What is God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moonstruck888
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JohnDamian said:
ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/GODASFIR.HTM

This is the Treatise on First Principal by Scotus

As far as I am aware, it has yet to be refuted.

👍
Click to expand...
Would you agree with this biographer?

"In his system of philosophy Scotus closely analyzed the concepts of causality and possibility in an attempt to set up a rigorous proof for the existence of God, the primary and infinite being. He held, however, that in order to know the truth in all its fullness and to fulfill one’s eternal destiny, a person must not only make use of the insights afforded by natural knowledge or philosophy** but must also be taught by divine revelation**. "
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Would you agree with this biographer?

"In his system of philosophy Scotus closely analyzed the concepts of causality and possibility in an attempt to set up a rigorous proof for the existence of God, the primary and infinite being. He held, however, that in order to know the truth in all its fullness and to fulfill one’s eternal destiny, a person must not only make use of the insights afforded by natural knowledge or philosophy** but must also be taught by divine revelation**. "
Click to expand...
Divine revelation was only important insofar as it finely p(name removed by moderator)ointed the specific “God” being talked about; his proof for “God” or an in general refutation of sensible atheism or agnosticism was sound… By Logic, God apodeictically exists; it is a matter of revelation, faith and a search for divine truth that we find people in this or that church… The key principal being, for a person living in aprox 1300; he demonstrated God (as an omnipotent creator of the universe) is a nessecary thing.
 
JohnDamian said:
Divine revelation was only important insofar as it finely p(name removed by moderator)ointed the specific “God” being talked about; his proof for “God” or an in general refutation of sensible atheism or agnosticism was sound… By Logic, God apodeictically exists; it is a matter of revelation, faith and a search for divine truth that we find people in this or that church… The key principal being, for a person living in aprox 1300; he demonstrated God (as an omnipotent creator of the universe) is a nessecary thing.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see how any proposition that relies on revelation can be Apodictic?
 
Moonstruck888 said:
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see how any proposition that relies on revelation can be Apodictic?
Click to expand...
The prior conclusion “God exists” is apodeictic.

The posterior conclusion “The Christian God Exists” is based upon revelation.

I think I was rather clear.

👍
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
And what? Do have scientific evidence that physical reality objectively exists.
Click to expand...
The fact that I have collisions with material objects every day seems to me pretty compelling. If the ground doesn’t exist, what exactly is stopping me from falling right now?
 
JohnDamian said:
The prior conclusion “God exists” is apodeictic.

The posterior conclusion “The Christian God Exists” is based upon revelation.

I think I was rather clear.

👍
Click to expand...
I see… So there’s no need to examine evidence of God’s existence, because his existence is self evident, making empirical observation superfluous?
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
And what? Do have scientific evidence that physical reality objectively exists.
Click to expand...
Moonstruck888 paraphrased the following argument, in his statement:
You don’t need to do that. I dare you, double dare you to level a loaded firearm at your cranium and pull the trigger as a test of whether reality exists
Click to expand...
  • Anyone who denies the Law of Non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as to not be burned.*
Avicenna (980-1037)
 
Moonstruck888 said:
I see… So there’s no need to examine evidence of God’s existence, because his existence is self evident, making empirical observation superfluous?
Click to expand...
No, according to the argument; you are the proof of his existence, quite literally - you - the atoms.

He works from these particles back to God. :rolleyes:

If that is not examination what is?
 
Moonstruck888 said:
The fact that I have collisions with material objects every day seems to me pretty compelling. If the ground doesn’t exist, what exactly is stopping me from falling right now?
Click to expand...
Do you have empirical evidence that physical things including the existence of other minds are not just persistent illusions.
 
JohnDamian said:
Moonstruck888 paraphrased the following argument, in his statement:
  • Anyone who denies the Law of Non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as to not be burned.*
Code: 
Avicenna (980-1037)
Click to expand...
ROTFL!!!

Well said sir… I’ll be sure to remember that one…
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Do you have empirical evidence that physical things including the existence of other minds are not just persistent illusions.
Click to expand...
I find it more practical to assume that I exist, that my surrroundings exist and that other minds exist.

I don’t really see how I could get far in life without making those practical assumptions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top