Thomistic Argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter Perplexity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JDaniel said:
Jaaanosik:

It is part of human nature that we die. We are told, by our Church, that our souls are separated from our bodies, at those times, to be returned to our bodies at the End of the world. Christ, however, either never left His body or was immediately returned to his body, upon His death; that’s why we see Him resurrected without separation from it. So, His human nature is with the Father now.

Remember, based upon the human person being a hylemorphic duality, a spirit-body, we will spend Eternity as a spirit-body. The Son is thought to be a procession from the Thought of the Father, which is one of the two activities of Pure Spirituality, the other being Will.

These answers undoubtedly will bring more questions to your mind, but I will not presuppose them. Ask them, and we’ll do our best to give you straight answers.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
Yes, there are many questions.
Why you did not mention Transubstantiation?

How are non human attributes of Christ’s human nature explained?
 
tonyrey said:
If that is the case what reasons do you have for being an atheist rather than an agnostic?
Click to expand...
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
 
Perplexity said:
The most reasonable thing I can infer from this is that you haven’t spoken to many atheists lol. I don’t think these generalizations are very useful. (And I needn’t mention they’re just as often used in reverse about theists)

Might I ask whether you’ve studied atheistic arguments? Do the names Graham Oppy, Michael Martin, Quentin Smith, William Rowe, or J.L. Mackie sound familiar? If not, I’d recommend reading some of their material. You might be surprised. I know I was.
Click to expand...
I haven’t studied atheistic arguments. Just the ones that atheists on this forum post. But then one can assume that these would have studied the works of those you have mentioned.

In the end the atheist is the same as the theist. Their belief in the non-existence of God is a matter of faith because they can’t prove it either.
 
JDaniel said:
Jaaanosik:

It is part of human nature that we die. We are told, by our Church, that our souls are separated from our bodies, at those times, to be returned to our bodies at the End of the world. Christ, however, either never left His body or was immediately returned to his body, upon His death; that’s why we see Him resurrected without separation from it. So, His human nature is with the Father now.

Remember, based upon the human person being a hylemorphic duality, a spirit-body, we will spend Eternity as a spirit-body. The Son is thought to be a procession from the Thought of the Father, which is one of the two activities of Pure Spirituality, the other being Will.

These answers undoubtedly will bring more questions to your mind, but I will not presuppose them. Ask them, and we’ll do our best to give you straight answers.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
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.)
Jaaanosik said:
Yes, there are many questions.
Why you did not mention Transubstantiation?

How are non human attributes of Christ’s human nature explained?
Click to expand...
Christ’s Divinity assumed our human nature, thus He is a Divine Person and not a human person with divinity, nor two persons one divine and one human in one body.
Jaaanosik said:
Well,

There is a simple question.
Where is the human nature of Jesus now?
Click to expand...
Still assumed by His Divinity. He is still one Divine Person and His Body and Soul are with God.
 
belorg said:
Just read some good book on or by Aquinas before you reply. You are not describing Aquinas’ God.
Click to expand...
Okay, I will check out the argument again.
Where have I mentioned the Bible?
Click to expand...
belorg: One of the main problems discussing God with** Christians** (including Catholics) catholics is that there are so many radically different notions of what God is.

This implies that the argument is more Biblical than philosophical.

Also, are the different notions contradictory?
Most atheists are quite reasonable, in fact.
Click to expand...
How then do you explain their derision of theists belief in a God whose existence they cannot prove when they believe with equal passion in God’s non-existence - which they cannot prove either?
 
Ghosty said:
Benedictus2: In Catholic teaching God is indeed “unmoving”. To move requires potency, and God is pure act. If God could move it would mean that there was something that God lacked, because motion is the reduction of potency to a missing actuality.

So when God is said to be an unmoved mover, it does indeed mean that there is no motion in God; not merely spatial and temporal, but also in any sense of potency to act (which is the definition of motion in Thomism).

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
Okay. But how then do you reconcile that with God’s willing? Or is this not considered some sort of “motion”?
 
JDaniel said:
Benedictus:

I’m not sure where you got the idea for the bolded words above, but that is not what is said by Aquinas or the Catholic. What was and is said is that, He is Pure Act. Period. In this case, act means pure instantiation, or pure being. In other words, not only does He exist, but also, He is existence itself. This is a concept that requires some training to understand. But, it does not mean, “acting,” which would imply motion of some sort.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
Okay, I get that but I heard a commentator phrase it that way or maybe I misheard it.

So the Prime Mover proof cannot be isolated from the other proofs then?
 
benedictus2 said:
How is a beginningless first cause counterintuitive?
Click to expand...
Can you imagine something that has no beginning? I can’t.

Of course if ther is a first cause, it may folow logically that it did not begin, but that does not mean it isn’t highly counterintuitive.
 
belorg said:
No it doesn’t imly that at all. Your view of the Catholic God is apparently radically different from the Thomist view on the ‘same’ God. this has nothing to do with the Bible.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a Catholic God. There is only God. There is however a Catholic understanding of that God. One can use Thomas’s proof and that will prove God’s existence sans any other Catholic understanding of God.

And my view of God is the same as that of Aquinas except that he expresses that view much more lucidly and coherently.
Yes. Bceause your view entails that an unmoved mover can move. That is a contradiction.
Click to expand...
The unmoved mover is not counter intuitive if you think in terms of what I said before - mover that was not moved by a previous a mover.

Also, in the way that Ghosty and JDaniel have explained, it is not counterintuitive either once one thinks in terms of potentiality and actuality. If you read JDaniel’s post, you’ll realize that there is nothing counter intuitive about it.

But more specifically, what you said was counter intuitive was a beginningless first cause. Why is a beginningless first cause counterintuitive?
I cannot speak for other atheists, but I do not have such derision.I do not mind theists believing in what they chose to believe, but if they claim they can prove it, they should do so.
And although I cannot prove the non-existence of every single type of God, I have very strong arguments against most common concepts of God. Those arguments may not convince you are other theists, but they are very convincing for me personally.
That’s why, until someone actually refutes my arguments, I remain an atheist.
Click to expand...
But an atheist is simply one who does not believe in God-Creator. If you say you believe there is no such thing as a creator God and you can’t prove it, you are in fact believing something you can’t prove. Ergo, you must have a great faith in something you can’t prove.

Which one is more reasonable do you think, infinite regress or a first cause?
 
belorg said:
Can you imagine something that has no beginning? I can’t.

Of course if ther is a first cause, it may folow logically that it did not begin, but that does not mean it isn’t highly counterintuitive.
Click to expand...
I can because my common sense tells me infinite regress is not rational.

For it to be counterintuitive it has to go against common sense.
 
benedictus2 said:
Okay. But how then do you reconcile that with God’s willing? Or is this not considered some sort of “motion”?
Click to expand...
Willing does not imply motion unless there is a movement from not-willing to willing. God, being eternal, always wills what He wills and there is no movement from not-willing to willing.

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
Willing does not imply motion unless there is a movement from not-willing to willing. God, being eternal, always wills what He wills and there is no movement from not-willing to willing.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
Thank you, makes sense.
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
Further study on your question can be found in the summa, prima pars, question 19, article 1, objection/reply 3. Your question was almost word for word in the objection 😛
Click to expand...
Hmmm, interesting. Does that mean I think like Aquinas? 😃 Banish the thought.
 
Jaaanosik said:
Yes, there are many questions.
Why you did not mention Transubstantiation?

How are non human attributes of Christ’s human nature explained?
Click to expand...
Actually let me clarify the question.
What Christ’s nature is present in the Eucharist?
 
Belorg wrote:
And although I cannot prove the non-existence of every single type of God, I have very strong arguments against most common concepts of God. Those arguments may not convince you are other theists, but they are very convincing for me personally.
Click to expand...
If you really are an atheist, why do you care what other people believe? Aren’t they just animals?
 
belorg said:
AFAIK there are no ‘degrees of being’.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top