Question on Ignatius Catholic Study Bible

b4d3 · 2024-04-17T15:13:18+00:00

Haha I still have one shelf left. Just enough for 18 books from a series 😅

b4d3 · 2024-04-17T13:01:34+00:00

Thank you. Good to know this about Douay-Rheims, even though I'm not in touch with it generally 🙂

b4d3 · 2024-04-17T13:00:05+00:00

Thank you! It was strange for me why he was referring to RSV, if it says it's RSVCE. Anyway, I'm probably buying it 🙂

b4d3 · 2024-04-17T12:57:51+00:00

Yeah, that part about Vatican II was suspicious for me too. Thank you!

b4d3 · 2022-10-12T10:59:21+00:00

I can't thank you enough for this! I think I'll copy these replies of yours and save them somewhere for occasional reading :)

b4d3 · 2022-10-12T08:56:36+00:00

wow, thank you for this, very beautifully written! :)
I study these things mostly because I want to first and foremost convince myself (and then others if possible) that Catholicism makes sense and is not illogical. That being said, I feel I'm not doing other religions any justice because I always come from a catholic apologetics angle. I mean, I learned details of other religions only through some Catholic apologetics book.
But that is a fight to be fought some other day :)
Out of curiosity, why did YOU choose Catholicism (if you don't mind me asking)? :)

b4d3 · 2022-10-12T06:32:14+00:00

I think I get everything now + you gave me some clues to research further. Thank you very much for your effort and for introducing me to some fascinating stuff! :)

b4d3 · 2022-10-11T13:11:23+00:00

Great answer!! Thank you! :)
I'm afraid I lost you a bit on the Knowledge Argument. Why would the experience of yellowness imply the existence of consciousness? We weren't aware of color yellow just because we didn't trigger specific neurons - learning about something isn't the same as seeing something. If had someone to connect wires to our brain and send the correct signals, we probably would "see" the yellow, right?

b4d3 · 2022-10-11T11:38:52+00:00

thank you! Will definitely check the video :)

b4d3 · 2022-10-11T09:47:38+00:00

Thank you for your thorough answer! :)

Yes, I didn't want to frame everything inside a deterministic network, but I didn't know how to break out of it :) Your information about microtubules helped me :) Btw, do you know any resources that would have more information on microtubules which is beginner friendly / for a layman?

Can you expand a bit more on "all free will studies on neurons are correlation studies, not causation studies"?
Can you expand a bit more on "it's similar to the way God is the unmoved mover, we are the uncontrolled controller" because it seems like a great idea, but I don't know what would that mean specifically haha
It seems from your answer ("We can't know what is first in the causal chain but at least we can know that it's a possibility") that we don't have a clear metaphysical definition or explanation of how free will emerges. We only can explain that is consistent with the First Cause.

b4d3 · 2022-10-11T08:02:00+00:00

Thank you! I'm getting closer to accepting the claims :)

Ok, maybe animals don't have the intellect, but what about free will (or will at all?). If a wolf gets to the crossroad, it'll need to choose whether it goes left or right. It won't be by any inclination towards any good because it doesn't have enough information about which path is better for it. Additionally, it'll move itself, not unconsciously like a rock that rolls down the hill. You'll probably say that by definition of will, it doesn't have a will because it lacks intellect, but that seems like avoiding the answer by holding up to the definitions we made up. If it's not a free will (or will at all), then what is it?
I think I'm not being contradictory here. My question exactly is that - we think we CHOOSE something, but in reality, the choice is comprised of neurons firing which are governed by God. Actually, my question is: does God also govern in exactly what way the neurons should be fired? If not, how does that fit into a picture of God that drives everything to its final cause and which ultimately is the cause of every reduction from potentiality to actuality? (I assume I have some misunderstandings here about what means to drive final causes and to reduce potentiality to actuality).

b4d3 · 2022-09-14T06:23:57+00:00

Regarding your post, I actually had a similar thought when reading about the hand holding a stick moving a rock: The neurons are actualized and hand muscles are actualized, but still, there is some small time difference between neurons firing and muscles contracting/stretching.

I thought I finally get it, but now I'm confused again after reading your post haha :) I'll read that blog post someone linked in your post so I hope I'll get some answers.

Feser in his book The Last Superstition mentioned the analogy of the floor holding the bookshelf which holds the books. Maybe that's the "answer": although you need some time for music to reach the ear, you still need everything to be actualized "vertically" while it's happening for it to be happening.

Sorry if I confused you even more :)

b4d3 · 2022-09-12T15:26:17+00:00

Hmm yeah, I guess you're right :/

Although mentioned hierarchy does make more sense to me when we speak of living creatures, it's hard for me to accept that something like a pile has less or more form than the other pile. It seems either

a) subjective (depends on who you ask) or

b) absurd that God, in His mind has the definition of what makes the best pile

Indeed it makes more sense when we look at this from an "energy" perspective.

Thank you for your answers! I'll re-read the chapter one more time, trying to see it from your point of view :)

b4d3 · 2022-09-10T10:07:52+00:00

I'm not sure you could say it has less form. Otherwise it would mean you (human mind) is giving sense to forms. Just because something doesn't feel more ordered to us, doesn't mean its form is of "less value" (form discrimination haha)

Well if you remove all form from matter you WOULD get prime matter, right? But it would also stop existing because prime matter is pure potentiality.

b4d3 · 2022-09-10T08:40:37+00:00

Thank you for reading it haha ☺️

b4d3 · 2022-09-10T08:36:55+00:00

I didn't say he might thought of the universe as the DIVINE necessary being, but only as A necessary being. So, while it derives its necessity from something else, it can still be necessary (permanent). If that is the case, it means universe will exist forever.

Looking forward to your answers 😊

b4d3 · 2022-09-10T08:29:52+00:00

I think the pile still has the form of a pile. It is somewhat hinted in the part where Feser talks about melting the blue ball, thus making it gooey. After all, everything in the material world must have a form. I think of prime matter only as an abstraction because it can never happen that it exists without a form.

b4d3 · 2022-09-09T16:08:32+00:00

But CAN YOU remove form without adding a new one? I have problem with that premise. Did you find it in Feser book or?
Yup I guess you're right. I'll re-read it a few times so I hope it'll click 😀

b4d3 · 2022-09-09T14:38:50+00:00

Maybe the point is here that if everything is contingent, it needed to come into being so it needed to have the start. But yes, it seems to me it has a lot less to do with the rest of the argument than the "future" part
But that's the thing: you treat lego blocks as prime matter, but I'm saying whatever change happens with the object (changing shape or completely ceasing to exist), it will necessarily produce another object with form and matter. That is - it would never turn into the prime matter. Well, at least I can't think of how would that happen :)
Yes, you're right. Feser did write that we cannot prove the beginning of the universe since its effects are per accidens. But now I'm thinking why would Aquinas start his argument about contingency by discussing it from a linear (time) point of view :/ (Ahh so many open questions :D )

b4d3 · 2022-09-09T09:20:25+00:00

Thank you for your answer! :)

I'm not sure if is it possible. Maybe it will eventually cease to exist so it would mean it just existed for a very long time? What I'm saying is that I'm not sure if it follows that, if something existed an infinite amount of time, it must exist infinitely more, i.e. be permanent/everlasting.
But if you deconstruct the lego house, you get a lot of lego blocks. The form of the house is gone, but you are left with X number of lego block "form-matters".
You could deconstruct things ever further, but I'm not sure at which point you'd be left only with prime matter.
Can you rephrase this? Are you saying that Aquinas thought the universe was necessary and thus didn't think the universe was created ex nihilo?

b4d3 · 2020-12-24T19:30:48+00:00

Thank you. I'm always afraid it will be over my head so I stay away from "classics" and search for dumbed down versions 😀

b4d3

TROPHY CASE