βππ₯ππ πππ πΈπ‘π ππ πππ₯πππ€ πππ βπ ππππππ€
Just finished Cooking an Atheist on Voice Chat and refuting him . I will make a Post showing How to Answer back the Atheist Pagans .
18. So, this interlocking system of ideas exists in at least one necessarily existing intellect.
19. A necessarily existing intellect would be purely actual.
20. There cannot be more than one thing that is purely actual.
21. So, there cannot be more than one necessarily existing intellect.
22. An intellect in which the interlocking system of ideas in question existed would be conceptually omniscient.
23. So, the one necessarily existing intellect is conceptually omniscient.
24. If this one necessarily existing intellect were not also omniscient in the stronger sense that it knows all contingent truths, then it would have unrealized potential and thus not be purely actual.
25. So, it is also omniscient in this stronger sense.
26. What is purely actual must also be omnipotent, fully good, immutable, immaterial, incorporeal, and eternal.
27. So, there is exactly one necessarily existing intellect, which is purely actual, omniscient, omnipotent, fully good, immutable, immaterial, incorporeal, and eternal.
28. But for there to be such a thing is just what it is for God to exist.
29. So, God exists.
Β€γThe Thomistic Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 1:
1. For any of the things we know from experience (stones, trees, dogs, human beings, etc.), there is a distinction to be drawn between its essence and its existence.
2. If this were not a real distinction a distinction between aspects of reality itself and not merely between ways of thinking or talking about reality-then we could know whether or not a thing exists simply by knowing its essence.
3. But we cannot know whether or not a thing exists simply by knowing its essence.
4. If it were not a real distinction, then the things we know from experience would exist in a necessary way rather than in a merely contingent way.
5. But in fact they exist in a merely contingent way, and not in a necessary way.
6. If there could in principle be more than one thing the essence of which is identical to its existence, then two or more such things would be distinguishable in the way that species of the same genus are distinguished, or members of the same species are distinguished, or in some other way.
7. But they cannot be distinguished in any of these ways.
8. So, there could not in principle be more than one thing the essence of which is identical to its existence.
9. So, for any of the things we know from experience, if the distinction between its essence and its existence were not a real distinction, then there could not in principle be more than one of them.
10. But in fact, for each of the things we know from experience, there is, or could be, more than one of them.
11. So, for each of the things we know from experience, the distinction between its essence and its existence is a real distinction.
12. For anything the essence of which is really distinct from its existence, its existence must be imparted to it either by itself or by some cause distinct from it.
13. But if it imparted existence to itself, it would be the cause of itself.
14. Nothing can be the cause of itself.
15. So, it cannot impart existence to itself.
16. So, for anything the essence of which is really distinct from its existence, its existence must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from it.
17. Since its essence and existence remain really distinct at every
moment at which it exists, including here and now, its existence must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from it at every moment at which it exists, including here and now.
18. So, for each of the things we know from experience, its existence must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from it at every moment at which it exists, including here and now.
19. Either this cause is itself something the essence of which is distinct from its existence, or it is something whose essence and existence are identical, something that just is subsistent existence itself.
Β€γThe Thomistic Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 2:
19. A necessarily existing intellect would be purely actual.
20. There cannot be more than one thing that is purely actual.
21. So, there cannot be more than one necessarily existing intellect.
22. An intellect in which the interlocking system of ideas in question existed would be conceptually omniscient.
23. So, the one necessarily existing intellect is conceptually omniscient.
24. If this one necessarily existing intellect were not also omniscient in the stronger sense that it knows all contingent truths, then it would have unrealized potential and thus not be purely actual.
25. So, it is also omniscient in this stronger sense.
26. What is purely actual must also be omnipotent, fully good, immutable, immaterial, incorporeal, and eternal.
27. So, there is exactly one necessarily existing intellect, which is purely actual, omniscient, omnipotent, fully good, immutable, immaterial, incorporeal, and eternal.
28. But for there to be such a thing is just what it is for God to exist.
29. So, God exists.
Β€γThe Thomistic Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 1:
1. For any of the things we know from experience (stones, trees, dogs, human beings, etc.), there is a distinction to be drawn between its essence and its existence.
2. If this were not a real distinction a distinction between aspects of reality itself and not merely between ways of thinking or talking about reality-then we could know whether or not a thing exists simply by knowing its essence.
3. But we cannot know whether or not a thing exists simply by knowing its essence.
4. If it were not a real distinction, then the things we know from experience would exist in a necessary way rather than in a merely contingent way.
5. But in fact they exist in a merely contingent way, and not in a necessary way.
6. If there could in principle be more than one thing the essence of which is identical to its existence, then two or more such things would be distinguishable in the way that species of the same genus are distinguished, or members of the same species are distinguished, or in some other way.
7. But they cannot be distinguished in any of these ways.
8. So, there could not in principle be more than one thing the essence of which is identical to its existence.
9. So, for any of the things we know from experience, if the distinction between its essence and its existence were not a real distinction, then there could not in principle be more than one of them.
10. But in fact, for each of the things we know from experience, there is, or could be, more than one of them.
11. So, for each of the things we know from experience, the distinction between its essence and its existence is a real distinction.
12. For anything the essence of which is really distinct from its existence, its existence must be imparted to it either by itself or by some cause distinct from it.
13. But if it imparted existence to itself, it would be the cause of itself.
14. Nothing can be the cause of itself.
15. So, it cannot impart existence to itself.
16. So, for anything the essence of which is really distinct from its existence, its existence must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from it.
17. Since its essence and existence remain really distinct at every
moment at which it exists, including here and now, its existence must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from it at every moment at which it exists, including here and now.
18. So, for each of the things we know from experience, its existence must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from it at every moment at which it exists, including here and now.
19. Either this cause is itself something the essence of which is distinct from its existence, or it is something whose essence and existence are identical, something that just is subsistent existence itself.
Β€γThe Thomistic Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 2:
βππ₯ππ πππ πΈπ‘π ππ πππ₯πππ€ πππ βπ ππππππ€
Just finished Cooking an Atheist on Voice Chat and refuting him . I will make a Post showing How to Answer back the Atheist Pagans .
20. If this cause is something the essence of which is distinct from its existence, then its own existence too must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from it at every moment at which it exists, including here and now.
21. The causal series this would generate would be a hierarchical one, which cannot regress infinitely but must have a first member.
22. This first member could only be something whose essence and existence are identical, something that just is subsistent existence itself.
23. So, either directly or indirectly, each of the things we know from experience has its existence imparted to it at every moment at which it exists, including here and now, by some cause whose essence and existence are identical, something that just is subsistent existence itself.
24. Since there cannot in principle be more than one thing the essence of which is identical to its existence, this cause which is subsistent existence itself is unique.
25. Since it is unique, anything other than it that exists must be something the essence of which is distinct from its existence.
26. Anything the essence of which is distinct from its existence will, either directly or indirectly, have its existence imparted to it by a cause which is subsistent existence itself.
27. So, this unique cause which is subsistent existence itself is the cause of everything other than itself.
28. Since whatever lacks a real distinction between its essence and its existence would exist in a necessary rather than contingent way, this unique cause which is subsistent existence itself exists in a necessary way.
29. Whatever is subsistent existence itself need not and could not have had a cause of its own.
30. So, this unique cause which is subsistent existence itself is uncaused.
31. If that which is subsistent existence itself had some potentiality for existence which needed to be actualized, then existence would have to be imparted to it by some cause.
32. So, that which is subsistent existence itself has no potential for existence which needs actualization, but rather exists in a purely actual way.
Β€γThe Thomistic Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 3:
33. Whatever is purely actual must be immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.
34. So, each of the things of our experience has its existence imparted to it at every moment by a cause which is Subsistent Existence Itself, one, necessarily existing, the uncaused cause of everything other than itself, purely actual, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.
35. But for there to be such a cause is for God to exist.
36. So, God exists.
βRationalist Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 1:
1. The principle of sufficient reason (PSR) holds that there is an explanation for the existence of anything that does exist and for its having the attributes it has.
2. If PSR were not true, then things and events without evident explanation or intelligibility would be extremely common.
3. But this is the opposite of what common sense and science alike find to be the case.
4. If PSR were not true, then we would be unable to trust our own cognitive faculties.
5. But in fact we are able to trust those faculties.
6. Furthermore, there is no principled way to deny the truth of PSR while generally accepting that there are genuine explanations in science and philosophy.
7. But there are many genuine explanations to be found in science and philosophy.
8. So, PSR is true.
9. The explanation of the existence of anything is to be found either in some other thing which causes it, in which case it is contingent, or in its own nature, in which case it is necessary; PSR rules out any purported third alternative on which a thing's existence is explained by nothing.
21. The causal series this would generate would be a hierarchical one, which cannot regress infinitely but must have a first member.
22. This first member could only be something whose essence and existence are identical, something that just is subsistent existence itself.
23. So, either directly or indirectly, each of the things we know from experience has its existence imparted to it at every moment at which it exists, including here and now, by some cause whose essence and existence are identical, something that just is subsistent existence itself.
24. Since there cannot in principle be more than one thing the essence of which is identical to its existence, this cause which is subsistent existence itself is unique.
25. Since it is unique, anything other than it that exists must be something the essence of which is distinct from its existence.
26. Anything the essence of which is distinct from its existence will, either directly or indirectly, have its existence imparted to it by a cause which is subsistent existence itself.
27. So, this unique cause which is subsistent existence itself is the cause of everything other than itself.
28. Since whatever lacks a real distinction between its essence and its existence would exist in a necessary rather than contingent way, this unique cause which is subsistent existence itself exists in a necessary way.
29. Whatever is subsistent existence itself need not and could not have had a cause of its own.
30. So, this unique cause which is subsistent existence itself is uncaused.
31. If that which is subsistent existence itself had some potentiality for existence which needed to be actualized, then existence would have to be imparted to it by some cause.
32. So, that which is subsistent existence itself has no potential for existence which needs actualization, but rather exists in a purely actual way.
Β€γThe Thomistic Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 3:
33. Whatever is purely actual must be immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.
34. So, each of the things of our experience has its existence imparted to it at every moment by a cause which is Subsistent Existence Itself, one, necessarily existing, the uncaused cause of everything other than itself, purely actual, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.
35. But for there to be such a cause is for God to exist.
36. So, God exists.
βRationalist Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 1:
1. The principle of sufficient reason (PSR) holds that there is an explanation for the existence of anything that does exist and for its having the attributes it has.
2. If PSR were not true, then things and events without evident explanation or intelligibility would be extremely common.
3. But this is the opposite of what common sense and science alike find to be the case.
4. If PSR were not true, then we would be unable to trust our own cognitive faculties.
5. But in fact we are able to trust those faculties.
6. Furthermore, there is no principled way to deny the truth of PSR while generally accepting that there are genuine explanations in science and philosophy.
7. But there are many genuine explanations to be found in science and philosophy.
8. So, PSR is true.
9. The explanation of the existence of anything is to be found either in some other thing which causes it, in which case it is contingent, or in its own nature, in which case it is necessary; PSR rules out any purported third alternative on which a thing's existence is explained by nothing.
βππ₯ππ πππ πΈπ‘π ππ πππ₯πππ€ πππ βπ ππππππ€
Just finished Cooking an Atheist on Voice Chat and refuting him . I will make a Post showing How to Answer back the Atheist Pagans .
10. There are contingent things.
11. Even if the existence of an individual contingent thing could be explained by reference to some previously existing contingent thing, which in turn could be explained by a previous member, and so on to infinity, that the infinite series as a whole exists at all would remain to be explained.
12. To explain this series by reference to some further contingent cause outside the series, and then explain this cause in terms of some yet further contingent thing, and so on to infinity, would merely yield another series whose existence would remain to be explained; and to posit yet another contingent thing outside this second series would merely generate the same problem yet again.
βRationalist Argument for the existence of God:
Part 2:
13. So, no contingent thing or series of contingent things can explain why there are any contingent things at all.
14. But that there are any contingent things at all must have some explanation, given PSR; and the only remaining explanation is in terms of a necessary being as cause.
15. Furthermore, that an individual contingent thing persists in existence at any moment requires an explanation; and since it is contingent, that explanation must lie in some simultaneous cause distinct from it.
16. If this cause is itself contingent, then even if it has yet another contingent thing as its own simultaneous cause, and that cause yet another contingent thing as its simultaneous cause, and so on to infinity, then once again we have an infinite series of contingent things the existence of which has yet to be explained.
17. So, no contingent thing or series of contingent things can explain why any particular contingent thing persists in existence at any moment; and the only remaining explanation is in terms of a necessary being as its simultaneous cause.
18. So, there must be at least one necessary being, to explain why any contingent things exist at all and how any particular contingent thing persists in existence at any moment.
19. A necessary being would have to be purely actual, absolutely simple or noncomposite, and something which just is subsistent existence itself.
20. But there can in principle be only one thing which is purely actual, absolutely simple or noncomposite, and something which just is subsistent existence itself.
21. So, there is only one necessary being.
22. So, it is this same one necessary being which is the explanation of why any contingent things exist at all and which is the cause of every particular contingent thing's existing at any moment.
23. So, this necessary being is the cause of everything other than itself.
24. Something which is purely actual, absolutely simple or non-composite, and something which just is subsistent existence itself must also be immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.
25. So, there is a necessary being which is one, purely actual, absolutely simple, subsistent existence itself, cause of everything other than itself, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.
26. But for there to be such a thing is for God to exist.
27. So, God exists.
11. Even if the existence of an individual contingent thing could be explained by reference to some previously existing contingent thing, which in turn could be explained by a previous member, and so on to infinity, that the infinite series as a whole exists at all would remain to be explained.
12. To explain this series by reference to some further contingent cause outside the series, and then explain this cause in terms of some yet further contingent thing, and so on to infinity, would merely yield another series whose existence would remain to be explained; and to posit yet another contingent thing outside this second series would merely generate the same problem yet again.
βRationalist Argument for the existence of God:
Part 2:
13. So, no contingent thing or series of contingent things can explain why there are any contingent things at all.
14. But that there are any contingent things at all must have some explanation, given PSR; and the only remaining explanation is in terms of a necessary being as cause.
15. Furthermore, that an individual contingent thing persists in existence at any moment requires an explanation; and since it is contingent, that explanation must lie in some simultaneous cause distinct from it.
16. If this cause is itself contingent, then even if it has yet another contingent thing as its own simultaneous cause, and that cause yet another contingent thing as its simultaneous cause, and so on to infinity, then once again we have an infinite series of contingent things the existence of which has yet to be explained.
17. So, no contingent thing or series of contingent things can explain why any particular contingent thing persists in existence at any moment; and the only remaining explanation is in terms of a necessary being as its simultaneous cause.
18. So, there must be at least one necessary being, to explain why any contingent things exist at all and how any particular contingent thing persists in existence at any moment.
19. A necessary being would have to be purely actual, absolutely simple or noncomposite, and something which just is subsistent existence itself.
20. But there can in principle be only one thing which is purely actual, absolutely simple or noncomposite, and something which just is subsistent existence itself.
21. So, there is only one necessary being.
22. So, it is this same one necessary being which is the explanation of why any contingent things exist at all and which is the cause of every particular contingent thing's existing at any moment.
23. So, this necessary being is the cause of everything other than itself.
24. Something which is purely actual, absolutely simple or non-composite, and something which just is subsistent existence itself must also be immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.
25. So, there is a necessary being which is one, purely actual, absolutely simple, subsistent existence itself, cause of everything other than itself, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.
26. But for there to be such a thing is for God to exist.
27. So, God exists.
βππ₯ππ πππ πΈπ‘π ππ πππ₯πππ€ πππ βπ ππππππ€
10. There are contingent things. 11. Even if the existence of an individual contingent thing could be explained by reference to some previously existing contingent thing, which in turn could be explained by a previous member, and so on to infinity, that theβ¦
Argumenta contra atheismum
ARGUMENTS TO REFUTE ATHEISM
**Thank you Brother Logistikon for allowing me to Post your Argument . God bless you
ARGUMENTS TO REFUTE ATHEISM
**Thank you Brother Logistikon for allowing me to Post your Argument . God bless you
βππ₯ππ πππ πΈπ‘π ππ πππ₯πππ€ πππ βπ ππππππ€
10. There are contingent things. 11. Even if the existence of an individual contingent thing could be explained by reference to some previously existing contingent thing, which in turn could be explained by a previous member, and so on to infinity, that theβ¦
Argumenta contra atheismum (Arguments against Atheism)
Forwarded from The Malaysian Catholic
https://www.instagram.com/p/DJk3MeJvpWk/?igsh=MWd6cXdoeGN1M291
Got a new post up guys, curious to know what you guys think about this
Got a new post up guys, curious to know what you guys think about this
Forwarded from The Malaysian Catholic
I've personally heard many say that women need a greater role in church, however they almost never say what that role is
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Forwarded from Pinesap βοΈπ²π―
Mark of Ephesus declared the Council of Florence was ecumenical
βππ₯ππ πππ πΈπ‘π ππ πππ₯πππ€ πππ βπ ππππππ€
Mark of Ephesus declared the Council of Florence was ecumenical
Lol... Even according to the Orthodox Schismatics... their "saints" also testify that the ecumenical council of Florence was Ecumenical π. So the Orthodox have no Excuses now to why they rejected Florence. Florence was by all Means an Ecumenical Council . The Pope's Ratification is what Makes a council Ecumenical.... and of course Florence was Ratified and Is therfore Ecumenical council.
The Orthodox suffered Under Islamic Pressure from their Islamic Overlords were Forced to stay separate from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church..... ALL THAT IS NEEDED IS ORTHODOXY TO COME BACK HOME TO ROME π»π¦
The Orthodox suffered Under Islamic Pressure from their Islamic Overlords were Forced to stay separate from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church..... ALL THAT IS NEEDED IS ORTHODOXY TO COME BACK HOME TO ROME π»π¦
Contraception Is evil . It is a grave Sin !
The Catholic Church's teaching on contraception is firmly rooted in the encyclical Humanae Vitae, issued by Pope Paul VI in 1968. This document reaffirms the Church's stance that artificial contraception is intrinsically immoral, as it disrupts the "inseparable connection" between the unitive and procreative purposes of the marital act (Humanae Vitae, Article 12).
The Catholic Church's teaching on contraception is firmly rooted in the encyclical Humanae Vitae, issued by Pope Paul VI in 1968. This document reaffirms the Church's stance that artificial contraception is intrinsically immoral, as it disrupts the "inseparable connection" between the unitive and procreative purposes of the marital act (Humanae Vitae, Article 12).
βππ₯ππ πππ πΈπ‘π ππ πππ₯πππ€ πππ βπ ππππππ€
Photo
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Hosea (Come Back to Me)
Sunday 7pm Choir
DON'T FORGET TO GO FOR CONFESSION . ( here's a nice Song to encourage your confession )
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
βππ₯ππ πππ πΈπ‘π ππ πππ₯πππ€ πππ βπ ππππππ€
SO WHAT MUSLIMS ARE SUPPOSED TO BELEIVE ABOUT THE QURAN ?
They beleive its uncorrupt and Preserved ...... BUT VERSE 285 tells us to beleive this about All the Books!... when it says "We beleive in the ..... Books..and we make no distinction"
So if you're telling me that the Quran is Preserved , uncorrupted...... You're supposed to beleive the Same about the Other books as well ..... Therefore the New Testament And Old Testament are True By Default .
But here Muslims say that those Books are Corrupted π.... Why are you stupid Muslims going against your Quran? Your quran Confirms my Bible is true !
What This Meansπ
If Muslims accept the Quran as true, they must also accept the Bible as true. But if the Bible is true, then Islam is false because it contradicts the core teachings of Christianity. If they claim the Bible is corrupt, they are denying their own scripture, which says Godβs words cannot be altered.
This argument forces Muslims into a logical dilemma:
1. If they trust the Quran, they must trust the Bibleβwhich disproves Islam.
2. If they reject the Bible, they must reject the Quran as well.
Either way, Islam collapses under its own claims. ISLAM THEREFORE IS FALSE
They beleive its uncorrupt and Preserved ...... BUT VERSE 285 tells us to beleive this about All the Books!... when it says "We beleive in the ..... Books..and we make no distinction"
So if you're telling me that the Quran is Preserved , uncorrupted...... You're supposed to beleive the Same about the Other books as well ..... Therefore the New Testament And Old Testament are True By Default .
But here Muslims say that those Books are Corrupted π.... Why are you stupid Muslims going against your Quran? Your quran Confirms my Bible is true !
What This Meansπ
If Muslims accept the Quran as true, they must also accept the Bible as true. But if the Bible is true, then Islam is false because it contradicts the core teachings of Christianity. If they claim the Bible is corrupt, they are denying their own scripture, which says Godβs words cannot be altered.
This argument forces Muslims into a logical dilemma:
1. If they trust the Quran, they must trust the Bibleβwhich disproves Islam.
2. If they reject the Bible, they must reject the Quran as well.
Either way, Islam collapses under its own claims. ISLAM THEREFORE IS FALSE