Thomistic Argument

[belorg]

Sorry took so long to reply.

Are we being intellectually honest here, belorg? Is a triangle drawn out by a 4 year old just as good as a triangle drawn out in a CAD program? If we say no, we are affirming degrees of being.

There are different beings, but ‘qualities of being’ or ‘degrees of being’ are AFAICT completely subjective notions.
Of course, withinh the framework of theism, degrees of being make some sense, but from a naturalist POV, there are no degrees.

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, there are many questions.
Why you did not mention Transubstantiation?

Jaaanosik:

“Transubstantiation” was not required to be discussed, in my mind. But, since you’ve brought it up, I will say that it is a subject that I can in no way give to it its due. The Church has essentially held that there is no “change” in Christ during transubstantiation. It is thought throughout most, if not all, of its theological iterations that only the outward signs of the bread and wine are subject to change. These two species become the body and blood of Christ, but how is still a matter of debate among theologians. What is known is that his sacrifice has already taken place, his immolation, therefore, has been completed. A common thread within recent thoughts concerning the sacrifice during each Mass, is that each Mass is a “looking back” at Calvary, just as the Incarnation of Jesus was a “looking forward” to Calvary. (If you want more, please message me and I’ll see what I can do. But, any Priest will do a better job than I.)

This would be a great subject for its own thread.

How are non human attributes of Christ’s human nature explained?

I do not understand your question. What “non-human attributes?” I don’t need actual case examples, just some idea of what you are thinking of that are “non-human attributes.”

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The reason is that all concepts of personal Gods I have ever seen run into logical impossibilities.
Does that mean there cannot possibly be some God I have never heard of that is logically possible? No, but until I am presented with a case for a god that makes sense, my position is that I don’t believe in a personal deity

But Belorg, every a-theist concept anyone has ever seen is far more logically impossible! Would you mind providing one “not-logically-impossible” atheist argument against the existence of God - which is not a denial or rejection of a theist argument for His existence?

God bless,
jd

 

[Perplexity]

What do you guys think logical possibility is? As I understand it, (and as I believe most philosophers do), it means whether something’s being real, or actual would violate any of the logical laws. So, I can imagine myself being able to run faster than the speed of light, without any assistance. That scenario, or state of affairs, isn’t logically impossible: its being real wouldn’t violate any logical laws. But, we’d still say it’s impossible. Its impossibility therefore isn’t logical. There are different kinds of modalities, logical is only one of them.

 

[JDaniel]

CCC 626 (Since the “Author of life” who was killed is the same “living one [who has] risen”, the divine person of the Son of God necessarily continued to possess his human soul and body, separated from each other by death:

By the fact that at Christ’s death his soul was separated from his flesh, his one person is not itself divided into two persons; for the human body and soul of Christ have existed in the same way from the beginning of his earthly existence, in the divine person of the Word; and in death, although separated from each other, both remained with one and the same person of the Word.)

637 (In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.)

Thank you EB. I should have jumped to the catechism, but for some stupid reason, decided to go from memory. Given the state of my memory, that’s not always a good idea!

God bless,
jd

 

[Jaaanosik]

Jaaanosik:

“Transubstantiation” was not required to be discussed, in my mind. But, since you’ve brought it up, I will say that it is a subject that I can in no way give to it its due. The Church has essentially held that there is no “change” in Christ during transubstantiation. It is thought throughout most, if not all, of its theological iterations that only the outward signs of the bread and wine are subject to change. These two species become the body and blood of Christ, but how is still a matter of debate among theologians. What is known is that his sacrifice has already taken place, his immolation, therefore, has been completed. A common thread within recent thoughts concerning the sacrifice during each Mass, is that each Mass is a “looking back” at Calvary, just as the Incarnation of Jesus was a “looking forward” to Calvary. (If you want more, please message me and I’ll see what I can do. But, any Priest will do a better job than I.)

This would be a great subject for its own thread.

I do not understand your question. What “non-human attributes?” I don’t need actual case examples, just some idea of what you are thinking of that are “non-human attributes.”

God bless,
jd

I’ll PM you about the first.

Christ’s human nature - his human body.
One example, a human body can not walk on water.
Christ walked on water, his body had non-human attribute.

 

[JDaniel]

How is a beginningless first cause counterintuitive?

Benedictus2:

It’s not. That’s just a fun word to throw at theists. In fact, that God created the universe/multiverse yet is Himself uncaused (un-created), is extraordinarily pro-intuitive. What we have are two exigencies that are hateful contraries, as W.K. Wimsatt (I think) used to say. On the one hand we have never seen anything occur that was without some cause or other. On the other hand, we are precluded from regressing causative progression(s) to infinity.

Neither infinite past time nor infinite past succession can actually exist: it cannot be actualized. At the exact, precise moment of its (presumptive) actualization, it exactly and precisely becomes finite.

So, we are left with a real conundrum: we have the impossibility of infinite regression over there, yet and we have the actuality of causative progression over here. In actuality, everything is caused (pro-intuitive), yet an infinite regression, in actuality, is impossible (pro-intuitive). So, what are we to do? Ignore this contradiction, mutter something under our breaths, and amble on? Of course not. So, like Aquinas, we settle on the most reasonable conclusion we can make. And that is: there has to be an uncaused First Cause, i.e., an un-created Creator.

Anything else is unreasonable. If anything, it is the atheist position(s) that are counterintuitive.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

What do you guys think logical possibility is? As I understand it, (and as I believe most philosophers do), it means whether something’s being real, or actual would violate any of the logical laws. So, I can imagine myself being able to run faster than the speed of light, without any assistance. That scenario, or state of affairs, isn’t logically impossible: its being real wouldn’t violate any logical laws. But, we’d still say it’s impossible. Its impossibility therefore isn’t logical. There are different kinds of modalities, logical is only one of them.

Perplexity:

I’m perplexed. Would you mind explaining what you’re talking about? Nobody on this forum is stupid . . . well.

Please state exactly what you are trying to say.

God bless,
jd

 

[Perplexity]

Perplexity:

I’m perplexed. Would you mind explaining what you’re talking about? Nobody on this forum is stupid . . . well.

Please state exactly what you are trying to say.

God bless,
jd

Sure. I was reading a post of yours in which you were using the phrase “logically impossible” in a way I’m not familiar with. So, I was just asking what you take that phrase to mean.

As I understand modality (possibility, impossibility, necessity, etc.), there are different kinds of possibility, or necessity etc.

I think in the most basic sense what we mean when we say something is “possible” is just that it’s able to be real. It’s able to become a member of the actual world.

So, logical possibility/impossibility/necessity etc. concerns whether something’s being real would contradict a law of logic. For instance, the object that is bigger than itself. If there was such an object, would its existence contradict a law of logic? Well, no, not as I understand them. Yet, we still don’t want to say such a thing is able to be real. So it is impossible, but not because it violates a law of logic. It’s unable to be real for a different reason. Many authors here speak of metaphysical and epistemic possibility. These are just explications of what we mean when we say something is possible or impossible, different reasons why they’re so or not so.

 

[belorg]

But Belorg, every a-theist concept anyone has ever seen is far more logically impossible! Would you mind providing one “not-logically-impossible” atheist argument against the existence of God - which is not a denial or rejection of a theist argument for His existence?

God bless,
jd

Once the tempral ban on atheism threads is lifted, I’ll present you a few.
In this thread, however, I am discussing the impossibility of an unchanging reality to change.

 

[JDaniel]

Sure. I was reading a post of yours in which you were using the phrase “logically impossible” in a way I’m not familiar with. So, I was just asking what you take that phrase to mean.

Well, I believe I was responding to Belorg, I think, who used that very phrase in opposition to theistic arguments in general. That said, and all things being equal, I believe that there are absolute no atheist arguments that are logically possible. Prove me wrong.

As I understand modality (possibility, impossibility, necessity, etc.), there are different kinds of possibility, or necessity etc.

Yes, there’s metaphysical possibility/impossibility, there’s mathematical possibility/impossibility, and then, there’s physical possibility/impossibility. Logical possibility/impossibility is just like Truth: must comport with Reality.

OTOH, logical possibility/impossibility could view its “beings-of-the-mind” as ‘real.’ And, in a sense, they are imperfectly Real. They have a certain sense of ‘reality’ since they can often be communicated and manipulated. Also, they may give rise to Truths.

I think in the most basic sense what we mean when we say something is “possible” is just that it’s able to be real. It’s able to become a member of the actual world.

I would, in general, concur. But, I know there are things such as “beauty” that are not “part of the actual, per se, world,” if by “actual world” you mean “objectified world.”

So, logical possibility/impossibility/necessity etc. concerns whether something’s being real would contradict a law of logic. For instance, the object that is bigger than itself. If there was such an object, would its existence contradict a law of logic? Well, no, not as I understand them.

That to me violates logic. As well, it violates Reality. Unless, one re-defines the adjectival phrase “bigger than” to mean something else.

Yet, we still don’t want to say such a thing is able to be real. So it is impossible, but not because it violates a law of logic. It’s unable to be real for a different reason. Many authors here speak of metaphysical and epistemic possibility. These are just explications of what we mean when we say something is possible or impossible, different reasons why they’re so or not so.

Well, in the context of the phrase’s precise meanings, I’d change my mind if I could see a syllogism that expressed the logicality of your premise. Let me state right up front that I will not be swayed by some absurd, modal argument.

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Benedictus2:

It’s not. That’s just a fun word to throw at theists. In fact, that God created the universe/multiverse yet is Himself uncaused (un-created), is extraordinarily pro-intuitive. What we have are two exigencies that are hateful contraries, as W.K. Wimsatt (I think) used to say. On the one hand we have never seen anything occur that was without some cause or other. On the other hand, we are precluded from regressing causative progression(s) to infinity.

Neither infinite past time nor infinite past succession can actually exist: it cannot be actualized. At the exact, precise moment of its (presumptive) actualization, it exactly and precisely becomes finite.

So, we are left with a real conundrum: we have the impossibility of infinite regression over there, yet and we have the actuality of causative progression over here. In actuality, everything is caused (pro-intuitive), yet an infinite regression, in actuality, is impossible (pro-intuitive). So, what are we to do? Ignore this contradiction, mutter something under our breaths, and amble on? Of course not. So, like Aquinas, we settle on the most reasonable conclusion we can make. And that is: there has to be an uncaused First Cause, i.e., an un-created Creator.

Anything else is unreasonable. If anything, it is the atheist position(s) that are counterintuitive.

God bless,
jd

It may be ‘unreasonable’ but that does not mean it is counterintuitive. lots of things are counterintuitive, e.g. that time goes more slowly if you move faster. But nevertheless it’s unreasonable to reject this.
So, there may be reasons to believe that a beginningless cause is possible or even that it does exist, but that does not make it pro-intuitive.
Nobody’s ‘intuition’ can imagine some personal being not beginning. That does not mean a non-beginning personal being is incoherent.

 

[JDaniel]

Once the tempral ban on atheism threads is lifted, I’ll present you a few.
In this thread, however, I am discussing the impossibility of an unchanging reality to change.

Belorg:

Fair enough.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

It may be ‘unreasonable’ but that does not mean it is counterintuitive.

Belorg:

I believe the “philosophical” definition of counterintuitive is, that which is opposed to any argument that is, in short, prima facia. That which is “self-evident” is intuitive. That which is not self-evident is counterintuitive. Although I know there are variations of this for modal logic, which, except for the occasional modus ponens and modus tollens argument, are abjectly devoid of acceptable grounding.

lots of things are counterintuitive, e.g. that time goes more slowly if you move faster. But nevertheless it’s unreasonable to reject this.

But this is a surreal, personal (albeit irrational) feeling; it is not a statement of fact. There is no factical “slowdown.” (Except in the mind of a Solipsist!)

So, there may be reasons to believe that a beginningless cause is possible or even that it does exist, but that does not make it pro-intuitive.

Well, I’m pretty sure that I have seen all of the arguments for such a position, in my years. However, none compel me to believe that those arguments are possible or pro-intuitive. In fact, that seems to be the position of the vast majority of people on this planet, since about 2.6 billion of the 3.5 billion adults on it, are adherents of an existing God-based religion. (Of course, we can only take their words for it.)

Nobody’s ‘intuition’ can imagine some personal being not beginning.

I believe I posted the means of how such a reasoning must self-evidently occur - and it clearly shows that it is “self-evident” in Reality.

That does not mean a non-beginning personal being is incoherent.

Uh-oh!

God bless,
jd

 

[Perplexity]

That said, and all things being equal, I believe that there are absolute no atheist arguments that are logically possible. Prove me wrong.

Check out my thread Atheous

 

[tonyrey]

The reason is that all concepts of personal Gods I have ever seen run into logical impossibilities.
Does that mean there cannot possibly be some God I have never heard of that is logically possible? No, but until I am presented with a case for a god that makes sense, my position is that I don’t believe in a personal deity

Please elaborate on a logical impossibility.

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

I believe the “philosophical” definition of counterintuitive is, that which is opposed to any argument that is, in short, prima facia. That which is “self-evident” is intuitive. That which is not self-evident is counterintuitive. Although I know there are variations of this for modal logic, which, except for the occasional modus ponens and modus tollens argument, are abjectly devoid of acceptable grounding.

And now in English?

When I use counterintuitive I mean that we cannot imagine it. We cannot imagine something that does not beging, and we acnnot imagine an actual infinity, just as we cannot imagine that time goes more slowly when we move faster.

But this is a surreal, personal (albeit irrational) feeling; it is not a statement of fact. There is no factical “slowdown.” (Except in the mind of a Solipsist!)

I have a hard time trying to understand what you mean by this. Can you please explain what exactly is a surreal, personal feeling?

Well, I’m pretty sure that I have seen all of the arguments for such a position, in my years. However, none compel me to believe that those arguments are possible or pro-intuitive.

Well, JD, do you or do you not think that a beginningless cause is possible or not?

In fact, that seems to be the position of the vast majority of people on this planet, since about 2.6 billion of the 3.5 billion adults on it, are adherents of an existing God-based religion. (Of course, we can only take their words for it.)

How is this relevant?

I believe I posted the means of how such a reasoning must self-evidently occur - and it clearly shows that it is “self-evident” in Reality.

You posted reasons to believe this, yes, just as Einstein posted reasons to believe in general and special relativity, which I accept, but the relativity of time is still counterintuitive for me.

 

[belorg]

Please elaborate on a logical impossibility.

If you start a thread on it,Tony.
This thread is about Thomism and I have already stated why Thomism leads to logical contradictions.
There are of course a countless number of non-Thomistic God concepts, but they’ll have to wait for another thread, and one at a time…

 

[tonyrey]

If you start a thread on it,Tony.
This thread is about Thomism and I have already stated why Thomism leads to logical contradictions.
There are of course a countless number of non-Thomistic God concepts, but they’ll have to wait for another thread, and one at a time…

No sooner said than done!

 

[JDaniel]

And now in English?

Prima facie, in law, means self-evident. If see a bee land on my arm, then feel a sting right at that spot, it is self-evident that the bee stung me.

When I use counterintuitive I mean that we cannot imagine it.

But, that’s not the “philosophical” definition of it.

We cannot imagine something that does not beging, and we acnnot imagine an actual infinity, just as we cannot imagine that time goes more slowly when we move faster.

But, we can, by dialectical induction reach a conclusion about the existence of something. That is how “science” operates. I’m pretty sure Walter Reed did not need to run a test to recognize that neither palm trees nor clouds transmitted yellow fever. But, he did not merely chance upon mosquitoes instantly. (Even though he might have had a suspicion.) He used a dialectic, a series of experiments to eliminate the obvious possibilities. In a sense, that he might have suspected mosquitoes, is intuitive.

Well, JD, do you or do you not think that a beginningless cause is possible or not?

I fully believe that a beginningless cause is possible. And, I fully believe there is no other reasonable conclusion as to how we got here.

You posted reasons to believe this, yes, just as Einstein posted reasons to believe in general and special relativity, which I accept, but the relativity of time is still counterintuitive for me.

How could that be? A race horse is run from pillar to post. That is, he is run against an arbitrary clocking mechanism, from a starting gate to a finish line. If the clocking mechanism is accurate, and if the distance is not altered, we can measure his time. (Oh, and we can even determine a winner in a fog.) His speed vs. time is relative to what? Relative to the distance covered. And, perhaps to the clocking mechanism. All other things being equal.

God bless,
jd