What God is and how He relates

[o_mlly]

I do understand your contention. All I am trying to convey is that sequence does not or necessity imply, or require, time. Take for instance, the numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. These exist in sequence but are not time-dependent.

jd

I think we are getting closer in understanding each other.

I can in an instant (the only part of time which is shared with eternity) hold any number set in my mind. Doesn’t it follow that if I can think abstractly of a number-sequence in an instant, that the idea itself is not sequential in form? In the next instant, my idea of the number set does not change but remains constant.

However, if I am counting apples, each progessive moment (time) I add to my count, the sequence changes in matter and is time-dependent.

Perhaps you could clarify for me with an example of a “sequence” that is in the mind of God in eternity and, therefore, outside time.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[JDaniel]

I think we are getting closer in understanding each other.

I can in an instant (the only part of time which is shared with eternity) hold any number set in my mind.

Perhaps you could clarify for me with an example of a “sequence” that is in the mind of God in eternity and, therefore, outside time.

Well, I suppose, if God wanted to, he could hold, in his infinitely powerful mind, the sequence of all the names and faces of the souls he has created, sorted from the beginning with Adam. Or, not as a “set”, he could view a sequence from one to a billion in actual numbers. He doesn’t have to write each one down, one at a time, thereby “taking” time, and, he does not have to include all of those actual numbers in a large box (as a set) of numbers. One could say that that is an abstraction, but, isn’t everything an “abstraction” to God, except for Jesus on earth as man?

I wonder how God beheld the sequence of the daily life of Jesus in his mind, when Jesus was on earth?

To say that God can’t do something is to limit him. Holding a timeless sequence, in his mind, is certainly not contradictory.

Of course, I could be wrong.

jd

 

[4Horsemen]

The biggest problem with this is composition itself. There are no intrinsic reasons for the primary elements of the physical universe to cause them to compose themselves as they have. They are all contingent, non-self-determining elements. So, the non-theist must attribute a huge number of possible “causes” to their various compositions, and pray that science approves them all.

Not to mention the fact that when we perceive inanimate matter, it is all the same. The clumpings of matter take on different “formations”, but, even these have no intrinsic urgency. On the other hand, complex living things have form that is urgently intrinsic to each being. In fact, the more complex the living thing the more we can make out the individuality of each matter/form composition. And, the matter/form composition cannot be broken apart except by death, whereas, the matter/form composition of an inanimate, such as oxygen gas, can be broken up and no “death” of the material takes place.

Again, there is no intrinsic reason for inanimate elements to have composed themselves as they did, regardless of the number and kinds of interactions ORIGINALLY between them. This is contradictory: it assumes the initial existences of intrinsic necessities that resulted in compositions essentially compatible with each other. It is not difficult to understand that a pandemic that wipes out all of mankind is possible, but, not probable. There are enough people worldwide to implement some sort of preventative measures to complete extermination. However, when the first one, or few, living things arose in the primordial ocean, the numbers would have been insufficient to maintain life in perpetuity, with the equal probability of life-incompatible things. Remember, the dinosaurs were wiped out.

jd

Hi jd!

According to some the universe is made out of things (subatomic particles) that interact in probalistic ways. Even consciousness is a process based on these interactions. The laws of probablility are “very regular.” “We can expect, for example, certain probabilities for many situation simply because they are randomized. That alone is a regularity that is very useful in practice.” That’s the gist of what non-theists say but can’t give a logical reason behind it.

How can we make out the “individuality of matter/form composition,” if you will?

Some non-theists try to explain human behavior in terms of subatomic particles. I think that’s a bit of a stretch to put it mildly. The particles determine how the atoms interact; the atoms determine how the molecules interact; the molecules determine how the cells interact, and so on.

It seems that Aquinas’ philosophy of causes (material, efficient, formal and final) are considered outmoded by modern philosophy, especially the idea of form and matter. It seems dualistic actually.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
4Horsemen

 

[JDaniel]

Hi jd!

According to some the universe is made out of things (subatomic particles) that interact in probalistic ways. Even consciousness is a process based on these interactions. The laws of probability are “very regular.” “We can expect, for example, certain probabilities for many situation simply because they are randomized. That alone is a regularity that is very useful in practice.” That’s the gist of what non-theists say but can’t give a logical reason behind it.

Remember, what was being spoken of was the beginnings of the universe, not whether or not sub-atomic particles interact in probabilistic ways, billions of years later. Also, remember the use of the word “probable”. That means, “usually, but, not necessarily always.” It also means that outcomes are fairly predictable. However, if sub-atomic particles interacted in absolutely definite ways, there would be no need to continually add nuances, new pseudo-matter, new particles, new interactions, new “dark” stuff, new postulations, new theories that should actually be called hypotheses instead - and so on.

How can we make out the “individuality of matter/form composition,” if you will?

Well, the concept of the combination of form and primary matter, in the creation of a new, ensouled human being, also imposes other accidental qualities which produce that person’s appearance, for example. Thus, human beings are all different from each other, in appearance, whereas amoebas might all appear virtually identical.

Some non-theists try to explain human behavior in terms of subatomic particles. I think that’s a bit of a stretch to put it mildly. The particles determine how the atoms interact; the atoms determine how the molecules interact; the molecules determine how the cells interact, and so on.

I think the word, “determine”, is an unfortunate usage in that case. Perhaps the word, “facilitated”, or something like that, would be better. Be very aware of word usage. People will use words with multiple meanings in order to make an argument confusing or more difficult to refute. Most people will not bother to use a dictionary or ask the user what they mean. An example of a word being used a lot fairly recently is, “inscrutable”.

It seems that Aquinas’ philosophy of causes (material, efficient, formal and final) are considered outmoded by modern philosophy, especially the idea of form and matter. It seems dualistic actually.

Yeah, that doesn’t surprise me. Non-theists would purely love to be able to rid themselves of those albatrosses from around their necks.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
4Horsemen

You are very welcome.

jd

 

[4Horsemen]

Remember, what was being spoken of was the beginnings

of the universe, not whether or not sub-atomic particles interact in probabilistic ways, billions of years later. Also, remember the use of the word “probable”. That means, “usually, but, not necessarily always.” It also means that outcomes are fairly predictable. However, if sub-atomic particles interacted in absolutely definite ways, there would be no need to continually add nuances, new pseudo-matter, new particles, new interactions, new “dark” stuff, new postulations, new theories that should actually be called hypotheses instead - and so on.

Evidently, the non-theist poster must believe that these sub-atomic particles were in existence from the very beginning, perhaps due to the Big Bang. I don’t know; I’m just conjecturing. You’re right about language/linguistics. “Probable” means just that. I don’t know if I brought up this response to a post that life is more probable than we realize, that the “billion to one shot” is a very bad estimate, it is said. Even there, though, the universe is large and small probability events happen with some frequency. In our galaxy alone there are over a hundred billion stars. It is likely that about 10% (guess?) of them have planets. So even at a “one in a billion” odds, there would still be 10 planets in our galaxy with life. And there are a hundred billion galaxies tha we can see. This could be realistic.

Well, the concept of the combination of form

Here’s a quote admonishing me to learn some “modern” physics and philosophy. (I should have asked who the moderns are, the continental philosophers as opposed to the analytic philosophers? The poster states, “Aristotle got way too many things wrong. He was better than Plato, but we’ve learned a LOT since his time. Aquinas had his own set of problems, inclluding devotion to a list of theological assumptions that can’t be justified. He spent much more time wondering whether angels are each a separate species and how they can move than he did with anything actually real.” (I suppose I should have requested the reference, but I do remember talk of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin in some philosophy course.

Regards,
4Horsemen

 

[Jeff_Yost]

Because God is not the Universe, and the Universe is not God. God is separate from the world/Universe the he created.

 

[JDaniel]

Here’s a quote admonishing me to learn some “modern” physics and philosophy. (I should have asked who the moderns are, the continental philosophers as opposed to the analytic philosophers? The poster states, “Aristotle got way too many things wrong. He was better than Plato, but we’ve learned a LOT since his time. Aquinas had his own set of problems, including devotion to a list of theological assumptions that can’t be justified. He spent much more time wondering whether angels are each a separate species and how they can move than he did with anything actually real.” (I suppose I should have requested the reference, but I do remember talk of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin in some philosophy course.

Regards,
4Horsemen

Either you’re getting his stuff from a moron, or, you’re getting it from someone with a scrutable agenda. To say, “Aristotle got way too many things wrong. He was better than Plato, but we’ve learned a LOT since his time…” is nothing more than really poor “spin”. The ignorance of presuming that someone from 2,500 years ago would have arrived at all of the correct science without the aid of current machines and current mathematics, is absurd.

The Priest got the Big Bang essentially correct, but, “we’ve learned a lot more since then.” The postulation of dark matter may not be correct; the jury’s still out on that subject. “String theory” hinges on the possibility of 10[SUP]500[/SUP] additional universes, making it a very problematic theory for many respectable scientists. Some “current” pseudo-philosophy has done everything in its power to oust scholastic logic as a dialectic productive of demonstration. They insert game-theory mathematics in its place, and real philosophy is supposed to roll out of the way?

The core philosophies of Aristotle and St. Thomas are still the largest battleships on the ocean. As such, little, enemy ships will always try to engage them with their tiny, limited canons and guns. But, much to the chagrin of the detractors, these two core philosophies continue to rule the seas. What do tiny ships do? Well, they could try ignoring them, while trying to get the rest of the tiny battleships to do the same. It hasn’t, and, it won’t work.

The sailors, on board the mighty Aristotle and the mightier Aquinas, might not know their jobs as well as the ships’ makers, but, the longer they stay on board, the more they learn - and the mightier they themselves become. Why do the enemies of Aristotle and Aquinas persist in throwing ineffective ordnance against them? Why do they shoot their guns haphazardly, in all directions, with the fervor of a lunatic whirling dervish? Interestingly, from the POV of Atheism, it may not be benefiting their cause(s).

jd

 

[4Horsemen]

Either you’re getting his stuff from a moron, or, you’re getting it from someone with a scrutable agenda. To say, “Aristotle got way too many things wrong. He was better than Plato, but we’ve learned a LOT since his time…” is nothing more than really poor “spin”. The ignorance of presuming that someone from 2,500 years ago would have arrived at all of the correct science without the aid of current machines and current mathematics, is absurd.

You’ve probably heard about the conference held by the Vatican in early march on the subject of Darwin’s theory of evolution. No scientists who promulgated Intelligent Design or Creationism were invited. Gennaro Auletta, a professor of philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, is the evolutionary authority. What I found provocative was his definition of “soul.” “The soul for me–and I’m an Aristotelian–is the form of the body, because a man is a unity. I don’t believe that Descartes is right on this point–we don’t have two substances. . .” That thinking goes along with the modern “philosophers” who understand the “soul” in a somewhat similar way but without a sense of the spiritual. Take a look at a passage from a snippet of Daniel Dennett’s book, Freedom Evolves:

amazon.com/Freedom-Evolves-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0670031860#reader

Check out page 3.

The Priest got the Big Bang essentially correct, but, “we’ve learned a lot more since then.” The postulation of dark matter may not be correct; the jury’s still out on that subject. “String theory” hinges on the possibility