The best i could do for Metaphysical Naturalism

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you think it is against existence? Actually it is supporting it. Do you have feeling? Happiness, loneliness, painfull, heartbroken, peacefull, sadness. Where do you think is it made of?
 
Well the universe could be eternal, that doesnt disprove the theory
 
Well the universe could be eternal,
If by eternal you mean infinite in extent, then no it doesnā€™t disprove the theory. However, the fact that things are changing does disprove the theory. If all possibilities necessarily become actual, there is no reason for any potential possibility to not be actual, and so they would all be actual all at once without change.

The fact that this is not the case means that the theory is not in principle a logically possible state of affairs.
 
To a photon things never change.
ā€” a particle of light.

When an observer in an isolated laboratory measures the photon, they find that the particleā€™s polarization ā€” the axis on which it spins ā€” is either vertical or horizontal.

Photons move from potentiality to actuality. Itā€™s irrelevant if they have particular states when measured or not measured. The idea that it can have the state of being both horizontal and vertical is irrelevant to the fact that it is changing.

Light changes.
 
Last edited:
You really donā€™t understand the concept of relativity do you.
You really donā€™t understand the science. Address what was quoted from the very same article you provided or admit that you are wrong.
ā€” a particle of light.

When an observer in an isolated laboratory measures the photon, they find that the particleā€™s polarization ā€” the axis on which it spins ā€” is either vertical or horizontal.
Photons move from potentiality to actuality. Itā€™s irrelevant if they have particular states when measured or not measured. The idea that it can have the state of being both horizontal and vertical is irrelevant to the fact that it is changing.

Light changes.
 
You donā€™t seem to realize that this is only bolstering my case.
There is no case for a contradiction and certainly no case for pseudo-sciences based on a faulty understanding you have of some article you found.
 
Last edited:
Whatā€™s actually true for one observer, can be only potentially true for another observer.
That doesnā€™t mean that change is not occurring
Thus itā€™s not contradictory that for ā€œ God ā€ everything is actually true, while for us the very same things are only potentially true.
That doesnā€™t mean that change didnā€™t actually occur for us. Relativity doesnā€™t changed that.
 
In my own opinion, if you believe in existence why you search something against existence to prove the existence is not exist?
 
I am pretending to be a Naturalist. This is the best metaphysical theory i can come up with. Please donā€™t be worried because i am very much a theist. But while i like to think of my self as a religious philosopher or student of theistic philosophy, i see it as part of my responsibility to think of counter arguments to my own beliefs. Thatā€™s the only way you can become stronger.

The theory goes like this.
  1. There is an ultimate reality that has no dimensions. A real singularity that has existed for all eternity. In this respect it does not change.
  2. This being or entity has no intelligence but contains within it all possibilities
  3. This entities nature is existence. It is pure actuality.
  4. Because this entity is pure-actuality there is nothing in it that is not actual.
  5. Because this entity contains all possibilities, and because there is nothing in itā€™s nature that is not actual, it must follow that all possibilities must simultaneously become actual in itā€™s existence.
Hence physical reality as we know it is just the natural out come of possibilities that have become actualised by the nature of existence and does not require an intelligent cause.
Vatican I condemned modernism. Modernism is inclined to pantheism: God has no reality outside the world.
  1. If anyone shall deny One true God, Creator and Lord of things visible and invisible; let him be anathema.
  2. If anyone shall not be ashamed to affirm that, except matter, nothing exists; let him be anathema.
  3. If anyone shall say that the substance and essence of God and of all things is one and the same; let him be anathema.
  4. If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the Divine substance; or that the Divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself, becomes all things; or, lastly, that God is a universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universality of things, distinct according to genera, species and individuals; let him be anathema.
  5. If anyone does not confess that the world, and all things that are contained in it, both spiritual and material, have been, in their whole substance, produced by God out of nothing; or shall say that God created, not by His will, free from all necessity, but by a necessity equal to the necessity whereby He loves Himself; or shall deny that the world was made for the glory of God; let him be anathema.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. God will not condemn anyone instead they love them. God love ppl whether they are naturalist, or relativism, or anything. Because it is all from Him. And existence is from Him. He even love those truth seeker to find Him in the truth.
 
I disagree. God will not condemn anyone instead they love them. God love ppl whether they are naturalist, or relativism, or anything. Because it is all from Him. And existence is from Him. He even love those truth seeker to find Him in the truth.
I donā€™t know what you disagree with from your post.
 
Just because the ā€œultimate realityā€ that you referred to in the OP contains within itself everything that could ever possibly exist, it doesnā€™t mean that I canā€™t experience change. Itā€™s as if Iā€™m experiencing that ā€œ ultimate reality ā€ one frame at a time.
I did not mean to argue that ultimate reality is the sum of all actual things. I meant to argue that ultimate reality is the ground of all possibility and that therefore all possibility necessarily becomes actual because nothing that is true of ultimate reality can be said to be not actual.

But even if i take your definition as fact, it follows that everything necessarily exists, and therefore there cannot be any change and it would be meaningless to argue that there can be.
 
I donā€™t know what you disagree with from your post.
I think he means your reply is inappropriate for this kind of thread. This thread is exploring a possible natural explanation for existence, but i donā€™t actually think itā€™s true. Itā€™s just a subject for debate.
 
I disagree with anathema. Why should it be anathema?
This is what it means. The council is stating that they are dogmas of faith.

Modern Catholic Dictionary, Anathema
Solemn condemnation, of biblical origin, used by the Church to declare that some position or teaching contradicts Catholic faith and doctrine.

ā€œIf anyone,ā€ Paul wrote to the Galatians, ā€œpreach to you a gospel besides what you have received, let him be anathemaā€ (Galatians 1:9). Reflecting the Churchā€™s concern to preserve the integrity of faith, the Fathers anathematized heretics in a variety of terms. Polycarp called Marcion the firstborn of the devil. Ignatius saw in heretics poisonous plants, or animals in human form. Justin (c. 100-65)and Tertullian (160-220) called their teachings an inspiration of the Evil One. Theophilus compared them to barren and rocky islands on which ships were wrecked, and Origen said they were pirates placing lights on cliffs to lure and destroy vessels in search of refuge. These primitive views were later tempered in language, but the implicit attitudes remained and were crystallized in solemn conciliar decrees. The familiar anathema sit (let him be anathema, or excommunicated) appears to have been first applied to heretics at the Council of Elvira (Spain) in 300-6, and became the standard formula in all the general councils of the Church, as against Arius (256-336) at I Nicaea(325), Nestorius at Ephesus (431), Eutyches at Chalcedon (451) and the Iconoclasts at II Nicaea in 787. (Etym. Greek anathema, thing devoted to evil, curse; and accursed thing or person; from anatithenai, to set up, dedicate.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top