture, chemistry, or popular music, I THOUGHT we were attempting, at least, to confine ourselves to discussing reality.

The reality is that God is not constantly creating, as Genesis makes very clear.
 
Love4All said:
Whether we are discussing metaphysics, Scripture, chemistry, or popular music, I THOUGHT we were attempting, at least, to confine ourselves to discussing reality.

The reality is that God is not constantly creating, as Genesis makes very clear.
Click to expand...
That’s the thing, scripture is not metaphysics. 7 day creation followed by a resting God is not documenting a **literal **historic event like how we write history in the modern world. Its more like a parable; its an Allegory expressing the literal truth that there is a God that created physical reality.
 
Love4All said:
👍

I have seen this belorg phenomenon in other atheists. It is sad to see, tragic in fact, since it may very justly cost them their immortal souls.
Click to expand...
They would have to know that they had an immortal soul to lose before they can lose it.
 
Linux said:
That’s the thing, scripture is not metaphysics. 7 day creation followed by a resting God is not documenting a **literal **historic event like how we write history in the modern world. Its more like a parable; its an Allegory expressing the literal truth that there is a God that created physical reality.
Click to expand...
And that His activity is punctuated by rest.
 
Linux said:
They would have to know that they had an immortal soul to lose before they can lose it.
Click to expand...
Tragically, no. All they have to do is reject all love with finality. And loving atheism more than truth is a step down that slippery slope.
 
Love4All said:
Tragically, no. All they have to do is reject all love with finality. And loving atheism more than truth is a step down that slippery slope.
Click to expand...
Wrong. They have to knowingly reject all moral truth with finality. God does not judge what we don’t know.
 
Love4All said:
👍

I have seen this belorg phenomenon in other atheists. It is sad to see, tragic in fact, since it may very justly cost them their immortal souls. They begin, ostensibly, as lovers of truth, and they hold back assent to divine revelation for fear of straying from the truth. They become atheists because, in their words, “there is lack of compelling evidence for God.” (Although most of them use some insulting euphemism in place of “God.”) Ostensibly seeking and not finding any evidence, they begin to conclude that their atheism is correct, and then they proceed to argue it, and somewhere along the line, it seems, tragically, they fall in love with atheism and fall out of love with truth. Then their atheism becomes the litmus test of “truth” for them in all things, and finally, when they are shown that logic contradicts them, they reject logic, because they are too attached to their position, and no longer love the truth, if indeed they ever did.

Rejection of the truth that one knows is a Sin against the Holy Ghost.
Click to expand...
We don’t know the reasons any particular person has. That is between them and God.

Linus2nd
 
Linux said:
That’s the thing, scripture is not metaphysics. 7 day creation followed by a resting God is not documenting a **literal **historic event like how we write history in the modern world. Its more like a parable; its an Allegory expressing the literal truth that there is a God that created physical reality.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that is about it. Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Yes, I tried to explain that to him but I think he just brushed it off. We just have to keep in mind that God’s creative act and His activity in His creation neither subtracts from nor adds to His Essenc or Nature ( I.E. His Existence ). Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Yes, you asserted that God, who is immutable, has some sort of creative power that can be applied or not applied, but this does not make any difference. I know that you believe this, but you cannot back it up with logic.
 
Love4All said:
👍

I have seen this belorg phenomenon in other atheists. It is sad to see, tragic in fact, since it may very justly cost them their immortal souls. They begin, ostensibly, as lovers of truth, and they hold back assent to divine revelation for fear of straying from the truth. They become atheists because, in their words, “there is lack of compelling evidence for God.” (Although most of them use some insulting euphemism in place of “God.”) Ostensibly seeking and not finding any evidence, they begin to conclude that their atheism is correct, and then they proceed to argue it, and somewhere along the line, it seems, tragically, they fall in love with atheism and fall out of love with truth. Then their atheism becomes the litmus test of “truth” for them in all things, and finally, when they are shown that logic contradicts them, they reject logic, because they are too attached to their position, and no longer love the truth, if indeed they ever did.

Rejection of the truth that one knows is a Sin against the Holy Ghost.
Click to expand...
Will you stop preaching. We are ( at least we were) trying to have an open philosophical discussion, so throwing in theological assertions and treats is way out of line.
I could say the exact same things about you, just changing a few words and names and the above is about you.
But I won’t do that, because that is not the way I want to discuss things. I love the truth, even if it turns out the truth is not as pleasant as I would like it to be and I will change my mind as sson as a convincing argument against my position is presented. But so far, theer have ben pages and pages of futile attemps at redefining just about every concept in order for it to fit you preferred ‘truth’. And after all these pages, my argument is still left untouched.
 
belorg said:
Yes, you asserted that God, who is immutable, has some sort of creative power that can be applied or not applied, but this does not make any difference. I know that you believe this, but you cannot back it up with logic.
Click to expand...
Well, that is your opinion. My opinion is that it is you who lacks logic. You cannot claim to be logical and assert the following:

Belorg says :

“…We are ( at least we were) trying to have an open philosophical discussion, so throwing in theological assertions and treats is way out of line.
I could say the exact same things about you, just changing a few words and names and the above is about you.
But I won’t do that, because that is not the way I want to discuss things. I love the truth, even if it turns out the truth is not as pleasant as I would like it to be and I will change my mind as sson as a convincing argument against my position is presented. But so far, theer have ben pages and pages of futile attemps at redefining just about every concept in order for it to fit you preferred ‘truth’. And after all these pages, my argument is still left untouched…”

This is not logical. We have given you plenty of philosophical reasons, you have countered with untenable assertions and esoteric interpretations. Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Well, that is your opinion. My opinion is that it is you who lacks logic. You cannot claim to be logical and assert the following:

Belorg says :

“…We are ( at least we were) trying to have an open philosophical discussion, so throwing in theological assertions and treats is way out of line.
I could say the exact same things about you, just changing a few words and names and the above is about you.
But I won’t do that, because that is not the way I want to discuss things. I love the truth, even if it turns out the truth is not as pleasant as I would like it to be and I will change my mind as sson as a convincing argument against my position is presented. But so far, theer have ben pages and pages of futile attemps at redefining just about every concept in order for it to fit you preferred ‘truth’. And after all these pages, my argument is still left untouched…”

This is not logical. We have given you plenty of philosophical reasons, you have countered with untenable assertions and esoteric interpretations. Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Even the Catholics on this thread do not agree with each other. And I haven’t countered anything with untenable assertions, because , really, there wasn’t anything that even needed countering.
 
belorg said:
Even the Catholics on this thread do not agree with each other. And I haven’t countered anything with untenable assertions, because , really, there wasn’t anything that even needed countering.
Click to expand...
Again, a baseless assumption. Just because you can’t see the logic doesn’t mean that it isn’t there. I really think you have intentionally decided not to accept them for reasons of your own and feel compelled to put on a brave front. I admit you have made an energetic effort but it has fallen flat. It has a certain appeal to non-believers because they are looking for any straw to grab onto. And while it is true that even believers to no universally agree on every aspect of the fundamental Scholastic argumentation, it is true that they agree on the fundamental aspects and conclusions. Linus2nd
 
Linux said:
Wrong. They have to knowingly reject all moral truth with finality. God does not judge what we don’t know.
Click to expand...
“All moral truth” == Love. There is no Truth beyond Love.

Matthew 22:34 When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35 and one of them [a scholar of the law] tested him by asking, 36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top