Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

[robrecht]

By half way I am not speaking of origins nor dates, but conceptual differences between the strong specific catephatic doctrine and dogma beliefs of Christianity with mystical apophatic beliefs beyond this, and the Baha'i Faith believing in a total apophatic view with no doctrine and dogma defining God in a positive way.

Once again, Thomas Aquinas, in his 13th century summary of traditional Christian theology, very clearly affirmed that God could not be defined. The Thomistic system became normative within the Catholic church until the mid-20th century. Your claim that traditional Christianity claims to be able to define God is mere polemical misrepresentation.

[robrecht]

So, Shuny, here again are the questions you have been avoiding:

Would you say 'love', 'compassion', and 'justice' are attributes of God, but 'goodness' is not an attribute of God? Do you believe that the attributes of God are reified infinite, co-eternal neo-Platonic emanations of God?

We started to discuss this previously with reference to your belief that matter is an attribute of God. This was the previous discussion in which you mispoke about your belief that God is Love, which you have now retracted.

[shunyadragon]

Once again, Thomas Aquinas, in his 13th century summary of traditional Christian theology, very clearly affirmed that God could not be defined. The Thomistic system became normative within the Catholic church until the mid-20th century. Your claim that traditional Christianity claims to be able to define God is mere polemical misrepresentation.

Your claim that God cannot be defined as normative to the Roman Church does not take into consideration the catapharic claim pf the Trinity as specifically defining God as previously reference. Yes, God is ultimately apophatic in nature beyond the Trinitarian dogma.

I do not think anything radically changed in the mid-20th century.

[shunyadragon]

So, Shuny, here again are the questions you have been avoiding:

Would you say 'love', 'compassion', and 'justice' are attributes of God, but 'goodness' is not an attribute of God? Do you believe that the attributes of God are reified infinite, co-eternal neo-Platonic emanations of God?

We started to discuss this previously with reference to your belief that matter is an attribute of God. This was the previous discussion in which you mispoke about your belief that God is Love, which you have now retracted.

I have answered this question already, and no need to beat the dead horse. Your statements were specific; God is love, and God is good. These are positive cataphatic statements defining God. I would not use this terminology to define God.

[robrecht]

I have answered this question already, and no need to beat the dead horse. Your statements were specific; God is love, and God is good. These are positive cataphatic statements defining God. I would not use this terminology to define God.

You have not answered these questions. If you think you have, please point to where.

[shunyadragon]

You have not answered these questions. If you think you have, please point to where.

Read the thread and practice your reading comprehension.

I have answered this question already, and no need to beat the dead horse. Your statements were specific; God is love, and God is good. These are positive cataphatic statements defining God. I would not use this terminology to define God.

[robrecht]

Your claim that God cannot be defined as normative to the Roman Church does not take into consideration the catapharic claim pf the Trinity as specifically defining God as previously reference. Yes, God is ultimately apophatic in nature beyond the Trinitarian dogma.

I do not think anything radically changed in the mid-20th century.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not a definition of God, otherwise, how could one claim that God cannot be defined. Catholic theology started drifting away from reliance upon Thomistic theology from about the mid-20th century, but it certainly did not drift toward a view that God could be defined.

[shunyadragon]

The doctrine of the Trinity is not a definition of God, otherwise, how could one claim that God cannot be defined. Catholic theology started drifting away from reliance upon Thomistic theology from about the mid-20th century, but it certainly did not drift toward a view that God could be defined.

We will have to agree to to disagree here in a long term disagreement. The Trinity is a positive catataphatic description of God that defines the nature of God in the dogma of the Roman Church, and specifically what is taught in the Catachism. The English here is specific and clear.

Source: http://www.theopedia.com/trinity

Trinity

The Trinity is the Christian doctrine that deals with and describes the nature of God. The doctrine asserts the following:

There is one and only one God.
God eternally exists in three distinct persons.
The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, . . .

Understanding the terms

In Trinitarianism, God is said to be three persons in one essence, nature, or being. These last three terms are often seen as synonymous, but it can be helpful to understand what each means independently. Theological explanations of the Trinity, especially as developed in the early church, included the use of certain Greek terms which are included below for reference.

Essence

The word "essence" may be defined as the intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something. Essence describes what it is to be God. The three persons of the Godhead share the same essence, and God's essence is immaterial. With this understanding, the doctrine of the Trinity continues to assert monotheism, an essential and easily found belief within Scripture.

© Copyright Original Source

I have fully acknowledge that most Christians acknowledged the negative apophatic nature of God beyond human comprehension as in most religions, but it remains that the Trinity is a positive cataphatic dogma defining aspects of God's nature.

[robrecht]

We will have to agree to to disagree here in a long term disagreement. The Trinity is a positive catataphatic description of God that defines the nature of God in the dogma of the Roman Church, and specifically what is taught in the Catachism. The English here is specific and clear.

Source: http://www.theopedia.com/trinity

Trinity

The Trinity is the Christian doctrine that deals with and describes the nature of God. The doctrine asserts the following:

There is one and only one God.
God eternally exists in three distinct persons.
The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, . . .

Understanding the terms

In Trinitarianism, God is said to be three persons in one essence, nature, or being. These last three terms are often seen as synonymous, but it can be helpful to understand what each means independently. Theological explanations of the Trinity, especially as developed in the early church, included the use of certain Greek terms which are included below for reference.

Essence

The word "essence" may be defined as the intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something. Essence describes what it is to be God. The three persons of the Godhead share the same essence, and God's essence is immaterial. With this understanding, the doctrine of the Trinity continues to assert monotheism, an essential and easily found belief within Scripture.

© Copyright Original Source

I have fully acknowledge that most Christians acknowledged the negative apophatic nature of God beyond human comprehension as in most religions, but it remains that the Trinity is a positive cataphatic dogma defining aspects of God's nature.

Theopedia is not the catechism of the Catholic church. Read the references I have given you previously to the writings of Thomas Aquinas.

[robrecht]

Read the thread and practice your reading comprehension.

I have answered this question already, and no need to beat the dead horse. Your statements were specific; God is love, and God is good. These are positive cataphatic statements defining God. I would not use this terminology to define God.

I posed the question to you in Post #434:

Would you say 'love', 'compassion', and 'justice' are attributes of God, but 'goodness' is not an attribute of God? Do you believe that the attributes of God are reified infinite, co-eternal neo-Platonic emanations of God?

You made no response whatsoever to Post #434, so I posed these questions to you again in Post #452:

Would you say 'love', 'compassion', and 'justice' are attributes of God, but 'goodness' is not an attribute of God? Do you believe that the attributes of God are reified infinite, co-eternal neo-Platonic emanations of God?

In Post #454, you claimed that you had already answered this question, but you cannot point to any post of yours that supposedly contains your answer. Hope that makes it easier for you. Now, where is your answer? Or you can answer here.

[shunyadragon]

I posed the question to you in Post #434:

Would you say 'love', 'compassion', and 'justice' are attributes of God, but 'goodness' is not an attribute of God? Do you believe that the attributes of God are reified infinite, co-eternal neo-Platonic emanations of God?

You made no response whatsoever to Post #434, so I posed these questions to you again in Post #452:

Would you say 'love', 'compassion', and 'justice' are attributes of God, but 'goodness' is not an attribute of God? Do you believe that the attributes of God are reified infinite, co-eternal neo-Platonic emanations of God?

In Post #454, you claimed that you had already answered this question, but you cannot point to any post of yours that supposedly contains your answer. Hope that makes it easier for you. Now, where is your answer? Or you can answer here.

I have answered this question already, and no need to beat the dead horse. Your statements were specific; God is love, and God is good. These are positive cataphatic statements defining God. I would not use this terminology to define God.

Your rewording as 'goodness' from your original cataphatic descriptions of what God is . . . does not change anything, because a description of 'goodness' is to vague, anecdotal and subject to human value judgments as what is 'good.'

I believe the description of the attributes of God as revealed by the Baha'i Faith is as far as I will go.

[robrecht]

I have answered this question already, and no need to beat the dead horse. Your statements were specific; God is love, and God is good. These are positive cataphatic statements defining God. I would not use this terminology to define God.

Your rewording as 'goodness' from your original cataphatic descriptions of what God is . . . does not change anything, because a description of 'goodness' is to vague, anecdotal and subject to human value judgments as what is 'good.'

I believe the description of the attributes of God as revealed by the Baha'i Faith is as far as I will go.

Shuny, this is in no way an answer to my questions of you.

You do say that 'love', 'compassion', and 'justice' are attributes of God, correct? What do you mean by 'attributes of God'? Do you believe that the attributes of God are reified infinite, co-eternal neo-Platonic emanations?

Why would you do say that 'love', 'compassion', and 'justice' are attributes of God, but not also say that 'good' or 'goodness' are attributes of God? Merely saying that "a description of 'goodness' is to vague, anecdotal and subject to human value judgments as what is 'good' does not answer this question because, as I have pointed out, the same applies to 'love', 'compassion', and 'justice', since descriptions of 'love', 'compassion', and 'justice' are also vague, anecdotal and subject to human value judgments.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, this is in no way an answer to my questions of you.

You do say that 'love', 'compassion', and 'justice' are attributes of God, correct? What do you mean by 'attributes of God'? Do you believe that the attributes of God are reified infinite, co-eternal neo-Platonic emanations?

Why would you do say that 'love', 'compassion', and 'justice' are attributes of God, but not also say that 'good' or 'goodness' are attributes of God? Merely saying that "a description of 'goodness' is to vague, anecdotal and subject to human value judgments as what is 'good' does not answer this question because, as I have pointed out, the same applies to 'love', 'compassion', and 'justice', since descriptions of 'love', 'compassion', and 'justice' are also vague, anecdotal and subject to human value judgments.

It is the answer you will get. You keep duck, bobbing weaving to find subtle rewording to pick an argument, and will not accept my responses as genuine. You really have problems communicating and only expect the answers you want to hear.

I have answered this question already, and no need to beat the dead horse. Your statements were specific; God is love, and God is good. These are positive cataphatic statements defining God. I would not use this terminology to define God.

Your rewording as 'goodness' from your original cataphatic descriptions of what God is . . . does not change anything, because a description of 'goodness' is to vague, anecdotal and subject to human value judgments as what is 'good.'

I believe the description of the attributes of God as revealed by the Baha'i Faith is as far as I will go. There are no references in the Baha'i writings that would translate to the positive cataphatic statements such as; God is love, God is good, nor the arbitrary, anecdotal, vague poorly defined concept of 'goodness?'.

[robrecht]

It is the answer you will get. You keep duck, bobbing weaving to find subtle rewording to pick an argument, and will not accept my responses as genuine. You really have problems communicating and only expect the answers you want to hear.

I have answered this question already, and no need to beat the dead horse. Your statements were specific; God is love, and God is good. These are positive cataphatic statements defining God. I would not use this terminology to define God.

Your rewording as 'goodness' from your original cataphatic descriptions of what God is . . . does not change anything, because a description of 'goodness' is to vague, anecdotal and subject to human value judgments as what is 'good.'

I believe the description of the attributes of God as revealed by the Baha'i Faith is as far as I will go. There are no references in the Baha'i writings that would translate to the positive cataphatic statements such as; God is love, God is good, nor the arbitrary, anecdotal, vague poorly defined concept of 'goodness?'.

You will not answer direct questions about your own position and yet you accuse me of "duck, bobbing weaving"! Why are you so reluctant to discuss your views? Is it because you realize you are being inconsistent? Or are you perhaps embarrassed by a possible association with reified infinite, co-eternal neo-Platonic emanations, if that is indeed associated with Baha'i faith/theology of divine attributes? Why the reluctance to discuss your views?

[Jim B.]

Most definitely science has limits. If a theory, hypothesis, model, or whatever cannot be falsified by scientific methods with objective evidence it is beyond the limits of scientific investigations.

You were the one going on about how it's unjustifiable to say what science can and cannot do. Science by the definition you stated above is not all-explanatory. There are kinds of jusitifiable knowledge that are not the results of science.

Actually the Philosophical Naturalist view is on sound ground based on Methodological Naturalism, which is the basis of 'brute facts.' Theism, Deism and other isms have to make assumptions of belief that are not grounded in objective evidence. It does have to make a philosophical assumption that there are no worlds beyond our physical existence.

The metaphysical implications drawn from methodological naturalism are also philosophical assumptions. Science requires philosophical assumptions and decisions. The argument that all that is, whether uni- or multi-verse, either is a brute fact or not a brute fact is a philosophical conclusion that all sides can be justified in drawing.