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
  #31  
Old Apr 28, '12, 6:57 pm
JDaniel JDaniel is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 14, 2008
Posts: 5,154
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Quote:
Originally Posted by greylorn View Post
Your assertion is wrong. You know nothing about logic, so here is something for you to learn, which you will blow off.

Note that logic does not change. In mathematical form it is the perfect language, which is why the dimwit scientists who wanted to direct potentially evil aliens to planet earth sent a disk with mathematical symbols along with the Voyager deep space probe.

God cannot declare that 2+2=5. As with all elements of logic, its principles remain to be discovered, and are independent of matter-based reality. 2+2=4 is true even if there is nothing to count, no bananas to sell. That is why mathematical logic is universally agreed upon.
Greylorn:

That's strangely Thomistic! Look:
In the framework of immateriality, the mathematician in his strictly scientific character is said to leave aside all sensible matter and to retain in the abstracted result universal intelligible matter. - Summa Theologica, I, q. 85, a. 1, reply 2
__________________
“The personality of man stands and falls with his capacity to grasp truth.”

Rationality and Faith in God, Robert Spaemann
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old Apr 28, '12, 9:42 pm
Charlemagne II Charlemagne II is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 16, 2008
Posts: 8,471
Religion: Catholic, formerly a practical atheist for about 25 years
Default Re: Arguments for God's Existence

greylorn

2+2=4 is true even if there is nothing to count, no bananas to sell. That is why mathematical logic is universally agreed upon.

You have changed the terms of the discussion. What you are saying now is that God's logic cannot be different from human logic.

What I was talking about is that God's logic may transcend the ability of men to understand it. God's intelligence is infinitely subtle. Ours is finitely subtle. Einstein never cracked God's logic altogether. We can barely understand Einstein's logic.

Please don't reduce all logic, divine and human, to 2+2=4.
__________________
"A personal conscience that is not consistent with authentic Catholic teaching is not a Catholic conscience." Cardinal Francis George
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old Apr 28, '12, 11:36 pm
greylorn greylorn is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: November 10, 2008
Posts: 2,105
Religion: Belief in God's only true bible, the physical universe.
Default Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDaniel View Post
Greylorn:

That's strangely Thomistic! Look:
In the framework of immateriality, the mathematician in his strictly scientific character is said to leave aside all sensible matter and to retain in the abstracted result universal intelligible matter. - Summa Theologica, I, q. 85, a. 1, reply 2
JD,

Thank you for the insight and information. I object only to the word "matter," realizing of course that TA used the word in an entirely different context than a physicist might. Compensating for that, this quote shows the depth of Aquinas' insight.

Of course you sent this along, friend enough to recall what I've written, because of my disagreement with Aquinas. Please allow me to elaborate.

Each of us appears on this planet in a particular place and time, and are taught the knowledge of that place and time according to our abilities and interest. We begin life being taught certain "truths," and the nature of the mind is to either reject those truths, embrace them without further thought, or to wonder if they are a complete description of truth, thence to improve upon them. The latter is my unlucky life-course.

I think that Aquinas chose the second path. He chose to elaborate upon the God concept he was given. and to codify it in an attempt to give it a semblance of logical validity, but never to question it. IMO he failed, but not for want of effort. If I could go back in time and converse with just one person, he would be my choice.

I expect that if TA were born in the same time as I, theological curiosity would have piqued his interest as it did mine. And, just as in his time he worked and thought from a base of the best available knowledge, he would do the same today.

This means that if born around the onset of WWII within a "first-world" society, with access to a modicum of education and plenty of libraries and bookstores, he would have acquired an education similar to mine. While interested in theology, he would have studied math, physics, engineering and such fun stuff, keeping his theological curiosities in the background while he made a living, until ready to reach and promote alternative conclusions. In our times, TA might well be an accomplished professor at M.I.T. who has written essays on the applications of physics principles to theology, or a mathematician at Stanford U. who has applied math theorems to theological questions, to the dismay of fellow professors.

What the hell-- I could be a reincarnation of Thomas Aquinas, here complaining about my own mistakes (not realizing that it was I in another body and time who made them), just like I whine to either of my friends, when they will speak to me, about the horrid mistakes I've made in my current life.

How's that for a scary thought--- me as an incarnation of TA? Check beneath the bed and in the closets for boogeymen before sleeping tonight.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old Apr 29, '12, 12:10 am
Serious Serious is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: February 18, 2012
Posts: 769
Default Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyT_81 View Post
Why do you think that action involving change is a logical necessity? In fact, it seems that asserting a universal like this on the basis of the action of material, temporal things is a logical fallacy, i.e.:

1. All material, temporal things change when they act
2. God acts
3. Therefore God must change

1-3 is clearly fallacious, because God is not a material and temporal thing.
No, I am talking about the metaphysical concept of "action" and the metaphysical concept of "change", your addition of "physical" was merely YOUR addition.

The word "action" means that a "change" took place - that is what differentiates it from "inaction". If there is a "change" then there is "before the change", "at the time of the change", and "after the change" - thus there is a time - which is the measurement of change.

I am aware that the church teaches otherwise. The church is wrong. This is not theology, this is philosphy, and within that - metaphysics.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old Apr 29, '12, 12:24 am
greylorn greylorn is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: November 10, 2008
Posts: 2,105
Religion: Belief in God's only true bible, the physical universe.
Default Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlemagne II View Post
greylorn

2+2=4 is true even if there is nothing to count, no bananas to sell. That is why mathematical logic is universally agreed upon.

You have changed the terms of the discussion. What you are saying now is that God's logic cannot be different from human logic.

What I was talking about is that God's logic may transcend the ability of men to understand it. God's intelligence is infinitely subtle. Ours is finitely subtle. Einstein never cracked God's logic altogether. We can barely understand Einstein's logic.

Please don't reduce all logic, divine and human, to 2+2=4.
I've changed no terms and wea merely agreeing with "Serious" who pointed out that logic is logic. Let me elaborate.

The advanced forms of mathematical logic are rarely intuitive and must be learned. It is the rare 7 yo kid who is capable of solving partial differential equations. These are things which some are capable of learning, with effort. The amount of effort is such that very few are willing to put it out.

Logic is really just logic. What you refer to as "God's logic" is just an extremely high level of mathematical expertise, such as the ability to develop multi-dimensional time-dependent topology theorems in one's mind (a requirement for turning raw energy into atoms). Humans don't understand much of this logic yet, but are working on it.

Is it hard to imagine Stephen Hawking, who has been doing complex math in his head for decades, dying and continuing to develop mathematics-based concepts thereafter--- then returning in a few decades to further the course of human understanding?

Consider--- modern day university level abstract geometry would have been inconceivable to Pythagoras. Given the focus upon understanding how the universe works that has been fostered by our now-defunct (thanks, B.O.) space program, furthered by the evil capitalists who buy advertising time to support speculative science pieces like Through the Wormhole, do you really believe that the mathematicians of a century hence will not be an order of magnitude more sophisticated than the quantum mechanicians and string theorists of today?

Certainly we do not know God's logic, yet. But like all forms of logic, none inherently different from another (the logic required to solve partial differential equations is simply an extension of 2+2=4, to my considerable surprise back when I learned these things), we can learn each form, one step at a time.

God's logic is not accessible to us now, but who is to say that it will not be accessible to our children, if we continue to teach them the best of our understandings?

You reference Einstein, and claim that "we" can barely understand him.

I submit that Einstein did indeed crack a piece of God's logic, and that your "we" probably does not apply to you, and certainly does not apply to 99.99999% of the humans messing up this planet. Few humans are smart enough, and fewer still are willing to study hard enough to develop higher levels of understanding. Despite serious studies in physics and several attempts to really understand Al's derivations, your "we" does not include me either.

You seem to belittle the simple statement, 2+2=4. Why? If the concept of integers and basic arithmetic embodied in this simple equation is not true, then the universe cannot exist.

Human logic, meaning that which is known to a small number of advanced humans who've put in a lot of study time, is not different from God's logic. It is a subset.

What we know that is genuinely logical, such as 2+2=4, is some of what God knows. God does not have another form of logic which invalidates this simple truth. When a child learns how to multiply, divide, and calculate a square root, that child is learning "God's logic." Just a piece of it, but God's logic all the same.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old Apr 29, '12, 1:01 am
greylorn greylorn is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: November 10, 2008
Posts: 2,105
Religion: Belief in God's only true bible, the physical universe.
Default Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDaniel View Post
But, Greylorn, your answer is even more absurd: "a room full of giant, lab-coated geniuses?"

Where's the book?

God bless,
jd
Duh? The quoted quote, "a room full of giant, lab-coated geniuses" did not come from my fingertips.

The book, Digital Universe-- Analog Soul, is finished, and is in the hands of my publisher. I expect the opportunity for final proofreading next week, else I'll be on his case. Anticipate a serious read. It looks like I'll be lucky to get a final proof of fewer than 500 pages. I took the project way too seriously. The physics chapter alone took nearly a year--- damned ideas just kept piling on.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old Apr 29, '12, 1:05 am
greylorn greylorn is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: November 10, 2008
Posts: 2,105
Religion: Belief in God's only true bible, the physical universe.
Default Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlemagne II View Post
greylorn

And, as I'vw explained in detail in previous posts, an omniscient entity cannot think creatively. IMO a Creator who cannot think creatively, cannot create, meaning that he cannot be a Creator.

Sorry I missed those posts. They must have been humdingers!
I thought that they were pretty good, but seem to have been alone in that exalted opinion.

No matter that you missed them. Now you'll have some incentive to read my book next month, where all is explained.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old Apr 29, '12, 1:36 am
greylorn greylorn is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: November 10, 2008
Posts: 2,105
Religion: Belief in God's only true bible, the physical universe.
Default Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlemagne II View Post
greylorn

Any competent argument for God's existence must begin with a complete definition of God, else it is worthless.

When I deduce from certain sounds, vibrations, smells, etc. that some is coming toward me around the next corner, do I have to have a "complete definition" of that something before I can believe that it exists?
I can speak for myself from your examples, but not for you.

From the footprint of a would-be burglar in my back yard, I deduced the reality of a spook (ghost). He made his presence known more clearly to a psychic guest, who clearly felt his presence before he gently dropped a 6-foot diffenbachia plant into her lap.

I had no trouble whatsoever accepting the existence of this spook, but the events through which he manifested gave me few clues as to his personality, and virtually none about his properties.

I have no difficulty believing in the existence of a creator. Even an idiot should be capable of recognizing the signs of engineering intelligence in the universe, and in life forms. Yet the conclusion that there must be a creator does not by itself tell us anything about that creator's properties, capabilities, or motivations. It does not assure us that only a single creator was involved in the process of creation.

The alleged properties of God are, IMO, made up. Even worse, they were made up by humans who thought that the earth was flat, and who knew nothing of physics. The properties these nits invented are illogical, and cannot apply to the real creators.

Your definition of God is, IMO, incorrect. By your standards of belief, I am an atheist because I refuse to accept the same illogical definition of God that sits at the core of Christianity. Yet, I believe absolutely that we live in a created universe.

That is because after studying physics there seemed no better alternative than to accept the reality of a logic-limited and thermodynamics-limited Creator.

Definitions and properties really are important. Sure, you can smell the reality of the neighborhood skunk, but if you've never seen or learned about skunks, what you know is too meager to derive further information from.

That is why UFO enthusiasts have such trouble convincing people of the reality of visitors from deep space. I recall an old conversation with J. Allen Hynek, who understood this. He began working for Project Blue Book as a complete UFO skeptic, which is why he got the job. In time he came across so much evidence that could not be explained otherwise, that he became a believer in that which he had previously scoffed at. Having crossed that street, he knew both sides of it.

Objections to his beliefs were based upon dogma--- the opinion that nothing can travel faster than lightspeed. Objections to ideas like mine are based upon the dogmas which claim, unnecessarily, that the Creator of the Universe must be omniscient and omnipotent.

Who says, really?
And why?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old Apr 29, '12, 2:15 am
AndyT_81 AndyT_81 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2008
Posts: 197
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Hi Serious,

Quote:
The word "action" means that a "change" took place - that is what differentiates it from "inaction". If there is a "change" then there is "before the change", "at the time of the change", and "after the change" - thus there is a time - which is the measurement of change.

I am aware that the church teaches otherwise. The church is wrong. This is not theology, this is philosphy, and within that - metaphysics.
In the metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas, action refers to the actualisation of some potential. First, there is nothing necessarily temporal with respect to the actualisation of a potential - for instance, angels are immaterial and therefore atemporal, yet it is accurate to say that God acted to create them - there was still a actualisation of the form of the angels. Second, it does not follow that simply because a temporal change has taken place that the actualiser has also changed. An eternal act (i.e. no temporal change) can give range to a multitude of temporal effects/changes, in the same way that a single act can give rise to a multitude of effects. Look up "Cambridge properties".

In fact all change logically requires such an unmoved/unchanged mover/changer - this is demonstrated in Aquinas' First Way. Even if the idea of an unmoved mover is unintuitive to our temporally soaked minds, the necessity of its existence is demonstrable.

There has been plenty of thought poured into these questions over the centuries and also recently. For a contemporary account, I would refer you to Eleanor Stump's "Aquinas". I would be careful to jump to the conclusion that this is a simple question i.e. " To refute such arguments is not even challenging." Pride comes before the fall and all that.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old Apr 29, '12, 2:29 am
Serious Serious is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: February 18, 2012
Posts: 769
Default Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyT_81 View Post
In the metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas, action refers to the actualisation of some potential. First, there is nothing necessarily temporal with respect to the actualisation of a potential - for instance, angels are immaterial and therefore atemporal, yet it is accurate to say that God acted to create them - there was still a actualisation of the form of the angels.
Nonsense. If God created the angels, then the angels came into being as the result of this action. Therefore: "time". Time is simply a measure of change, and if there is a change, there is "time".

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyT_81 View Post
Second, it does not follow that simply because a temporal change has taken place that the actualiser has also changed. An eternal act (i.e. no temporal change) can give range to a multitude of temporal effects/changes, in the same way that a single act can give rise to a multitude of effects.
"Eternal act" is a logical absurdity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyT_81 View Post
In fact all change logically requires such an unmoved/unchanged mover/changer - this is demonstrated in Aquinas' First Way. Even if the idea of an unmoved mover is unintuitive to our temporally soaked minds, the necessity of its existence is demonstrable.
All 5 ways of Aquinas are incorrect and have been refuted innumerable times.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old Apr 29, '12, 3:31 am
AndyT_81 AndyT_81 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2008
Posts: 197
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Hi Serious, all I see here are assertions - all the best
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old Apr 29, '12, 3:51 am
Serious Serious is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: February 18, 2012
Posts: 769
Default Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyT_81 View Post
Hi Serious, all I see here are assertions - all the best
Yes, the assertion is that words have meanings. Not particularly surprising. The best to you, too.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old Apr 29, '12, 5:50 am
Gaber Gaber is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 8, 2012
Posts: 1,043
Religion: Ronin Catholic
Default Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Quote:
Originally Posted by greylorn View Post
I~~~ Now you'll have some incentive to read my book next month, where all is explained.
Hey! Happy publishing!
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old Apr 29, '12, 8:50 am
JDaniel JDaniel is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 14, 2008
Posts: 5,154
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Quote:
Originally Posted by greylorn View Post
Duh? The quoted quote, "a room full of giant, lab-coated geniuses" did not come from my fingertips.
Greylorn:

I know. I was trying to re-stimulate you. It was something you either alluded to, or, said, in a long ago dialog between us.

Quote:
The book, Digital Universe-- Analog Soul, is finished, and is in the hands of my publisher. I expect the opportunity for final proofreading next week, else I'll be on his case. Anticipate a serious read. It looks like I'll be lucky to get a final proof of fewer than 500 pages. I took the project way too seriously. The physics chapter alone took nearly a year--- damned ideas just kept piling on.
That's why I don't have any desire - at least at this point in my life - to write a book. I have to give you credit for your perseverance. Let us know when it's available.

God bless,
jd
__________________
“The personality of man stands and falls with his capacity to grasp truth.”

Rationality and Faith in God, Robert Spaemann
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old Apr 29, '12, 8:59 am
JDaniel JDaniel is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 14, 2008
Posts: 5,154
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Quote:
Originally Posted by greylorn View Post
I can speak for myself from your examples, but not for you.

From the footprint of a would-be burglar in my back yard, I deduced the reality of a spook (ghost). He made his presence known more clearly to a psychic guest, who clearly felt his presence before he gently dropped a 6-foot diffenbachia plant into her lap.

I had no trouble whatsoever accepting the existence of this spook, but the events through which he manifested gave me few clues as to his personality, and virtually none about his properties.

I have no difficulty believing in the existence of a creator. Even an idiot should be capable of recognizing the signs of engineering intelligence in the universe, and in life forms. Yet the conclusion that there must be a creator does not by itself tell us anything about that creator's properties, capabilities, or motivations. It does not assure us that only a single creator was involved in the process of creation.

The alleged properties of God are, IMO, made up. Even worse, they were made up by humans who thought that the earth was flat, and who knew nothing of physics. The properties these nits invented are illogical, and cannot apply to the real creators.

Your definition of God is, IMO, incorrect. By your standards of belief, I am an atheist because I refuse to accept the same illogical definition of God that sits at the core of Christianity. Yet, I believe absolutely that we live in a created universe.

That is because after studying physics there seemed no better alternative than to accept the reality of a logic-limited and thermodynamics-limited Creator.

Definitions and properties really are important. Sure, you can smell the reality of the neighborhood skunk, but if you've never seen or learned about skunks, what you know is too meager to derive further information from.

That is why UFO enthusiasts have such trouble convincing people of the reality of visitors from deep space. I recall an old conversation with J. Allen Hynek, who understood this. He began working for Project Blue Book as a complete UFO skeptic, which is why he got the job. In time he came across so much evidence that could not be explained otherwise, that he became a believer in that which he had previously scoffed at. Having crossed that street, he knew both sides of it.

Objections to his beliefs were based upon dogma--- the opinion that nothing can travel faster than lightspeed. Objections to ideas like mine are based upon the dogmas which claim, unnecessarily, that the Creator of the Universe must be omniscient and omnipotent.

Who says, really?
And why?
Greylorn:

See, "a room full of giant, lab-coated [creative] geniuses."

God bless (always typed out),
jd
__________________
“The personality of man stands and falls with his capacity to grasp truth.”

Rationality and Faith in God, Robert Spaemann
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
8379Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: svid2
5104CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: Vim71
4417Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: daughterstm
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3859SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3699Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3269Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3266Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3218Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: memphian
3094For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:43 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.