Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Philosophy
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #16  
Old Jul 15, '12, 10:30 pm
Marc Anthony's Avatar
Marc Anthony Marc Anthony is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2010
Posts: 3,013
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How to refute this argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Anthony View Post
Actually, austenboston and Gorgias are right. As is Ludqig Von Mises.

Mises's problem is that he doesn't realize that theistic philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas would cheerfully accept the premise!

Read article 1, "Whether there is will in God?" It addresses Von Mises's issue.

Gorgias is right. God does not "act". He is, technically speaking, PURE act. Instead, he wills.
Sorry, I forgot to put a link. By "article 1" I was referring to this section of the "Summa Theologica":

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm
__________________
"But he was undoubtedly a moron to begin with. Illiterate, superstitious, murderous....Look at him, and tell me if you see the progeny of a once-mighty civilization? What do you see?"

"The image of Christ," grated the monsignor, surprised at his own sudden anger. "What did you expect me to see?"
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old Jul 15, '12, 11:41 pm
Qoeleth Qoeleth is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2010
Posts: 1,366
Religion: Catholic/Philosopher
Default Re: How to refute this argument?

Well, in a sense it is true. God does not decide "I am not happy with things", and therefore, get up, and 'act' to change them.

God is being. The world is not being, but only 'becoming'. It is therefore the world which acts (in the sense of changes from one action to another, initiates an action, etc.). But it does so in relation to a teleology (which is being, i.e. God). Therefore, it appears as if God acts.

Yes the image of God 'acting', is an anthropomorphism. But, why not anthopomorphism? All our language about God is figurative and 'images'. Anthropomorphism seems like an effective image.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old Jul 16, '12, 3:11 am
Leigh01 Leigh01 is offline
Trial Membership
 
Join Date: July 10, 2012
Posts: 21
Post Re: How to refute this argument?

Philosophy can told its ans batter.i think so its not a difficult.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old Jul 16, '12, 8:46 am
xzereus xzereus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Posts: 195
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How to refute this argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAndreas View Post
Libertarian philosopher Ludwig von Mises argued that God does not act because only discontented beings act, and attributing action to God is an anthropomorphism. I know this is an absurd argument but I can't figure out how to refute it.
Although the question has been addressed, I'll address it again for fun. It's really not so absurd an argument. Let's not worry about the fact that Mises was not a christian--that does not make him automatically wrong! I think, perhaps, it's important to evaluate the inverse. This might help for understanding the concept

If a being were perfectly content, what need would it have to act? Any action by any being can be said to represent be an attempt at change. If the aforementioned content being is attempting to change anything, how can we claim he is truly content? Either he is intentionally attempting to dissatisfy himself--which in itself represents a discontentment with his own feelings of perfect content--and to interrupt his otherwise perfect situation, or he is not perfectly content in his current state.

The argument has been made that we can act while content with the purpose of greater happiness, yet this state is not without discontent. I can hold this contentment while at the same being discontent with the fact that abortion is illegal, for example. This discontentment would likely cause me to act against it.

As for the difference between acting/willing, I'll leave you to the very capable hands of Marc Anthony and austenbosten. Apologies if my explanation is unclear or lacking.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old Jul 16, '12, 10:31 am
ProLepanto ProLepanto is offline
Observing Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2012
Posts: 18
Religion: Western Philosophy
Default Re: How to refute this argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorgias View Post
In a manner of speaking, he's right. God doesn't act, per se. (Action implies prior inaction, and stimulus, and response, doesn't it? And that would imply change within the actor, wouldn't it?)

Instead, it's more accurate to say that God wills. His will is eternal and unchanging. Moreover, anything that we perceive of, within the confines of time & space, as being an 'action' of God, is instead, in fact, an example of God's eternal will being actualized in the framework of His creation.

So, would we say that God 'waited', and then 'acted' in 1 A.D., causing the incarnation of His Son? Nope. Rather, God willed the Incarnation eternally. We experienced the Incarnation, as time-and-space bound humans, as an event that occurred at that point in time.

Hope that helps...!
Spot on. The argument is refuted by rejecting the givens. If the premiss on which the assertion lies, is not shared, then the framework of the discussion in question should be rejected; never mind the conclusion.

Example: "Since all Catholics are actually pagan heathens, they all should burn in hell"

Now, if one was to focus on trying to rescue the reputation of the Catholic faith by trying explain why heathens shouldn't burn in hell, rather than Saying: "I reject the givens, Catholicism is not populated by heretics ( mostly)" then the defense would be unintelligible.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old Jul 16, '12, 1:50 pm
MarcusAndreas's Avatar
MarcusAndreas MarcusAndreas is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 27, 2010
Posts: 721
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How to refute this argument?

I see where y'all are going with this. One of the key things that should be mentioned which I haven't is von Mises's definition of action, the problem is I'm not entirely sure what he means by it.

I think I might be getting way too bent out of shape by the man's argument, considering he was a theological, philosophical, historical, and economic (oh yes, I went there) illiterate.
__________________
You are now aware that you are breathing.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old Jul 16, '12, 1:54 pm
sw85 sw85 is offline
Account Under Review
 
Join Date: July 22, 2010
Posts: 3,550
Religion: Baptized and confirmed Easter Vigil, 2012
Default Re: How to refute this argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAndreas View Post
Libertarian philosopher Ludwig von Mises argued that God does not act because only discontented beings act, and attributing action to God is an anthropomorphism. I know this is an absurd argument but I can't figure out how to refute it.
Strictly speaking, this is true, but not for the right reasons. God does not "act" in the sense that we mean -- i.e., doing this and then doing that. This would imply that God is not entirely present to Himself.

God's action in the world is one single, continuous act of love, manifesting itself in different ways in different times and places. Actually, there cannot even be a distinction between God and his actions for Him to satisfy the demands of unlimited being: He must actually be that single, unlimited, continuous act of love.

Presumably von Mises (an idiot) meant this argument to support deism.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old Jul 16, '12, 1:55 pm
Ben F's Avatar
Ben F Ben F is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Posts: 607
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How to refute this argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorgias View Post
In a manner of speaking, he's right. God doesn't act, per se. (Action implies prior inaction, and stimulus, and response, doesn't it? And that would imply change within the actor, wouldn't it?)

Instead, it's more accurate to say that God wills. His will is eternal and unchanging. Moreover, anything that we perceive of, within the confines of time & space, as being an 'action' of God, is instead, in fact, an example of God's eternal will being actualized in the framework of His creation.

So, would we say that God 'waited', and then 'acted' in 1 A.D., causing the incarnation of His Son? Nope. Rather, God willed the Incarnation eternally. We experienced the Incarnation, as time-and-space bound humans, as an event that occurred at that point in time.
Very good. God bless
Hope that helps...!
__________________
My daughter and wife, and I.


If you keep my commandments, you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old Jul 16, '12, 3:32 pm
Marc Anthony's Avatar
Marc Anthony Marc Anthony is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2010
Posts: 3,013
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How to refute this argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sw85 View Post
Strictly speaking, this is true, but not for the right reasons. God does not "act" in the sense that we mean -- i.e., doing this and then doing that. This would imply that God is not entirely present to Himself.

God's action in the world is one single, continuous act of love, manifesting itself in different ways in different times and places. Actually, there cannot even be a distinction between God and his actions for Him to satisfy the demands of unlimited being: He must actually be that single, unlimited, continuous act of love.


Very well said!
__________________
"But he was undoubtedly a moron to begin with. Illiterate, superstitious, murderous....Look at him, and tell me if you see the progeny of a once-mighty civilization? What do you see?"

"The image of Christ," grated the monsignor, surprised at his own sudden anger. "What did you expect me to see?"
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old Jul 17, '12, 8:30 am
jochoa jochoa is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 1,033
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How to refute this argument?

The trouble with this argument is that it concludes that having a purpose for acting/willing means being discontent/dissatisfied.

Not only is this a pessimistic view of thinking, but given this line of thinking, one can never resolve the following paradox of faith: God is eternally perfectly content, yet God acts/wills creation, even purposes it.
__________________
My intentions for sharing these understandings is to grow myself and others closer to God - The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and Catholicism, AND to subject these reflections to harsh criticisms regarding alignment with Catholicism, for it is the Truth.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old Jul 17, '12, 9:30 am
austenbosten austenbosten is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: December 12, 2011
Posts: 2,643
Religion: Lutheran in RCIA
Default Re: How to refute this argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sw85 View Post
Strictly speaking, this is true, but not for the right reasons. God does not "act" in the sense that we mean -- i.e., doing this and then doing that. This would imply that God is not entirely present to Himself.

God's action in the world is one single, continuous act of love, manifesting itself in different ways in different times and places. Actually, there cannot even be a distinction between God and his actions for Him to satisfy the demands of unlimited being: He must actually be that single, unlimited, continuous act of love.

Presumably von Mises (an idiot) meant this argument to support deism.
How is Ludwig von Mises an idiot, if I might ask?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old Jul 17, '12, 9:31 am
JohnAlexander JohnAlexander is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 29, 2010
Posts: 167
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How to refute this argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAndreas View Post
Libertarian philosopher Ludwig von Mises argued that God does not act because only discontented beings act, and attributing action to God is an anthropomorphism. I know this is an absurd argument but I can't figure out how to refute it.
What is the basis for asserting that only discontented beings act? I think his assertion is wrong. He does not give any proof for his assertion.

Love for example leads to action. When you love someone you want to show your love. You are not "discontented"

You can also get to much more complicated ideas. What exactly is meant by action? God is existence itself. God is action. In his Being, God acts. The assumption is that God is static and would only be moved to action to accomplish something in order to fix some state of affairs that he was unhappy about. But what if instead of being static, God's resting state is actually acting. The universe exists, and continues to exist because of God's action. He maintains the universe by doing it. The universe and everything in it is an on going action of God. The second God stops doing the universe, the universe disappears. But such a thing can not happen because time only exists in the universe. God does not exist in time, time exists in God.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8541Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Kellyreneeomara
5202CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: tawny
4434Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3870SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany
3842Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3403Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3301Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3231Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Rifester
3153For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: Kellyreneeomara



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:38 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.