(Long post)

By "exist", I mean existing whether in reality or fiction.

By "not existing", I mean actually something that isn't here, either in fiction or reality.

Let's take the first horn, that god can hear or see something that doesn't yet exist (let this be x)

At first glance, this seems impossible and absurd. To hear and see something, it must actually exist. Yes, even in fiction. You can only see and hear what superman says because he is actually on the screen. You can't hear something that doesn't produce a sound nor can you see something that doesn't have a form. Take an easy example, unicorns. They don't exist in reality. I can't hear what a unicorn sounds like nor can I see what it is in real life. Only in fiction it is possible but that still means it actually exists in the form of a drawing or comic book character.

In simple terms, you can't hear or see nothing. From this we can derive a principle,

Principle: If something can be heard or seen, then it must actually exist.

So that means x must actually exist but that would go against the very question itself. X no longer "doesn't exist", it actually exists in reality which means the answer to the question is "no".

So much for the first horn.

What about the second horn? That god can't actually hear or see something that doesn't exist yet? That would lead to problems. For starters, say x doesn't exist at t0 and only came into existence at t1. That means god could only hear x at t1. However, that means god had the potential to hear x at t1. God hearing and seeing x is dependent on x actually existing. (As per Principle 1). It would mean God has potential within Himself that hasn't yet been fully actualized, which then leads to change and contingency. Before t1, god never heard or saw x. Now at t1, god did hear and see it. A change in how god perceives the world around it.

What if god actualizes this potential since eternity? I.e. x actually exists thus allowing god to see and hear it. This would preserve god from having any unactualized potential within it, but it now leads to a different problem. X is now co-eternal with God since there can't be a time where god saw and heard x, but x doesn't exist. As long as god can hear and see x, then that also means x must also exist along with god.

This also applies to other stuff in our world, not just x. If we want to preserve god's pure act essence, then that means our world must also be co-eternal and not have a beginning. God would be able to see and hear everything that happens in our world. The downside is A) this nullifies the Kalam Cosmological Argument and B) means our world is eternal with god.

So tha leaves us with four options.

Option A: If you believe in the Principle and answer no to the question, then god experiences change and has unactualized potential.

Option B: If you believe in the Principle and answer no to the question WHILE also believing x has always existed, then it means x (and our world) must be co-eternal with god.

Option C: If you believe in the Principle and answer yes, then it leads to an absurdity of believing in the Principle, while also denying it.

Option D: If you reject the Principle and answer yes to the question, then how can something be heard or seen without actually existing, either in real life or fiction? What sort of principle do you hold onto and is better than the one in my post?

Thoughts??

What journals do y'all recommend for Catholic/Catholic-adjacent philosophy? I've found a number of good theology journals that touch occasionally on philosophical topics but none that are specifically focused on them.

What are the best sources (online, books, etc.) for preparing for confession?

Are there manuals, doctors of theology, teacher of the holy church, saints that write about how to best prepare for confession?

What can I do to confess as well as possible? What is the best preparation for confession?

And to prepare for a life confession?

Thank you all and GOD bless you all.

Hello all,

I'm really starting to like the Cosmological argument. I am convinced as to the validity of the PSR (formulated as "everything that is contingent has an explanation for its existence"), but did run into a certain objection-

Sure, the PSR might be true in our universe. However, might it not be true in another universe, therefore enabling a universe to come into being from nothing which would, in turn, cause the existence of our own?

Any thoughts? God bless!

When aquinas argues that nothing can move itself so it has to be put into motion by something else, what does he mean, and how does that work consistently with his belief in free will?

Is potency real? In what way? Is it an abstraction from actuality, or is it "actually" something? Also, what is the distinction between possibility and potential, is there one?

I’m sorry for the format I’m on my phone. I need help describing what it is a I believe and I’m sure there’s a word for it. As the saying goes there nothing new under the sun. Firstly I am a terrible Catholic but I try my best. But one thing I can give myself credit for is I’m very obedient to my church and I will follow and defend it to my death. As a side note I’m sick of everyone bashing my Pope like Taylor Marshall and Kennedy hall but that’s another issue. My issue right now is I’m trying to figure out what this belief is called and forgive me for trying to tie all this together into a word. As a Catholic I believe that everything in this world should adhere to Catholic teaching. That all things and beings must submit to the Church. One thing in life that bugs me but is also beautiful is diversity. And by diversity I don’t mean just race. I mean culture, traditions, ideologies, philosophies, theories of government or economics, technology and whatever else. And right now the world is in a diversity crisis. There’s too much of everything and a lot of this diversity is at odds with itself. Causing disorder, tribalism, and unfortunately wars. Again I believe diversity to be a good thing in as far as it expresses the creativity and freeness of humanity. But without some sort of unifying element diversity becomes an evil. One that can cause serious harm. And this is where I think that the Catholic Church like all other issues is the answer to our problems. I firmly believe that diversity of all sorts can be unified through the Church. I’ll give an example of how the Church is the best answer to this. Our church has 24 rites that vary in their traditions yet it’s one unified church with 24 different expressions. I also believe the church can reconcile all to herself and baptize it and make it hers. Like the Church turning pagan Rome into a Catholic Rome without throwing away Romes culture or tradition. Like taking pagan statues and reusing them to glorify the Holy Trinity. So my question is what is this belief called so I can look more into it as I plan on writing about this subject as I believe it can help the world. I love my Church and I want to do what I can to bolster it. The world is in chaos and I know the church can solve it all. Thank you for your help! Vivat Christus Rex!

We now live in a modern era where Sharia law invades and destroys what will there is for a Christian state and all the while they consider themselves secular to common law and respect for life.

I wish not for Islam and Christians to wage war. War makes Satan laugh. War wastes.

But alas friends, whether you follow the Messiah or denounce Him for a false god, we can all agree that peace is the ultimate goal for all of us. Common respect and love for thy neighbour.

But yet it takes two to fight. Just as it takes two to get along. As long as we live in a state where Jewish and Christian pilgrims in the east and the Holy Land are persecuted, and being forever aggressively pushed out, we must understand it is now a time Latin King’s tombs will be desecrated and the temples destroyed.

I know we are now, more than ever before, being tested by God. Not as Christians. Not as atheists, Muslims, Hindi or whatever you may call yourself. No, we are being tested as a species, a race. Now is the time I wholeheartedly call out to any Catholic brothers and sisters who would be willing to die in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Living and judging not by the sword, but willing to die by the sword protecting those who cannot protect themselves. Feeding the hungry, and healing the sick it is our responsibility as modern Catholics to reach out with the open arms of the Holy Spirit to all. Share the Good News. Preach the Word and live by it every day. Never tell lie even if it leads to your death, and most importantly never ever ever denounce your faith or the name of Jesus.

All the knights orders that stand today, I often find are full of lies and blasphemy. We must understand that in this world if we are to band together en masse against a violent regime, a new generation of men and women filled with God must stand. I am young, 22 summers old. Surely if any should agree with me, young or old regardless please please spread word. I wish to begin a new journey for the Christendom of the Holy Land, and I seek someone worthy of putting on the throne.

Please, share your thoughts. I am eager to discuss my feelings of not conquest, but establishing a new age of peace between Christians and Muslims alike, in the Holy Land. As previously mentioned… this would mean war. Maybe not a war of tongues, or swords, or modern weapons. But spiritual warfare, and perhaps physical implementation of this as a new, uncorrupt military order of knights and clergy.

What is the morality of motorsports, thinking about this after reading a section of CCC 2290, “Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.”

Heard the question answered by Jimmy Akin on catholic answers, where he stated it doesn’t prohibit motorsport but establishes a moral principle which applies to motorsport. I’m looking at f1 specifically here.

https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/ask-me-anything Time stamp 41:30

As a psychiatric patient (post-traumatic stress disorder), I wonder where psychological matters end and spiritual matters begin, as it seems that Catholic tradition does not have a defined boundary between free will and mental health.

Hello everyone.

I have been reviewing the natural angelology of Thomas Aquinas and the other Scholastics. I understand that, to these philosophers, angels and demons are not cherubs with wings, but rather "intelligences" and "separate substances." (MacDonald 2002, 141, n. 3) I can also appreciate the thought applied to issues like the Fall of the Devil (as explored in Hoffman 2021)

However, one thing that I am struggling with is how these thinkers dealt with the War in Heaven? According to St. Aquinas, separate substances have the power "prompt local motion in material entities and through that process educe potentially existent forms from ... existing composite substances." (Dumsday 2015, 81)

Now according to St. Augustine, there are rationes seminales, which are "the primordial “seeds” implanted in creation at the beginning of time. It is on account of the rationes seminales that the earth receives a certain “power” (virtutem) to produce and reproduce subsequent life." (Boersma 2020, 414)

One idea I had is that, maybe, in times long past when the universe was young, the various "separate substances", using their power of "local motion", to try to manifest potentially existing forms, some in accordance with the Good / God, and others more in line with Evil / Non-existence.

Is there a problem, or some incoherence, with this approach? I would love to know what you guys think.

Bibliography

Boersma, Gerald P. 2020. "The Rationes Seminales in Augustine's Theology of Creation." Nova Et Vetera (Denver, CO.) 18 (2): 413-441.

Dumsday, Travis. 2015. "Natural Evil, Evolution, and Scholastic Accounts of the Limits on Demonic Power." Pro Ecclesia (Northfield, Minn.) 24 (1): 71-84.

Hoffman, Tobias. 2021. Free Will and the Rebel Angels in Medieval Philosophy. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

MacDonald, Scott. 2002. "The Esse/Essentia Argument in Aquinas's De ente et essentia." Thomas Aquinas: Contemporary Philosophical Archives, edited by Brian Davies, 141-157. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

How can I defend theistic morality? I'm relatively new to the moral argument for God's existence, I'm getting interested in it after reading some of J.L Mackie's and Adolf Grünbaum's book on The Poverty of Theistic Morality.

I want to know how it operates and works so bad and I'm scared I'm going to hell because I don't know how it's going to work and I know it's real but idk how it operates and works and I want to be catholic and I believe it's the true church please someone explain.

(and Ik it isn't hard to understand im just struggling becuase I have adhd and I can't understand stuff as well and im just not smart in general)

For yall who don't know TMM is a atheist youtuber

Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 83

"Reply to Objection 3. Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act. But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, Who moves causes both natural and voluntary. And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature."

Under the Thomistic/Augustinian schools of thought that more or less permeate Western Christian theology, it is always wrong to speak contrary to what one believes to be true with the intention for deceit. With a social deduction game, certain players are more or less required to lie (perhaps one could use wide mental reservation, but that would get caught easily). However, seeing as it is in the context of a game, then it could be considered playing a role (since acting is not seen as lying), but at the same time because it's more improvised and based on direct action, then it could be considered actually lying and the "acting" argument is a stretch.

Would these sorts of games be ethical to play? What caveats would you suppose are there should they be ethical, such as that only the bad team can lie? What about games where there is no clear "bad" team and there is no designated lying role?

https://youtu.be/m310bMyA7f0?si=gzcBYzvIYwDXBCI_

One (maybe weak) atheist arguement is that it's a "God of the gaps" fallacy, another one is something about how we can explain the universe's extremely unlikely chances of existence with naturalistic processes, or quantum fluctuations, or something else that's naturalistic. But the one that concerns me the most is the atheist argument that argues that just because our universe has specific constants that allow for life, it doesn't mean that other universes with different constants couldn't support some form of life, or that life as we understand it is the only possibility.

I'm extremely novice when it comes to Thomism, so i hope i explain this well enough.

As I understand it in its simplest form and with regards to causal chains, the PSR states that "For every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs."

My question is why does this principle not extend to mental processes and concious decisions? I don't seem to understand how we can assert that the PSR is a fundamental principle of all causal chains within the confines of the universe, but we assert that mental processes are distinct and arise as a product of the will, which can actualize potentials on its own volition.

What is distinct about the will that allows it to negate the PSR? Am I understanding this correctly? What am I missing?

I'm currently reading Tracey Rowland's book "Catholic Theology" in order to get an overall feel for the contemporary landscape in Catholic academia. While the book is certainly orthodox, I was a bit surprised by how vehemently it criticized strict observance Thomism (which it refers to as "Baroque Thomism"). The author's primary accusation, largely implied, is that later commentators on Aquinas separated his theology from his philosophy, driving a wedge between the two that would culminate in the Enlightenment era rejection of theology as the irrational counterpart to philosophy's rationality. I was wondering (given the relatively high concentration of strict observance Thomists on this sub) to what extent this criticism is considered valid by fans of the medieval commentators?

"...think about forever, then just keep thinking about forever, then keep thinking about forever for the rest of your life, then just stop thinking about forever because you can't think about forever forever, because you don't live forever, even if you did live forever, you couldn't think about forever forever, because it lasts forever."

It suggests that even if you could live forever, you can't continuously think about "forever" because it’s beyond human understanding. This challenges the idea of heaven or eternal life, emphasizing how our limited minds struggle with infinite concepts. Basically, it reflects how difficult it is to comprehend endlessness.

What does Plantinga thinks of the Aristotelian/Thomist First Principles, such as the Law of Noncontradiction and the Law of Identity?

Also, where to read Plantinga on this?

I was talking to this Protestant about Mary being the queen of heaven since she is the mother of Jesus, the Davidic king. I assumed that every David king's mother was the queen, but I came to realize that, according to this comment, this may not be true. How should I respond to this comment, and does what it says debunk Mary being the queen of heaven?

“you do understand that the queens in the davidic line were wives to the kings not mothers for a women to be considered a queen in that king ship or any kingship for that matter they have to be married”

What if there was something that was not God that always existed?

I'm looking to contemporary, academic readings on issues surrounding revelation, such as how can we determine that a revelation comes from god? or why should we wait for a revelation in the first place?

Contemporary academic readings only, no medieval or non-academic works. I've only found Richard Swinburne's "Revelation" that tackels this. Unfortunately, it dedicates only few pages for it.

Thanks.

1. I need the source of this quote (the name of the full book/document):

“According to the theologians and the Fathers, the divine essence and the divine energy are two things in the sense that it is proclaimed that they differ from each other not really, but conceptually, and that these two things are one thing, their unity in its turn being taken and proclaimed as existent not conceptually but really.”

2. Is kat' epinoia extra-mental or intra-mental? I had someone say that it is extra-mental but when I looked up the quote above I had the impression that it is intra-mental.

3. What is the difference between kat' epinoia and Scotistic formal distinction?

Please help me,thank you so much.

To anyone here who came into the church from Protestant/Evangelical backgrounds, was there any particular piece of Protestant theology that pushed you out of Protestantism into the Catholic Church ?

Doesn't belief in free will lead to pride?

For example: "I chose to do this good deed. While God's grace played a role, I could have rejected it if I had wanted to, but I chose not to. Most of the glory goes to God, but some also goes to me because I had the power and ability to reject His grace but decided not to."

Instead of: "It was God's grace that did this good deed through me. It was out of my control. The only reason I chose to do this good deed is because I was chosen to choose to do this. The reason I didn't reject God's grace is also God's grace. He gave me the intelligence to not reject it. Thus, 100% of the glory goes to God."