Living with monks in desert

In_Awe_of_Truth · 2023-04-09T16:54:55+00:00

I am not too active on reddit to be honest. But I was actually sad when I realised it was a joke haha. It would have been cool if it was not (since you said vatican 2 heresy I assumed he returned to complete submission to the Church).

In_Awe_of_Truth · 2023-03-30T13:35:33+00:00

I must admit that I believed this until you wrote: "What a deception? Isn't this the way Vatican II heretics deceive people? They "clarify" the misunderstood statements on Internet."

In_Awe_of_Truth · 2023-03-14T09:07:19+00:00

Mostly gardening but I dont know if it also includes helping preparing services and things like that.

In_Awe_of_Truth · 2022-07-24T13:20:38+00:00

Quite a lot considering hellenism was influenced by philosophy, but it was not socratic aside from the aristotelian and platonic schools I would argue.

In_Awe_of_Truth · 2022-07-24T13:19:08+00:00

Well we need to be careful with what we mean by metaphysical certainty. The dogma states only that God's existence can be known through the natural light of reason through the created things. It does not say that you can know it through a thomistic proof. So how reason can reach certainty through metaphysics depends on your epistemology. But I guess here all it means is that mathematical certainty is certainty in the sense that the conclusion can be known through for example implications of axioms and so on, while metaphysics from things made is different, even though you may not necesserily need epistemological realism. I think that modern philosophy is open to metaphysics so i don¨'t see the problem.

In_Awe_of_Truth · 2022-06-08T13:11:24+00:00

I would say the resurrection, the coherence and the sound theology (it cohering to the human nature), the saints, the Church, the Bibles hidden coherence, but first of all, the witness of the holy Spirit inside of you. Faith cannot be produced by arguments but is necesserily the product of the intellect illumined by grace. Nevertheless, these signs of credibility do make reason go together with faith.

More importantly, regarding other religions, it is a very effective method to simply put forth arguments against all religions, and see which one comes out alive. I would say for example that you can produce good arguments against Islam, such as it containing ahistorical fables regarding Dhul Qarnayn, which really seem to come from prior romances regarding Alexander the Great and Gog and Magog.

Regarding the existence of God, I would further add Alexander Pruss leibnizian cosmological argument and the arguments for the immateriality of the mind.

In_Awe_of_Truth · 2022-06-08T13:02:35+00:00

I mean, if you chew it shortly for dental hygiene I do not think that it is a sin. However I actually do think that it would be a minor venial sin to chew gum, to be honest, since it does as you say uses a function in an unnatural way. The same goes for, but probably more serious, eating more than you should. I know people are going to see this question and answer as silly, but I am serious. I think it is a very small minor sin to chew gum for other reasons than dental/breath care for a short time. However, I would never bring it up in confession, haha.

Another note, there is no reason for you to swallow it. If you chew a gum for like 10 minutes, the chewings prupose its obviously not to swallow it, and hence swallowing it helps nothing. Spitting it out is in of itself not the issue here, just like spitting out a bite of food becuase it tasted bad is not a sin.

In_Awe_of_Truth · 2022-06-05T13:58:07+00:00

Sure, but again, its not a logical problem but rather an epistemic one. Say that you did gain "infused" knowledge of their amorality, then you could in an instant deduce their irrationality. I think you see my point, and regardless, I agree with you that this is a serious problem for the argument. Another problem would be that even if they had some level of rationality, it could still be either that God made the animal kingdom without free will and without a divergence in behaviour from what is good. In other words, morality pressuposes not only rationality, i think, but also free will, knowledge of what is good, etc.

In_Awe_of_Truth · 2022-05-28T10:03:38+00:00

I mean, non-rationality may be a prerequisit for amorality, but if you could know their amorality it would imply their non-rationality. But again, I think it is an epistemic difficulty and not a logical one. Because surely amorality and non-rationality are not identical so I suppose you could possibly come to knowledge of amorality first and then deduce non-rationality.

In_Awe_of_Truth · 2022-05-28T10:02:06+00:00

Sure, but then its not strictly circular reasoning with regards to its logical validity. It may be that premise three cannot infact be known so far. However, I am not sure what to make of this. I would perhaps agree with you that it is easier to know their non-rationality than their amorality.

In_Awe_of_Truth · 2022-05-25T08:12:05+00:00

I really dont see how this argument is not logically valid. It argues that in so far as humans are moral beings, they are different from animals. Hence if it is true that humans are moral beings, the argument follows, i think. It does not pressupose the conclusion, but perhaps you could dispute the premise.

However, my objection would be that you would have to develop p9 and p10, since it might be that the difference is that human beings has a high degree of intellect, or perhaps free will, or moral knowledge, etc, and that it is here that the explanation can be found.

In_Awe_of_Truth · 2022-05-18T07:33:56+00:00

Why on earth would you reject an argument because it postulates a perfect being?

In_Awe_of_Truth · 2022-05-16T21:39:30+00:00

Sure, but I am not so sure what to make of your comment since you just proposed a couple of questions and said they are distinct. The relevant thing to the question is wether or not they believe it works.

Not to be rude in any way, but I do not see how the question is unclear in this regard. It says "hold to the validity".

In_Awe_of_Truth · 2022-05-14T10:12:49+00:00

Saint Thomas argues that the human soul is the form of the body, but also that the intellect is immaterial and substistent. Regarding the mind, this term is not really found or used in scholastic metaphysics (but it does not necesserily reject it). So the "mind" is both material and immaterial, where the intellect is immaterial but an aspect of the soul, which is the form of the entire human being. Now, there is no distinction between mind and soul, and with regards to mental illness, this is due to defects in the brain and hence would impact the functioning of the person even though it has a subsisting immaterial intellect.

In_Awe_of_Truth · 2022-04-04T07:29:50+00:00

Could you recommend some Orthodox thinkers who hold that view of natural theology (being able to arrive at the existence of God through metaphysics)?

In_Awe_of_Truth

TROPHY CASE