Young Earth Creationists

[Gorgias]

Creation ex nihilo cannot be proven philosophically

The argument from contingency accomplishes precisely that, wouldn’t you say?

 

[SalamKhan]

The argument from contingency was first developed by the Muslim peripatetic philosophers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), although it was known as Burhan al Siddiqin (proof of the truthful). These same peripatetic philosophers believed in the pre-eternality of the world. But note that this doesn’t mean they believed that the world is independent of God, or that God is not a creator. On the contrary, they believed that the greater the duration of the creature, the greater it will be dependent on God, and that there was no such period of time in which God was not creating. The argument from contingency that most people are aware of today are summarised/modified forms known through the likes of Thomas Aquinas and the later Asha`ri theologians. See what I have written previously:

Thomas Aquinas himself admitted that creation ex nihilo cannot be proven philosophically, and is therefore an article of faith:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm#article2

Similarly, in the Muslim world, many of the Ashari theologians considered creation ex nihilo to be a dogmatic issue, and therefore unfortunately imputed disbelief upon Avicenna and others. Imam Fakhr ad-Din Razi (the great Ashari philosopher and theologian) however, rightly asserted that the issue is not dogmatic, because the Qur’an does not support nor reject creation ex nihilo; and whilst Fakhr ad-Din Razi had his own reasons for accepting creation ex nihilo, he admitted that the philosophers possessed better/stronger arguments overall for their position of the world’s pre-eternality.

 

[SalamKhan]

Those were two major scientific theories that I mentioned.

I myself believe in creation ex nihilo, but that may be because I’m still relatively new to philosophy.

 

[goout]

A Catholic is free to believe in whatever one wants in the sense of employing unrestricted free will. No one can coerce a person to embrace evidence, or theories, or theological proposition, or whole branches of science for that matter.

At the same time, proposing ideas and concepts that violate reason is not using freedom, it’s making a choice to be ignorant.
Young Earth Creationism violates reason. Plain and simple. A person can choose to believe it, but that choice does not lead to freedom of thought or to the edification of others.
Since we are called to be bearers of truth and light to the world, we owe it to ourselves and others, -and to God-, to seek truth and speak the truth.
We run afoul of this most often when we speak about matters of theology and/or science in which we have no competence.
Paul spoke definitely about the evil of unreason as “futile speculations” leading to “senseless minds being darkened”

Faith and reason must go hand in hand, or faith is blind (in the bad way) and reason becomes darkened.

 

[goout]

FrDavid96:

When we did not know any better, we could believe that the earth was a few thousand years old—because we (as a human society) were in ignorance of the actual age of the earth. We had no way of knowing. Now that we know better, there is no excuse for trying to “prove” that the earth is only a fraction of its real age.

1. What does the following canon from Vatican I mean?

"4. On faith and reason
…
3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."

1. Can’t a similar argument then be made to, say, accept homosexuality as normal, rather than a mortal sin?

No. That argument can’t be made.
The Vatican statements speak for themselves. The quote refers to a rejection of continuously held doctrinal sense, not to advancement in understanding or pastoral/disciplinary practice.

 

[goout]

Creation ex-Deo is perhaps another way of speaking about creation.
God is not a nothing, God is being itself. And everything that exists comes from His being.

 

[Kei]

No, creation ex nihilo makes perfect sense and is what is prescribed.
Those who say the eternity of God required an eternal creation are mistaken, for they do not see the timelessness of God.

Also, now this isn’t applicable to you, but meditating upon the Trinity may also aid one in meditations.

 

[Hope_Philomena]

Listen… I try to respect all views, even if they are in contradiction to my own. But when a Young Earth Creationist tried to convince me that Marco Polo saw the Khan employ the use of dinosaurs (which are now fossilized) I had to reassess my attempts to respect all views.

When something is so utterly incorrect, I’m not going to actively attempt to stop you from believing this; when you’re at the point of arguing for your YEC view on an online forum, you are never going to be swayed by even the most logical reply.

So, you’re absolutely entitled to your own view. The Church does not endorse your view nor does it condemn your view. If you want to share your YEC beliefs with others, please make sure to clarify that the Catholic Church does not dictate your beliefs on the matter. To say otherwise would be a lie.

 

[SalamKhan]

The quote refers to a rejection of continuously held doctrinal sense, not to advancement in understanding or pastoral/disciplinary practice

No…

Session 3, Chapter 4, of the First Vatican Council states:

"14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the nam

You incorrectly stated that a Young Earth goes against reason. You should know that anything that can actually be conceived of in the mind is an intellectual possibility, it can either be or not be, it is neither necessary nor impossible. The Trinity would go against reason before Young Earth Creationism would.

 

[goout]

The quote refers to a rejection of continuously held doctrinal sense, not to advancement in understanding or pastoral/disciplinary practice

No…

Yes.
(Gee that was fun.
Let’s see, you are Muslim, and I am Catholic. I respect you and your religion. But that does not give you the right to tell knowledable Catholics what Catholics believe. That is pointless and rude. So why don’t you listen to posters who are telling you what Catholics believe? Might be more fruitful. )

Session 3, Chapter 4, of the First Vatican Council states:

"14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the nam

Yes.
And your point is…?
I covered development of doctrine in my response.
Do you understand Catholic thought on this issue.

You incorrectly stated that a Young Earth goes against reason. You should know that anything that can actually be conceived of in the mind is an intellectual possibility, it can either be or not be, it is neither necessary nor impossible. The Trinity would go against reason before Young Earth Creationism would.

I conceive in my mind that I am 7 feet tall Martian.
How’s that workin out for ya? Is it reasonable?

 

[SalamKhan]

So why don’t you listen to posters who are telling you what Catholics believe? Might be more fruitful.

It might be worth mentioning for the umpteenth time that I used to be an ex Muslim who wanted to become a Catholic. So I’ve already spent a fair amount of time listening to Catholics.

I conceive in my mind that I am 7 feet tall Martian.

How’s that workin out for ya? Is it reasonable?

Sigh. You clearly don’t know what an intellectual judgement is. I literally explained it to you. An intellectual possibility is something which could either be or not be. In this case, you are not a 7 feet martian, but it’s not impossible that you could have been one instead of a human being.

 

[goout]

goout:

So why don’t you listen to posters who are telling you what Catholics believe? Might be more fruitful.

It might be worth mentioning for the umpteenth time that I used to be an ex Muslim who wanted to become a Catholic. So I’ve already spent a fair amount of time listening to Catholics.

I conceive in my mind that I am 7 feet tall Martian.

How’s that workin out for ya? Is it reasonable?

Sigh. You clearly don’t know what an intellectual judgement is. I literally explained it to you. An intellectual possibility is something which could either be or not be. In this case, you are not a 7 feet martian, but it’s not impossible that you could have been one instead of a human being.

You explained nothing. This is what you said verbatim:

You incorrectly stated that a Young Earth goes against reason. You should know that anything that can actually be conceived of in the mind is an intellectual possibility, it can either be or not be, it is neither necessary nor impossible. The Trinity would go against reason before Young Earth Creationism would.

You are not making sense.

 

[Zaccheus]

You incorrectly stated that a Young Earth goes against reason. You should know that anything that can actually be conceived of in the mind is an intellectual possibility, it can either be or not be, it is neither necessary nor impossible. The Trinity would go against reason before Young Earth Creationism would.

“This can be conceived of in the mind” is not the same as “this can be true”.

I can conceive of being a woman. That does not change the truth that I am a man.
I can conceive that I possess a Star Wars-style lightsaber (green blade, please). But I don’t possess a lightsaber no matter how fervently I conceive of it.

Lots of people conceive of Young Earth Creationism. Yet Young Earth Creationism is still false.

 

[Zaccheus]

Sigh. You clearly don’t know what an intellectual judgement is. I literally explained it to you. An intellectual possibility is something which could either be or not be. In this case, you are not a 7 feet martian, but it’s not impossible that you could have been one instead of a human being.

…and your point is?

 

[SalamKhan]

That is perhaps because most Catholics only seem to pay lip service to Thomas Aquinas. I wonder how many could have used the time they spent studying evolution to instead study Thomas Aquinas. I mean, do you actually understand Thomas Aquinas’ five ways, specifically the argument from contingency?

Regardless, I will clarify what I meant.

An empirical judgment is related to human experience, habits, etc.

As for intellectual judgements, there are three types in relation to quiddity:

Necessary- which cannot be predicated with non-existence.

Impossible- which cannot be predicated with existence.

Possible- which can be predicated with either existence or non-existence.

This is basic philosophy. You claimed that Young Earth Creationism goes against reason i.e. is an intellectual impossibility. I merely stated that is incorrect, because even though you may believe the universe began 13 billion years ago, to assert that it is impossible for God to have instead created the world 6,000+ years ago is completely unsubstantiated.

 

[edwest211]

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

• Catholic Answers

 

[edwest211]

The Church is very clear about Adam and Eve. Eve was not born in the conventional sense. Both were given gifts by God including immortality. They only had to observe on Commandment. They didn’t. Original Sin caused spiritual and physical change.

 

[edwest211]

What a strange answer. What did Jesus say and do in the Bible? He performed miracles without science. He rose, bodily, from the grave. THIS is going to turn people away? What about Transubstantiation?

“(especially in the Roman Catholic Church) the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration, only the appearances of bread and wine still remaining.”

 

[edwest211]

I know a Last Tuesdayist

 

[twf]

Not all mysteries of faith can be explained by science, but faith and science do not contradict each other.