Time - for an IQ Test

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The REASON that time exists (God) has always existed, thus time, having always had a reason to exist, has always existed.

Then has Matter always existed?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Then has Matter always existed?

I find it hard to believe that matter would not always have been somewhere, but it is not necessary to the reasoning that we are discussing. I CAN say, due to some metaphysics concerns that energy has always existed, whether in the form of matter or not.

A universe has always existed, with or without matter, because it has always had a cause - God.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I find it hard to believe that matter would not always have been somewhere, but it is not necessary to the reasoning that we are discussing. I CAN say, due to some metaphysics concerns that energy has always existed, whether in the form of matter or not.

A universe has always existed, with or without matter, because it has always had a cause - God.

Then you deny creation ex nihilo.

So if energy and time always existed then God is not the cause as they always existed.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Then you deny creation ex nihilo.

So if energy and time always existed then God is not the cause as they always existed.

You are still not getting it.

A similar, but limited example;
For the past billion years, things have been orbiting other things, like planets around stars. Things orbit beCAUSE of gravity and velocity. But gravity did not necessarily come into existence BEFORE orbiting even though gravity is the cause of orbiting. The cause of something happening did not necessarily preexist the thing happening, but is the REASON it happens. They could have come into existence at the same moment, but without gravity, there would be no orbiting. On the other hand, you might be able to artificially cause an orbiting (with spokes perhaps) without the need of gravity. Thus orbiting does not cause gravity, but rather gravity causes orbiting.

The analogy is that God causes the universe, but the universe does not cause God. God is the “higher Principle”. Both have always existed, because the existence of God immediately causes the universe.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You are still not getting it.

A similar, but limited example;
For the past billion years, things have been orbiting other things, like planets around stars. Things orbit beCAUSE of gravity and velocity. But gravity did not necessarily come into existence BEFORE orbiting even though gravity is the cause of orbiting. The cause of something happening did not necessarily preexist the thing happening, but is the REASON it happens. They could have come into existence at the same moment, but without gravity, there would be no orbiting. On the other hand, you might be able to artificially cause an orbiting (with spoke maybe) without the need of gravity. Thus orbiting does not cause gravity, but rather gravity causes orbiting.

The analogy is that God causes the universe, but the universe does not cause God. God is the “higher Principle”.

I am getting it.

You say time and matter exist because of God but because God has always been so have they.

You deny a fundamental Teaching of the Church, that of Creation Ex Nihilo, creation out of nothing.

To be caused something must not exist.

God preexists.

Your example, orbiting and gravity really does not work as God is the First Cause. Gravity only exists because of God, same with the Orbit. But the Orbit can not exist without Gravity, I agree that does not mean that Gravity must have existed before the Orbit but that is because God is the cause of Gravity.

I Universe exists because of God but it had a beginning from nothing, otherwise it would be God as you could not separate them.

I do not buy into your construct as it is faulty as I have shown.

Thanks for the mental exercise though.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I am getting it.

You say time and matter exist because of God but because God has always been so have they.

You deny a fundamental Teaching of the Church, that of Creation Ex Nihilo, creation out of nothing.

God preexists.

I do not buy into your construct as it is faulty as I have shown.

Thanks for the mental exercise though.

Not really. You have presumed that “ex nihilo” means that there was no universe and then God created one. That is not really what it means. It means that “without any other cause being present, God, the only required cause, causes the universe.”

It does not violate any Scripture although many Catholic philosophers have probably thought in terms of the universe having not existed “at one time”. The philosophers are in error, not the Scriptures.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’m curious and a bit afraid to ask, but can you find any “infallible” dogma that certainly declares your view of “ex nihilo” to be proper Scriptural interpretation?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Not really. You have presumed that “ex nihilo” means that there was no universe and then God created one. That is not really what it means. It means that “without any other cause being present, God, the only required cause, causes the universe.”

It does not violate any Scripture although many Catholic philosophers have probably thought in terms of the universe having not existed “at one time”. The philosophers are in error, not the Scriptures.

First you might want to go back and re-read my last post as I edited it and added to it.

The Philosophers are not in error as the Scriptures agree with them. God created out of nothing.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church;

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.(Cf. Dei Filius, can. 2-4: DS 3022-3024) God creates freely “out of nothing” Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 800; cf. DS 3025)

 If God had drawn the world from pre-existent matter, what would be so extraordinary in that? A human artisan makes from a given material whatever he wants, while God shows his power by starting from nothing to make all he wants.(St. Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum II, 4: PG 6,1052)

297 Scripture bears witness to faith in creation “out of nothing” as a truth full of promise and hope. Thus the mother of seven sons encourages them for martyrdom:

 I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws. . . Look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.(2 Macc 7:22-21,28)

298 Since God could create everything out of nothing, he can also, through the Holy Spirit, give spiritual life to sinners by creating a pure heart in them,(Cf. Ps 51:12) and bodily life to the dead through the Resurrection. God “gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.”(Rom 4:17) And since God was able to make light shine in darkness by his Word, he can also give the light of faith to those who do not yet know him.(Cf. Gen 1:3; 2 Cor 4:6)

I have included the references and underlined them, you will notice that there are references from the Scriptures.

2 Maccabees
Psalms
Romans
Genesis
2 Corinthians

Seems scriptural.

Again, thanks for the mental exercise.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’m not terribly concerned with catechism teaching, but I AM concerned with any “infallible dogma” declarations. Do you have any of those referencing this subject?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’m not terribly concerned with catechism teaching, but I AM concerned with any “infallible dogma” declarations. Do you have any of those referencing this subject?

The Catechism is what the Church Teaches and Catholics are bound to assent to what the Church Teaches.

We are not only bound by “infallible dogma”.

Also do not forget you said that the Catholic understanding of Creation Ex Nihilo was not Scriptural yet the Catechism shows otherwise.

I do not feel the need to dig any deeper. I gave the paragraphs from the Catechism which include references. Those references include Scriptural references which you stated that Scripture was against the Catholic understanding.

I have done my work and am now done.

For the last time, thanks for the mental exercise.

That is unless you can provide any references that refute what I am saying from a Catholic stand point.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The Catechism is what the Church Teaches and Catholics are bound to assent to what the Church Teaches.

We are not only bound by “infallible dogma”.

Also do not forget you said that the Catholic understanding of Creation Ex Nihilo was not Scriptural yet the Catechism shows otherwise.

I do not feel the need to dig any deeper. I gave the paragraphs from the Catechism which include references. Those references include Scriptural references which you stated that Scripture was against the Catholic understanding.

I have done my work and am now done.

For the last time, thanks for the mental exercise.

That is unless you can provide any references that refute what I am saying from a Catholic stand point.

My stand at this moment is that either the philosophers/theologians that wrote the catechism meant something different than what you are thinking, or that they misunderstood themselves. At this point, I cannot discern which of those is true, nor am I terribly concerned with whether they happened to have not understood and misspoke. I am not one who expects or requires that anyone be perfect. I have no intention of leading anyone away from the Church even if I actually did disagree with it.

On the other hand, if the CC has declared as infallible that “ex nihilo” means that the universe at one time did not exist, then I have a serious problem, as does the Church. I have a serious need to know that would take some explaining that I suspect you would not have patience to listen to.

Not that you believe it is possible, but just supposing for a moment that the catechism was proven wrong about something like this, what do you think the overall effect would be upon the Church?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

My stand at this moment is that either the philosophers/theologians that wrote the catechism meant something different than what you are thinking, or that they misunderstood themselves. At this point, I cannot discern which of those is true, nor am I terribly concerned with where they happened to have not understood and misspoke. I am not one who expects or requires that anyone be perfect. I have no intention of leading anyone away from the Church even if I actually did disagree with it.

On the other hand, if the CC has declared as infallible that “ex nihilo” means that the universe at one time did not exist, then I have a serious problem, as does the Church. I have a serious need to know that would take some explaining that I suspect you would not have patience to listen to.

Actually I have enjoyed this discussion. I have no bad feelings towards you at all. I have no negative feelings in this at all. I believe what the Church Teaches, by your religious preference listing I see that you do not self identify as a Catholic so I do not expect you to hold to Catholic Teachings and even if you were a Catholic I would have no problem with this discussion with you as you seem to be genuine and open to discussion.

So I take it you do not care for the Scriptural references?

Not that you believe it is possible, but just supposing for a moment that the catechism was proven wrong about something like this, what do you think the overall effect would be upon the Church?

I do not believe that will be the case.

 

[James_S_Saint]

So I take it you do not care for the Scriptural references?

I read Scriptures differently than you so they can provide no resolve for us concerning this matter. You will naturally read them to mean one thing, whereas I will read them to mean something different. Usually it isn’t a serious issue either way. I have no problem with what the Scriptures say in the way that I read them.

I do not believe that will be the case.

But you know that isn’t what I asked. What do you think would happen IF…? Much like, “what would you think would happen if a meteor destroyed Rome?” It is just a hypothetical.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I read Scriptures differently than you so they can provide no resolve for us concerning this matter. You will naturally read them to mean one thing, whereas I will read them to mean something different. Usually it isn’t a serious issue either way. I have no problem with what the Scriptures say in the way that I read them.

Right, I use the Church as a guide to the interpretation of Scripture.

But you know that isn’t what I asked. What do you think would happen IF…? Much like, “what would you think would happen if a meteor destroyed Rome?” It is just a hypothetical.

First, I do not like to deal in hypotheticals.

Second, I believe, as a Catholic, that the Church has the Fullness of the Truth.

For this hypothetical to work then I would have to entertain the idea that the Truth is not the Truth, that is impossible.

Can you understand that?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Right, I use the Church as a guide to the interpretation of Scripture.

First, I do not like to deal in hypotheticals.

Second, I believe, as a Catholic, that the Church has the Fullness of the Truth.

For this hypothetical to work then I would have to entertain the idea that the Truth is not the Truth, that is impossible.

Can you understand that?

I accept your wish to not discuss it. Thanks anyway though.

But I WILL have to find whether the Papal has decreed on this issue (by my method of interpreting). What even the Papal says, I read differently than you and thus can agree to far more of it than I would otherwise be able to.

Thank you for your participation and (name removed by moderator)ut. :tiphat:

 

[cassini]

I’m curious and a bit afraid to ask, but can you find any “infallible” dogma that certainly declares your view of “ex nihilo” to be proper Scriptural interpretation?

ALL THAT EXISTS OUT OF GOD, WAS, IN ITS WHOLE SUBSTANCE, PRODUCED OUT OF NOTHING BY GOD. (De Fide)

This dogma was defined at Vativcan II in 1870.

There is a list of proofs for this from Scripture Is 42, 8/ 40,17/ Ps, 83,1; Est 13, 10; Mat 11, 23 and on and on and on.

 

[James_S_Saint]

ALL THAT EXISTS OUT OF GOD, WAS, IN ITS WHOLE SUBSTANC, PRODUCED OUT OF NOTHING BY GOD. (De Fide)

This dogma was defined at Vativcan II in 1870.

There is a list of proofs for this from Scripture Is 42, 8/ 40,17/ Ps, 83,1; Est 13, 10; Mat 11, 23 and on and on and on.

I can agree with that statement. But that statement does not address the issue we are discussing even though it would seem to for those who haven’t caught on yet.

I am now looking for anything the Papal has declared infallible that cannot be interpreted to mean anything but, “there once was a time when the universe did not exist”. Can you find anything like that? The above statement doesn’t mean that even though many, and in fact most, believe that it does.

 

[cassini]

I can agree with that statement. But that statement does not address the issue we are discussing even though it would seem to for those who haven’t caught on yet.

I am now looking for anything the Papal has declared infallible that cannot be interpreted to mean anything but, “there once was a time when the universe did not exist”. Can you find anything like that? The above statement doesn’t mean that even though many, and in fact most, believe that it does.

THE WORLD HAD A BEGINNING IN TIME (De fide)

The beginning of time definition was defined at 4th LAteran Council (1215) and at Vatican I.

Biblical references
John 17, 5 Eph 1,4, Ps 101 ,26 Gn !.! Pro 8,22, Ps 89,2 John 17, 24.

One of the best reference books out there is OTT’s FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA.
I’m off to bed now , night all.

 

[cassini]

re-edited above.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thanks Cassini.

Here is the Decree from the First Vatican Council.

1. On God the creator of all things

• 1. If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.
• 1. If anyone is so bold as to assert that
• there exists nothing besides matter:

let him be anathema.

• 1. If anyone says that
• the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same:

let him be anathema.

• 1. If anyone says
• that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or
• that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally,
• that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals:

let him be anathema.

• 1. If anyone
• does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or
• holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or
• denies that the world was created for the glory of God:

let him be anathema.

See first point under number 5.