What is your favorite proof for God?

[JohnDamian]

greylorn:

The matter is quite simple.** The Church believed in literal Genesis.** God’s only purpose in creation was to create mankind. Naturally, given this assumption, the earth would be at the center of the universe, as superficial observational evidence suggests.

This is a common misconception.

The Church did not believe in a literal Genesis. One of the most important Doctors of the Church (teachers of the faith); Saint Augustine of Hippo, at around 400 AD had argued against a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The majority of scholars throughout the middle ages were Augustinian philosophers (even though many of them were Dominican or Franciscan).

A few examples you may recognise: Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent, Duns Scotus, Alexander of Hales and Francis Mayron.

Augustine believed the universe was created instantly; he believed that an infintie power would have created the universe instantly – claiming that Genesis was not a literal account of what happened.

So people as early as 400 AD were arguing this; and not only were they not penalised; but Major philosophers and Theologians such as Augustine himself; and others such as Aquinas and Scotus were held in very high regard with the Church; often being granted the title of “Doctor of the Church” – at the time of Galileo three of the most revered teachers were recognised this way; being Augustine, Aquinas and Bonaventure; the latter two recognised in the sixteenth century (to indicate continued support for their teachings).

greylorn:

Up to that point, Galileo was arguing like a scientist. He got on the Church’s bad side when he started thinking like a philosopher. If the conclusions derived from the premise (the truth of Genesis) are false, then, gee whiz, is it a great stretch of the imagination to think that the premise is also incorrect?

As you rightly point out; Galileo only got on the bad side of the Church when he started thinking like a philosopher. In fact; Galileo took an Augustinian position; and this was his major mistake; because Galileo was not a philosopher he was unable to defend his position which led him to be convicted of heresy.

It is unfortunate that Galileo did not follow the advice of (another Doctor of the Church) Robert Bellarmine; who asked Galileo not to teach it as fact until there was physical evidence (rather than induction) that the earth rotated the sun.

greylorn:

John,
I already know and have acknowledged that you are well versed in philosophical jargon. I respect that. I already made it clear that I do not understand such jargon, and that if faced with an argument based on such jargon, I will refer it to you for translation into English. So, I am referring your own argument to you for translation.

Sorry for the ambiguity;-- I shall distill the major points of my last post –

Continued–

 

[JohnDamian]

Continued–

The Definition of “omnipotence” in the Church is an infinite ability to bring about good.

It is not required for a being to be “omnipotent” to be able to do evil; or to bring about contradictions.

This isn’t a new teaching; it is nearly a thousand years old; originating with St. Peter Damian.

Now the “can God bring about a rock he cannot lift” question is answered simply by stating that any entity with infinite power in both generation (creating a thing) and manipulation (changing a thing) would be able to manipulate anything it created. So, any rock created by God would be; by definition, manipulatable by God.

---

This is because “infinity” is not a number; but a quality. It denotes a quality that surpasses a number; instead of having ten, twenty or a billion say “horsepower”; it just has infinite “horsepower” – therein; anything that can be moved by “horsepower” can be moved by this entity.

We can also know God can move Galaxies at his will by inference. If an entity has infinite power; and free will – it can move a Galaxy, even if we do not know how it would do that.

Incidently; we do not know God has infinite power; but at least power enough to create the universe; so we can infer that 1) if he has that power; 2) he still exists and 3) he has free will — that he can move a galaxy at will.

---

Also; we can compare “yellow” with “mile” if we believe that all things share a common nature. Some people believe this (but I don’t).

---

 

[MindOverMatter2]

8 Steps To The Existence Of God

1. Out of nothing comes nothing, for potentiality is a product of being.

2. Potentiality is not an actual being.

3. All beings that change are not absolute beings, for they are contingent
on preceding events in order to be, and are gaining in being by
proceeding into the future. Thus they proceed in being by potentiality,
which is in itself founded upon a preceding reality.

4. There cannot be an infinite regress in which potentiality precedes
being. Neither can time be synonymous with ultimate being/existence.
In order for something to change, it must have the potentiality to do
so, and its changing is evidence of that potentiality. Thus there cannot
be such a thing as an infinitely changing being, since potentiality
would have to infinitely precede being. Potentiality must be founded
upon being. Thus change is ultimately caused by a being that is not
changing; transcending the potentiality and being of that which
changes.

5. It’s logically impossible and meaningless for there to be such a thing
as an infinite “number” of events since an infinity transcends all
numbers, and thus all events.

6. Nothing is not a being or an actual thing. Therefore it is impossible for
it to be positively true that there is such a thing as absolute
nothingness, because “truth” is founded on being. That being the case,
a positive nothingness is meaningless. Therefore there must be a
necessary absolute eternal being that is existence by nature, is the
immutable root of all truth, and is therefore perfect being, and is also
the timeless principle by which things have the potential to be; for out
of nothing comes nothing.

7. The first cause cannot be an accidental physical cause, since accidents
require the potentiality to gain in space/time. Absolute Existence
transcends all space/time, and thus all potentiality.

8. If a first cause cannot be an accidental cause in space/time, then there
is only one other possibility. The first cause has a perfect,
transcendent and personal will.

This is what I understand to be God.

 

[greylorn]

This is a common misconception.

The Church did not believe in a literal Genesis. One of the most important Doctors of the Church (teachers of the faith); Saint Augustine of Hippo, at around 400 AD had argued against a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Common indeed! Perhaps because it is exactly what the Church taught in Catholic school to other ignorant little kids like me, who trusted it to tell the truth and so believed what they were taught.

The majority of scholars throughout the middle ages were Augustinian philosophers (even though many of them were Dominican or Franciscan).

A few examples you may recognise: Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent, Duns Scotus, Alexander of Hales and Francis Mayron.

I only know about Aquinas and Augustine. I am not a religious scholar.

I have to wonder why, if the Church thought so highly of these men, and I shall assume rightfully so, it did not teach any of their ideas? I went through 12 years of Catholic schooling, including high school religion classes taught by Norbertine Fathers, without ever, ever, being exposed to high level religious thinking.

How is anyone to know a church except by what it chooses to teach?

Augustine believed the universe was created instantly; he believed that an infintie power would have created the universe instantly – claiming that Genesis was not a literal account of what happened.

That is an interesting bit of information. I concluded the same thing in high school and attempted to argue it in religion class, but was shut down. Later, I was taken aside and told that the Genesis story amounts to the same thing as instant creation, so that I can believe in my own ideas, but that the Church is most comfortable with classical Genesis. Then I made the mistake of asking about dinosaur fossils.

Naturally, I agree that Augustine reached the only possible conclusion from his beliefs. An omnipotent, omniscient Creator would have created the universe instantly. That He obviously did not, led me a few years later to the logical conclusion that He could not because He was not omnipotent or omniscient.

So people as early as 400 AD were arguing this; and not only were they not penalised; but Major philosophers and Theologians such as Augustine himself; and others such as Aquinas and Scotus were held in very high regard with the Church; often being granted the title of “Doctor of the Church” – at the time of Galileo three of the most revered teachers were recognised this way; being Augustine, Aquinas and Bonaventure; the latter two recognised in the sixteenth century (to indicate continued support for their teachings).

Perhaps that is why Galileo had such a high regard for the Church. Surely he had studied those writers.

As you rightly point out; Galileo only got on the bad side of the Church when he started thinking like a philosopher. In fact; Galileo took an Augustinian position; and this was his major mistake; because Galileo was not a philosopher he was unable to defend his position which led him to be convicted of heresy.

It is unfortunate that Galileo did not follow the advice of (another Doctor of the Church) Robert Bellarmine; who asked Galileo not to teach it as fact until there was physical evidence (rather than induction) that the earth rotated the sun.

I do not agree with this analysis. My first serious exposure to Galileo included his infamous Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Although I knew little about him and his troubles with the Church at the time, I realized that his Simplicio character represented the Pope, who was made to appear very stupid.

In the context of human emotions, Galileo’s fate seems inevitable. It was politically dumb for Galileo to have insulted the Pope, and even dumberer (sic) given their personal relationship, which would seem a personal betrayal of a childhood friendship as well as an insult to high office. I suspect that Galileo’s treatment was entirely personal.

Anyone else reading this might find law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/keyfigures.html#Urban a brief and interesting synopsis. It is consistent with biographies I’ve read.

 

[JDaniel]

Common indeed! Perhaps because it is exactly what the Church taught in Catholic school to other ignorant little kids like me, who trusted it to tell the truth and so believed what they were taught.

Careful, Greylorn, that’s awfully close to announcing that Catholic Church = liar. Which is a naked assertion, on your part, and so far as you’re concerned.

I only know about Aquinas and Augustine. I am not a religious scholar.

We know.

I have to wonder why, if the Church thought so highly of these men, and I shall assume rightfully so, it did not teach any of their ideas? I went through 12 years of Catholic schooling, including high school religion classes taught by Norbertine Fathers, without ever, ever, being exposed to high level religious thinking.

Sadly, I’d like to tell you that your experience was merely anecdotal, but, it probably wasn’t.

Some things weren’t, as it was assumed that kids in that age group were too young to understand such things.

How is anyone to know a church except by what it chooses to teach?

Again, don’t blame the church for its size.

That is an interesting bit of information. I concluded the same thing in high school and attempted to argue it in religion class, but was shut down. Later, I was taken aside and told that the Genesis story amounts to the same thing as instant creation, so that I can believe in my own ideas, but that the Church is most comfortable with classical Genesis. Then I made the mistake of asking about dinosaur fossils.

But, what you failed to consider were the exigencies of infinitude.

Naturally, I agree that Augustine reached the only possible conclusion from his beliefs. An omnipotent, omniscient Creator would have created the universe instantly.

Actually, had you understood that God, being Infinite, had no choice, you might have gone a different way.

That He obviously did not, led me a few years later to the logical conclusion that He could not because He was not omnipotent or omniscient.

So, all of those 73 books, covering a thousand years in the writing, including perhaps thousands of men and women, in the three Traditions of the Bible were all wrong - but, you’re right?

Perhaps that is why Galileo had such a high regard for the Church. Surely he had studied those writers.

I’m sure. But, I think he enjoyed the Papal quarters way to much.

I do not agree with this analysis. My first serious exposure to Galileo included his infamous Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Although I knew little about him and his troubles with the Church at the time, I realized that his Simplicio character represented the Pope, who was made to appear very stupid.

A very good reason for a wrist-slapping.

In the context of human emotions, Galileo’s fate seems inevitable. It was politically dumb for Galileo to have insulted the Pope, and even dumberer (sic) given their personal relationship, which would seem a personal betrayal of a childhood friendship as well as an insult to high office. I suspect that Galileo’s treatment was entirely personal.

Yep. 21 days in plush/lush surroundings and complete freedom?

God bless,
jd

 

[greylorn]

the definition of “omnipotence” in the church is an infinite ability to bring about good.

It is not required for a being to be “omnipotent” to be able to do evil; or to bring about contradictions.

This isn’t a new teaching; it is nearly a thousand years old; originating with st. Peter damian.

Once again, that’s a totally new teaching to me. I, and others, will evaluate Church teachings which are actually taught, ignoring those hid under a bushel for safekeeping.

now the “can god bring about a rock he cannot lift” question is answered simply by stating that any entity with infinite power in both generation (creating a thing) and manipulation (changing a thing) would be able to manipulate anything it created. So, any rock created by god would be; by definition, manipulatable by god.

In other words, the answer is that God cannot make a rock so big that He cannot move it.

This is another example of something which man can do but God cannot. Interesting.​

this is because “infinity” is not a number; but a quality. It denotes a quality that surpasses a number; instead of having ten, twenty or a billion say “horsepower”; it just has infinite “horsepower” – therein; anything that can be moved by “horsepower” can be moved by this entity.

The term “infinity” can be used as you suggest, but not correctly. Qualities are described with adjectives, whereas infinity is a noun. Infinity is regarded in mathematics as a number. I suspect, but do not know for certain, that the term originated in mathematics, shortly after “zero” was recognized as a number and someone tried to divide something by it.

There actually is a tiny branch of math called, “The Mathematics of Infinity.” You might enjoy this link, since I believe you to be open to new information. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Some of the results are strange: For example, infinity + 1 = infinity. Infinity is not regarded as a real number. There are different levels of infinity.

We can also know god can move galaxies at his will by inference. If an entity has infinite power; and free will – it can move a galaxy, even if we do not know how it would do that.

The question is, then, does He actually possess infinite power?

I would argue that if He does, it is of no use to him in any aspect of creation. For example, if God chose to apply infinite force to move so much as a pea, this action would instantly destroy the entire universe.

Of course those who insist that He must have infinite power will declare, 'Well, He just chooses not to use it." Okay. And then what is the point of declaring that He has it?

incidently; we do not know god has infinite power; but at least power enough to create the universe; so we can infer that 1) if he has that power; 2) he still exists and 3) he has free will — that he can move a galaxy at will.

You are wise to acknowledge that. Have you ever looked into the philosophical consequences of a Creator with limited power and knowledge? They are interesting.

also; we can compare “yellow” with “mile” if we believe that all things share a common nature. Some people believe this (but i don’t).

Then we can leave that silly issue be. Let’s not discuss nonsense again.

 

[The_Exodus]

In other words, the answer is that God cannot make a rock so big that He cannot move it.

This is another example of something which man can do but God cannot. Interesting.

Man cannot “make,” in the proper sense of the term, anything. Manipulate? Yes. Make? No.

Furthermore, there are many things that man can do, which God can’t; i.e. begin to exist, cease to exist, sin, draw a false conclusion, etc. I fail to see how the standard of “man being able to do something God can’t” says anything significant; since all the things that man can do, which God can’t, are a failure on man’s part.

grey:

I would argue that if He does, it is of no use to him in any aspect of creation.

No? What about creation proper; i.e. bringing something into being from nothing? Or sustaining a universe of contingent being in existence? These things, many have argued (and I agree), require infinite power.

 

[greylorn]

Man cannot “make,” in the proper sense of the term, anything. Manipulate? Yes. Make? No.

Furthermore, there are many things that man can do, which God can’t; i.e. begin to exist, cease to exist, sin, draw a false conclusion, etc. I fail to see how the standard of “man being able to do something God can’t” says anything significant; since all the things that man can do, which God can’t, are a failure on man’s part.

These arguments seem to be a function of your definitions, and I’ve learned that it is a waste of time to engage anyone who operates like that.

Nonetheless, it may be worth mentioning that man can think creatively, meaning that he can think of something he’d not previously known. The verb, to create, is used to express the result of this ability. God cannot create, since He knows everything (according to your beliefs, but not mine). Personally I find the ability to create an essential and important part of life, and if I lose my ability to do it, I will go for a hard ride on a mountain road with bald tires, in the rain.

I merely mention this. Figuring that you are happy with your belief in an unimaginative Creator, I’ll not argue this further with you, but leave you with your opinions.

No? What about creation proper; i.e. bringing something into being from nothing? Or sustaining a universe of contingent being in existence? These things, many have argued (and I agree), require infinite power.

Luckily, many people arguing and your agreeing with them means only that you, as well as they, have an illogical view of the nature of creation. You are in excellent company, right up there with Stephen Hawking (in that one respect). Personally, I prefer ideas which make logical sense, making belief in them irrelevant.

Power is a physics term which has been extended to common use. P=E/t i.e. power equals energy divided by time. The problem with determining how much power was needed is not relevant to creation, because you will suppose that neither energy nor time existed at that point. Power cannot be calculated until after energy was created. Even if God created Energy in zero time, no power would have been necessary. Zero divided by zero is zero. Power is relevant only after energy was created.

 

[The_Exodus]

"grey:

These arguments seem to be a function of your definitions, and I’ve learned that it is a waste of time to engage anyone who operates like that.

Though that may be, this statement alone does not suffice for a refutation of my refutation of your claim: i.e. that humans cannot properly create anything.

Nonetheless, it may be worth mentioning that man can think creatively, meaning that he can think of something he’d not previously known.

Since intellection follows sensation, I don’t think this is true. A person cannot “make” (ex nihilo) a new thought. All thoughts are phantasms/imaginations of previously sensed things. If you dispute this, try “thinking” a new color.

Furthermore, how is it possible to think of something previously unknown? What is your thought about, if not some previously experienced, and thus known, thing?

grey:

God cannot create, since He knows everything (according to your beliefs, but not mine).

God can indeed create, since there is no necessity to create, even supposing infinite knowledge. Hence, he could still know all things on the supposition that he did not create all things, since the knowledge of all things would still be in his intellect.

Also,

grey:

Power is a physics term which has been extended to common use. P=E/t i.e. power equals energy divided by time. The problem with determining how much power was needed is not relevant to creation, because you will suppose that neither energy nor time existed at that point. Power cannot be calculated until after energy was created. Even if God created Energy in zero time, no power would have been necessary. Zero divided by zero is zero. Power is relevant only after energy was created.

God created all things, including energy, power, time, etc. simultaneously.

Yet “power” in the metaphysical sense, which means ability to bring about an act, is still correctly predicated of God, since he has power to bring about the creation of the universe from nothing. In my view, this designates an infinite power, although making this claim opens up the door to scrutinize the term “infinite.”

Suffice it to say, the tautology, as it were, remains valid: God possess at least enough power to bring all creation into being from previously nothing.

 

[JohnDamian]

greylorn:

I only know about Aquinas and Augustine. I am not a religious scholar.

I have to wonder why, if the Church thought so highly of these men, and I shall assume rightfully so, it did not teach any of their ideas? I went through 12 years of Catholic schooling, including high school religion classes taught by Norbertine Fathers, without ever, ever, being exposed to high level religious thinking.

How is anyone to know a church except by what it chooses to teach?

I would figure many people don’t understand the Catholic faith fully; even those people in the Church. Or that those people try to avoid confusion by advocating one simple thing instead of telling school-level children the hundreds of theories and ideas around a subject. It is far easier to espouse the “literal” interpretation; as it doesn’t lead to tricky questions such as “how do we interpret what is and what isn’t literal etc.”; which can be explained; but are very difficult to explain to young people; or for that matter; to explain shortly. Clearly; anyone who interprets Genesis literally should interpret Sirach literally; a contradiction follows (see Sirach 18:1; where the universe is created instantly).

The Church recognises those who’s teaching is authoratative by declaring them teachers of the faith (Doctors of the Church) – I would tend to hold that the beliefs of the Church are more closely aligned to those of their official teachers; than some undereducated Priests.

greylorn:

That is an interesting bit of information. I concluded the same thing in high school and attempted to argue it in religion class, but was shut down. Later, I was taken aside and told that the Genesis story amounts to the same thing as instant creation, so that I can believe in my own ideas, but that the Church is most comfortable with classical Genesis. Then I made the mistake of asking about dinosaur fossils.

I had similar experiences; so much so that when I was a teenager I completely abandoned religion; and avoided confirmation. – I think poorly instructed or slovenly religion teachers are a problem. However; there is a fine line between being critically accurate; and being too complicated; particularily when in schools one is dealing with a multitude of different ability level pupils. I would hope that a competent teacher would, if unable to answer a question; refer you to a book on the subject. Sadly; many teachers just don’t care.

greylorn:

Naturally, I agree that Augustine reached the only possible conclusion from his beliefs. An omnipotent, omniscient Creator would have created the universe instantly. That He obviously did not, led me a few years later to the logical conclusion that He could not because He was not omnipotent or omniscient.

We don’t actually know if the universe was created instantly; we can tell that materials have obviously changed and moved since then; but I don’t have any reason to believe that the universe (ie; energy; matter; space etc.) wasn’t created instantly; then again I have no reason to believe the inverse - and so I don’t have an opinion on that.

greylorn:

Naturally, I agree that Augustine reached the only possible conclusion from his beliefs. An omnipotent, omniscient Creator would have created the universe instantly. That He obviously did not, led me a few years later to the logical conclusion that He could not because He was not omnipotent or omniscient.

We don’t know that necessarily an omnipotent creator would have created the universe instantly. Augustine certainly argues that he does; but we don’t know that if God was omnipotent; that he must create instantly; only that he could.

greylorn:

I do not agree with this analysis. My first serious exposure to Galileo included his infamous Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Although I knew little about him and his troubles with the Church at the time, I realized that his Simplicio character represented the Pope, who was made to appear very stupid.

Simplicito represents the Aristotelians; a school of natural philosophers who were not interested in evidence or empiricism; a particular example of which is Cesare Cremonini; a “Scientist” who believed in what is called “Natural Philosophy”; who famously refused to look through a telescope to observe the stars; believing instead in reason, and referances to Aristotle. – Although he uses the character as a mouthpiece for a satire of the Pope; the basis for the Character is the Natural Philosophers; whom Galileo taught alongside at Padua.

CONTINUED–

 

[JohnDamian]

–Continued

greylorn:

In the context of human emotions, Galileo’s fate seems inevitable. It was politically dumb for Galileo to have insulted the Pope, and even dumberer (sic) given their personal relationship, which would seem a personal betrayal of a childhood friendship as well as an insult to high office. I suspect that Galileo’s treatment was entirely personal.

I suspect there was certainly something personal in the Galileo affair; but clearly his biggest mistake was to ignore Cardinal Bellarmines advice to not teach his theory as fact until he had more evidence; Galileo instead dove into theology to defend his positions; which was a very adventurous thing to do; and did not pay off for him. Galileo’s treatment was unfair; but in context; he got off lightly compared to Bruno.

greylorn:

Once again, that’s a totally new teaching to me. I, and others, will evaluate Church teachings which are actually taught, ignoring those hid under a bushel for safekeeping.

I would reccomend reconsidering; and judging the Church by what it recognises as authentic teachers; and not just what this or that Priest might say. Many priests have been heretics; bufoons or otherwise uneducated; whilst Priests have a responsibility to teach the faith; many of them fail to do so properly. Similarily; when we judge the Law we should judge it by what it recognises; and not by some rogue police officers.

]
This is another example of something which man can do but God cannot. Interesting.

Yes; another example would be lying; God cannot lie; yet man can. This does not impugn omnipotence however.

greylorn:

Infinity is not regarded as a real number. There are different levels of infinity.

I can see how it would have relevance in mathematics; but for all intents and purposes in reality “infinity” does not really exist. We cannot say that something in quantity is infinite; if an object is boundless we can say it is boundless; but we cannot say that it is infinite; because all objects which are quantitative are finite (by nature).

greylorn:

The question is, then, does He actually possess infinite power?

I would argue that if He does, it is of no use to him in any aspect of creation. For example, if God chose to apply infinite force to move so much as a pea, this action would instantly destroy the entire universe.

I don’t know if he has infinite power; that is a matter of faith rather than knowlege. However;-- in your example of the pea; God would only destroy the universe if he used his power algebreically; as infinity/X is infinity; ie - he would infinitely change the universe (I don’t think we can assume it would destroy; or create; because we can’t assume a manipulation will lead to either generation or obliteration --but it would certanly change the universe infinitely). However if we are to regard God mathematically; we can see that he could arithmatically exert power; ie - to exert as units in and of itself; which by definition is finite. Three examples (refering to Horsepower as an example);

If God has a finite power of a hundred horsepower; he can algebreically bring about an act of ten horsepower; by acting with one tenth of his power.
If God has infinite horsepower; if he wanted to bring about an act of ten horsepower; no division of his power could produce this; and thus it would be impossible*
Yet; if God has infinite horsepower; and by his will chooses to use a finite amount of power; he could do so; but by election and not by division.

*We could say he could divide his infinite power by itself; and then by ten. But this is absurd; as in reality if a figure can be divided by itself to produce one; then that figure is fixed; infinity is not fixed; ie-ergo it cannot be divided by itself (or any other figure) to produce one. This only would work in mathematics; and not reality.

greylorn:

You are wise to acknowledge that. Have you ever looked into the philosophical consequences of a Creator with limited power and knowledge? They are interesting.

I have considered them; however I believe that God does have infinite power by some indescribable and irrational faith – so to speak. I just cannot demonstrate it.

 

[sinnerdexter]

There is a God. There is a God.

 

[greylorn]

I would figure many people don’t understand the Catholic faith fully; even those people in the Church. Or that those people try to avoid confusion by advocating one simple thing instead of telling school-level children the hundreds of theories and ideas around a subject. It is far easier to espouse the “literal” interpretation; as it doesn’t lead to tricky questions such as “how do we interpret what is and what isn’t literal etc.”; which can be explained; but are very difficult to explain to young people; or for that matter; to explain shortly. Clearly; anyone who interprets Genesis literally should interpret Sirach literally; a contradiction follows (see Sirach 18:1; where the universe is created instantly).

My copy of the Catholic Study Bible has Sirach 18:1 as:

The Eternal is the judge of all things without exception; The Lord alone is just.

By no stretch of imagination can I convert this to mean, “The universe is created instantly.”

I mention this so that you will understand why I find no point whatsoever in discussing religion in the context of Biblical prose. A religionist can take just about any quote he wants and interpret it however he chooses. When even the good ones do this, they become, to me, untrustworthy sources of religious insight.

Please do not take offense, but I prefer to trust real information (God’s created universe) and common sense logic interpreted with my partially God-given mind, thank you.

 

[JohnDamian]

greylorn:

My copy of the Catholic Study Bible has Sirach 18:1 as:

The Eternal is the judge of all things without exception; The Lord alone is just.

By no stretch of imagination can I convert this to mean, “The universe is created instantly.”

No offense taken.

Scripture alone cannot be used as an argument for anyone; unless they accept scripture itself. An argument can only move forward when everyone accepts the premises; thus scripture cannot support an argument unless people already accept scripture as valid.

I merely brought up Sirach 18:1 as a counter to Genesis 1. If we were to accept both of these; we would have a contradiction. To unravel this contradiction we have to either agree that scripture is valid; or assume it for the purposes of demonstrating a literal interpretation wrong.

The Translation of Sirach 18:1 is: “He that liveth for ever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and he remaineth an invincible king for ever.” from the Latin Vulgate “qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul Deus solus iustificabitur et manet invictus rex in aeternum”.

Creavit (created) omina (all) simul (together/simultaneously).

I know you don’t speak latin; and my knowlege of it is very sparse; but it is self evident (and congruent with Latin Dictionaries) what this passage means.

Generally speaking; we can use the Latin Vulgate as the “official” bible of the Church; so any Catholic in good standing would accept it; thus for the purposes of discussing creation with a Catholic:

If a Catholic believes in scripture; he will naturally accept scripture as a premise.

If we show a Catholic contradictory scripture such as Sirach 18:1 and Gen:1 we can see that the Catholic cannot accept both; or at least cannot accept them both as literal. So a Catholic would either have to believe that either Genesis or Sirach were non-literal; or else believe an absurdity.

greylorn:

I mention this so that you will understand why I find no point whatsoever in discussing religion in the context of Biblical prose. A religionist can take just about any quote he wants and interpret it however he chooses. When even the good ones do this, they become, to me, untrustworthy sources of religious insight.

Please do not take offense, but I prefer to trust real information (God’s created universe) and common sense logic interpreted with my partially God-given mind, thank you.

I understand that it would be fruitless arguing about scripture. But nonetheless; when conversing with people who believe in scripture it is important to be able to notice when they interpret it incorrectly.

That said; I admit that I view scritpture as authoritative – however I won’t do the injustice of assuming the people I am discussing religion with view it as authoritative. Ergo; it is pointless of me to bring it up; except perhaps by way of explanation or analogy; but certainly I cannot treat it as infallible in discussions (even if I believe it to be the truth).

I only really brought it up because (to someone with sound scripture knowlege) we can spot “a mile off” people using scripture to justify a claim that is contradictory; absurd; or dangerous. Augustine spotted such errors when he argued for a non-literal interpretation of the bible – no one can argue for a literal interpretation of the bible without explaining the contradiction between Sirach and Genesis; if the bible is true - one of them is either false; or non-literal.

That aside – natural reason is the only practical thing we can use in discussions with non-believers; things such as science; philosophy etc.

We can only appeal to scripture to those who already believe it; such as other Catholics; or perhaps other Christians (and perhaps even other Abrahamic faiths).

Since you (presumably) don’t believe in scripture; there is no point me bringing it up; except when you mention something relevant to scripture (Catholic teachers advocating only literal Genesis); where I can point out that this isn’t a Catholic position and these teachers mis-represent Catholic thought.

 

[Liraco]

I learned from the Baltimore Catechism, around 1948 and onward. Get a copy, if you can. You might find it interesting to note how the immutable faith changes in the course of a mere half-century.

If you recall any specific example of such changes let me know, I read up on creation but can’t seem to find the 6-day creation unless it’s somewhere else. Things like the possibility of evolution aren’t ruled out so I don’t see the problem though.
Q. 241. Could man’s body be developed from the body of an inferior animal?
A. Man’s body could be developed from the body of an inferior animal if God so willed

You might want to ponder that first sentence. Put it in your mind at bedtime, every night for twenty successive nights. Let me know if you still believe it when finished.

“If we can put Him in a box it’s because He lets us, like how He become a man and allowed His creation to kill Him.”

So, the infinite (and therefore uncontainable) God took on a finite human nature to redeem us, the author entering His own story.

I think you’ll need to help me out here to know what you mean, the obvious tends to elude me.

The rest of that paragraph was kind of weaselly. You can do much better. You do not need to take on the job of Church apologist. You would not qualify, because you would take on questions which they prefer to avoid.

If I were afraid of not knowing the answer to everything I’d never get anywhere. If I were afraid to find out the reasons for my faith or to discover the truth then I’d be a liar and a hypocrite. I don’t have the answers to everything, neither do you. Pardon my lack of knowledge coming off as “weaselly” but there’s still much to learn and you’ve got a head start.

 

[Liraco]

You will eventually be ashamed for writing something so incompetent, because incompetence is not your nature.

Ashamed of that? Never. I’m not here to look smart but to discuss things to the best of my abilities even if at times like these they’re lacking. I’m only ashamed of my sins.

If you point out my mistakes I can see them and learn from them, otherwise I’d go on thinking I did just fine.

So, big vs. move is a legitimate question, especially when applied to God.

Your question was legitimate, even if you didn’t understand what it implied at the time.

Just like you say a physical singularity is absurd, a rock impossible for God to lift is logically absurd.

This is the distinction with the misconception of Omnipotence meaning “anything” vs “anything possible”. JohnDamian explained it well though. It doesn’t mean that now there’s some new restriction on God that wasn’t there before, but we come to understand what it implies better.

By the act of God making a rock so heavy he couldn’t move it, He “loses” His omnipotence. If God could do absolutely anything else (including creation from nothing) but can’t make that rock so heavy then, again, He’s no longer omnipotent.

So let’s apply the law of non-contradiction which you put as “God being bound to logic”. He either is omnipotent or He isn’t, and an act isn’t going to take that away.

Can he move galaxies with an act of will? If so, how?

Man could probably move a whole planet with massive rockets if the technology allowed it (oversimplifying of course), so I don’t see why the Creator of everything couldn’t do grander things.

Simple answer is yes, by an act of will God could move a galaxies. How? We have to anthropomorphize because that’s how we understand.

Imagine looking at your desk at a pen, and you want to move it. In our case we will to move it and set about doing it through our body, presumably the hand (as we’re not telekinetic) and proceed to move it. So imagine a galaxy being similarly small and easily manipulable to God, except there’s no arm to “mediate” and His will is immediately effected. Simplified explanation but hope it illustrates the point.

By an act of will He made the universe, by an act of will you and I exist, by an act of will every single proton, neutron, etc. (however small it all ultimately goes) are maintained in existence.

People tend to think of an absent God that just set up some chain reaction and let it go off on its own when in fact every single thing is all in place by His will. If anything ever stopped being in His “mind” it would immediately cease to be.

Galileo figured that if there was any logical relationship between the universe and its Creator, the nature of its Creator would be revealed by the universe which He created. Seems logical to me, too.

Indeed, in that respect I think you’re quite right.

They key difference though is that you hold Him bound to laws like the conservation of energy while I hold that He is outside of those laws because He created them.

You come dangerously close to Stephen Hawkin claiming "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

I know you’ll resent that so here’s why: even if his premise is absolutely absurd, you’re both thus far not answering the same basic question:
WHY are the laws there in the first place?

Why something instead of nothing. Why order instead of chaos?

Laws are necessary to hold order but the existence of the universe or its laws are not necessary in and of themselves. They don’t HAVE to be, yet they are. Why?

 

[archistrage]

My favorite is the Kalaam argument.

To sum it up: the finite can never become the infinite, and the infinite can never become the finite. (Sort of like accelerating to the speed of light)

My second favorite is… I can’t remember the name of it. Let me explain it a bit.

As the Dogmatic Constitution of Divine Revelation says, natural human reason alone is capable of coming to know of the existence of the creator.

All human knowledge comes from observing the natural world. Therefore, human reason could not come to the idea of a transcendent god, unless he was present in creation (so called natural revelation).

My third is based on the same principles as the second. It isn’t really a proof for the existence of God, but a proof of the impossibility of the impossibility of God (it is possible for God to exist, but maybe not probable).

If all of human knowledge is gained from observing the universe, then human imagination and all human ideas are merely a manipulation of what we see. But because it is a manipulation, not a creation, we can’t add anything new to it. All human ideas are possible ways the Universe could be. Therefore, we cannot create the idea of God, unless the existence of God is present in one or more of those manipulations.

The last one was mine, btw.

Peace be with you,
Archistrage

 

[Liraco]

After submitting my inspiration for approval by the CC, I have published it. What more should I do to share my inspiration with others? I even posted the reviews of the booklet thrice on CAF, but could not post other contents only because that would violate the copyright of the publisher.

Well do tell if you happen to hear an answer from the Church on what you submitted.

---

Common indeed! Perhaps because it is exactly what the Church taught in Catholic school to other ignorant little kids like me, who trusted it to tell the truth and so believed what they were taught.

Later, I was taken aside and told that the Genesis story amounts to the same thing as instant creation, so that I can believe in my own ideas, but that the Church is most comfortable with classical Genesis. Then I made the mistake of asking about dinosaur fossils.

You keep piling on the evidence that your school and its teachers were very deficient and lacking in what was really taught. They abused their authority, knowingly or not. It’s not an excuse for the poor formation (or lack of care) offered but it’s a shame nonetheless and it continues to happen even now in schools like Notre-Dame that seem to be “catholic” only in name.

You are right to ask question on what you were taught, though it seems many of the things you were taught were false or incomplete.

I’m curious what their response to dinosaurs were. My guess is they just told you to shut up. (I’ve seen people making inferences from Genesis that dinosaurs are mentioned by the way, though that’s interpretation rather than doctrine.)

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Premise 1. Deep down we all know that it is wrong to rape children.
**
Premise 2.** Therefore there is an objective moral law.
**
conclusion:** Thus there is a moral law giver.

You either get it or you don’t. Those of you who do, welcome to the faith.

 

[JohnDamian]

My favorite is the Kalaam argument.

To sum it up: the finite can never become the infinite, and the infinite can never become the finite. (Sort of like accelerating to the speed of light)

That is from Aristotle and not Algazel. It’s not the Kalaam Argument. See Posterior Analytics.

As the Dogmatic Constitution of Divine Revelation says, natural human reason alone is capable of coming to know of the existence of the creator.

All human knowledge comes from observing the natural world. Therefore, human reason could not come to the idea of a transcendent god, unless he was present in creation (so called natural revelation).

This presupposes that thought is both recognative and univocal. Furthermore; assuming all knowlege is a posteriori is a very big leap. This, and the Third; are clearly demonstrably incorrect with the imposition of absurd concepts.

The third; is likewise simple to dismiss insofar as the concept of a thing cannot translate through semantics to the possibility of an instantiation or manifest of that thing; ie- the presence of a thing as an object of the mind does not validate it’s potential as a real individual; particularily as objects can be composite and not a recognative objects – ie; it is clearly incorrect.