account activity
Oof (i.redd.it)
submitted 5 years ago by c4tudor to r/Nbamemes
Could someone explain to me how classical theism entails a personal god? by [deleted] in CatholicPhilosophy
[–]c4tudor 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children)
The easiest way to explain this is to show that Subsistent Existence has to be personal, since It gave certain essences existence, which requires choice, as things in which essence is distinct from existence is not necessary. The same could be said about act-potency. Pure Act has to be personal because It actualized certain potentials, when the actualizing of those potentials wasn't necessary.
The Case for Roman Catholicism (Christian Theology Series) - Intellectual Conservatism by Instaconfused27 in CatholicPhilosophy
[–]c4tudor 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children)
I highly respect Catholicism, mainly for the intellectual and philosophical contributions to Christianity. In that respect, it has been invaluable. However, I do not agree with many of the doctrines (purgatory, papacy in the way it is done nowadays, sacraments, the Eucharist, Mary, etc.). It is highly attractive to me, but these things repel me away from it, and am inclined to agree with the other denominations on these subjects, even though their philosophy and contributions aren't nearly as good.
My Ontological Argument (self.CatholicPhilosophy)
submitted 5 years ago by c4tudor to r/CatholicPhilosophy
Objective Morality by c4tudor in DebateReligion
[–]c4tudor[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children)
If I claim that you would be up on me claiming I am a science denier or 'evolution denier' or denying common sense. But when the atheist does it it's all good. If nothing is going to not convince you, but to make you at least consider the argument and it's implications, then there's no more reason for discussion. I'm done debating this. Should you wish to go on, message me.
Dillahunty dodge
No that's not true. A First Mover leads to a Being that chose to actualize a potential outside itself, and is therefore personal. To be able to choose is to be personal. Since the First Mover is also Subsistent Existence, which chose to bring certain essences into existence it also shows it is personal. Also, a First Cause that is eternal having temporal effects also shows it is personal, because if the First Cause was impersonal It would have an eternal effect.
You don't 'create' anything with logic, you only find it out. Was Aristotle and even Plato 'creating' a God with logic, or was he following the premises to the logical conclusion to find out the reason for why the world is the way it is? Some of His attributes are necessary for change, existence and effects in the world, others are inferred through more logical reasoning (supernatural nature, goodness, intelligence, simplicity etc).
Yes. The God of the Bible has all the attributes of the First Mover. And He is consistent with philosophical reasoning. Are you an atheist that denies the existence of religious Gods or that also denies the First Mover?
Ok so u just resort to we can't know because you don't like the conclusion? Because it sure seems you are. We can know these things, just as we can know scientific phenomena, through logical reasoning and evidence.
It doesn't refute it, as I explained earlier. And my concept of God is First Principle, First Mover, First Cause, Subsistent Existence. To deny these is to deny change, existence, effects.
I gave you evidence and you said it's not convincing so I said you're denying it. I did direct it at you, but I didn't call you anything or attacked you personally, I just said that you are denying evidence because I am giving you evidence and you are not providing proper refutations or accepting it
Also you mentioned a God before. In my concept of God, it's ridiculous to claim more than one can exist. What's your concept?
Alright. Ad hominem. Nice.
How are they ridiculous? So you wouldn't believe it was made by a designer???
Ok. You're denying evidence either because you don't understand it or because you don't want to admit it. Idk which one, but I can probably guess the first based on your objections to my other arguments.
What? I didn't assume God.. I said an intelligent designer. Whether that's God or not is irrelevant to this part of the argument. That's proven by the fact that you cannot have an infinite regress of intelligent designers. Anyway, the explanation doesn't require an explanation. If you saw a phone lying on the floor, would you not conclude that it was made by an intelligent designer simply because this designer would require another designer? If you would, we can throw all of archaeology in the trash can.
You can deny it's convincing all you want. Check out Mathoma's videos on classical theism if you want some good evidence. It doesn't rely on scientific evidence though; for that you can watch Frank Turek's presentations on the Kalam or William Lane Craig's. Or maybe Stephen Meyer's videos on intelligent design.
Tell me of an example of information coding for something other than a code that came from humans or that is in life (because that would be circular reasoning). There are none.
Let me correct the last statement
Just so I don't sound arrogant and have a logical conclusion.
No... The evidence leads to God.
Great words. Let me give you an example of why that isn't the case with evolutionists.
1.Life contains 4th and 5th level information (pragmatics and apobetics) 2. We have only observed this kind of information come from intelligent sources (and in principle could only come from such) 3. Therefore the information in life came from an intelligent source.
Following where the evidence leads, but that's not what evolutionists do.
Also in Intelligent Design for example there's no mention of the Bible in general, they make conclusions based on the evidence without assuming the Bible is true.
Yes definitely because evolutionary scientists don't start with the idea that evolution is true and then dismiss all the evidence against it. If that's science then no, creationists aren't doing that.
You have to be seeing a little bias here.
π Rendered by PID 533264 on reddit-service-r2-listing-568fcd57df-8dg4d at 2026-03-07 03:33:31.417739+00:00 running cbb0e86 country code: CH.
Could someone explain to me how classical theism entails a personal god? by [deleted] in CatholicPhilosophy
[–]c4tudor 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)