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

[robrecht]

No, they are simply a clear and concise response to my beliefs and view in response to your questions, which you persist in repeating needling frog hair picking questions over and over again that have already been answered.

The questions were very specific--you did not answer them.

[robrecht]

Thomas Aquinas does not define the doctrine and dogma of the Roman Church. The Roman Church defines the Trinity.

And nowhere offers a definition of God. See, for example, the current catechism, which clearly reflects and cites the approach of Thomas Aquinas:

42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, imagebound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God --"the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable"-- with our human representations.¹⁶ Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.

43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that "between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude";¹⁷ and that "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him."¹⁸

16 Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Anaphora.
17 Lateran Council IV: DS 806.
18 St. Thomas Aquinas, SCG 1, 30.

[robrecht]

The above reference to Thomas is enlightening with respect to how the doctrine of the Trinity functions within a fundamentally apophatic theological perspective. Here Thomas is speaking, among other things, of how to understand 'numerical' terms with respect to God and whether or not they positively denote something real in God:

"Hilary says (De Trin. iv): "If we admit companionship"--that is, plurality--"we exclude the idea of oneness and of solitude;" and Ambrose says (De Fide i): "When we say one God, unity excludes plurality of gods, and does not imply quantity in God." Hence we see that these terms are applied to God in order to remove something; and not to denote anything positive."

Thus, even a kataphatic doctrine functions in a more fundamentally apophatic manner.

[robrecht]

Because he's afraid that if you can nail down any of his views, it'll expose how weak his own position is, and he'll no longer be able to attack other religions (specifically Christianity) without defending his own poorly thought out worldview. It's fear based, and he thinks that acting like a child will make you go away and leave him alone.

I don't think his position needs to be considered weak. In fact his own presentation of the Baha'i faith would be so much stronger if he abandoned his polemical obsession with criticizing the faiths of others and better recognized the positive aspects of their faiths as well as the weaknesses of his own polemics. All religious perspectives have weaknesses. It is only by being honest about these that we can move forward.

[Adrift]

I don't think his position needs to be considered weak. In fact his own presentation of the Baha'i faith would be so much stronger if he abandoned his polemical obsession with criticizing the faiths of others and better recognized the positive aspects of their faiths as well as the weaknesses of his own polemics. All religious perspectives have weaknesses. It is only by being honest about these that we can move forward.

You're a lot more confident about whatever religious perspective he may or may not have than I am, and I'm not certain why seeing as he's offered you no reason to have confidence in him. I'm not convinced he really even has much of a perspective other than that most religions (but particularly Christianity) are wrong. He's exhibited such a weak, and often contradictory understanding of the Bahai faith that I don't really consider him a Bahai at all. I believe he uses it as a cover. The Baha'i faith is esoteric enough that most people don't question it, and it allows him to pretend that he's religious while continuing to snipe away at the religious.

[robrecht]

You're a lot more confident about whatever religious perspective he may or may not have than I am, and I'm not certain why seeing as he's offered you no reason to have confidence in him. I'm not convinced he really even has much of a perspective other than that most religions (but particularly Christianity) are wrong. He's exhibited such a weak, and often contradictory understanding of the Bahai faith that I don't really consider him a Bahai at all. I believe he uses it as a cover. The Baha'i faith is esoteric enough that most people don't question it, and it allows him to pretend that he's religious while continuing to snipe away at the religious.

I was speaking of the Baha'i perspective in general, at least to the limited extent that I've come to understand it, rather than questioning Shuny's sincerity or motives or any peculiarities of his own interpretation of the Baha'i faith.

[Adrift]

I was speaking of the Baha'i perspective in general, at least to the limited extent that I've come to understand it, rather than questioning Shuny's sincerity or motives or any peculiarities of his own interpretation of the Baha'i faith.

I see. In post #477 I was referring to shunya's position, not to the Baha'i perspective, which I believe are separate things. I agree that the Baha'i perspective itself need not be considered weak. Not that I'm convinced that shunya knows enough about the Baha'i faith to defend it properly though.

[shunyadragon]

I don't think his position needs to be considered weak. In fact his own presentation of the Baha'i faith would be so much stronger if he abandoned his polemical obsession with criticizing the faiths of others and better recognized the positive aspects of their faiths as well as the weaknesses of his own polemics. All religious perspectives have weaknesses. It is only by being honest about these that we can move forward.

The Baha'i Faith stands on it's own merits and not the views of a fallible human like me. Yes, all religious perspectives have their weaknesses. It is only by you being honest can we move forward. It is your polemic obsession that is a distinct problem where for some odd reason you believe that truth or falsehood of the Baha'i Faith depends on my testimony.

[robrecht]

The Baha'i Faith stands on it's own merits and not the views of a fallible human like me. Yes, all religious perspectives have their weaknesses. It is only by you being honest can we move forward. It is your polemic obsession that is a distinct problem where for some odd reason you believe that truth or falsehood of the Baha'i Faith depends on my testimony.

That is indeed what I was saying. I have not been dishonest with you. If you wish to make an accusation, please provide substantiation.

[shunyadragon]

And nowhere offers a definition of God. See, for example, the current catechism, which clearly reflects and cites the approach of Thomas Aquinas:

42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, imagebound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God --"the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable"-- with our human representations.¹⁶ Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.

43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that "between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude";¹⁷ and that "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him."¹⁸

16 Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Anaphora.
17 Lateran Council IV: DS 806.
18 St. Thomas Aquinas, SCG 1, 30.

I believe your wrongly expecting me to prove the case for a 'complete definition of God' here which is not in the game. What you have in the Catechism, and the other references you side step and avoid, is that the Trinity is a positive cataphatic truth that describes and defines this aspect of God. I have fully and repeatedly acknowledge the apophatic aspects of God, which cannot be defined from the human perspective and you ignore this.

The above reference is all well and good and I have acknowledged this, but it does not address the issue of the Trinity.

[robrecht]

I believe your wrongly expecting me to prove the case for a 'complete definition of God' here which is not in the game. What you have in the Catechism, and the other references you side step and avoid, is that the Trinity is a positive cataphatic truth that describes and defines this aspect of God. I have fully and repeatedly acknowledge the apophatic aspects of God, which cannot be defined from the human perspective and you ignore this.

The above reference is all well and good and I have acknowledged this, but it does not address the issue of the Trinity.

I do not expect that you can prove anything here. As for your misunderstanding of the Trinity, that is beyond the scope of this thread and I have previously attempted to address it elsewhere, but you insist on misrepresenting it as polytheism and refuse to engage in genuine theological discussion of the doctrine by leading theologians of the Catholic tradition, eg, Thomas Aquinas or some of his modern expositors, eg, Karl Rahner.

[JimL]

The above reference to Thomas is enlightening with respect to how the doctrine of the Trinity functions within a fundamentally apophatic theological perspective. Here Thomas is speaking, among other things, of how to understand 'numerical' terms with respect to God and whether or not they positively denote something real in God:

"Hilary says (De Trin. iv): "If we admit companionship"--that is, plurality--"we exclude the idea of oneness and of solitude;" and Ambrose says (De Fide i): "When we say one God, unity excludes plurality of gods, and does not imply quantity in God." Hence we see that these terms are applied to God in order to remove something; and not to denote anything positive."

Thus, even a kataphatic doctrine functions in a more fundamentally apophatic manner.

If human language is incapable of defining god then what exactly is meant by the term god? And what is meant by the terms used to define the attributes of god?

[robrecht]

If human language is incapable of defining god then what exactly is meant by the term god? And what is meant by the terms used to define the attributes of god?

That's the very question that Thomas Aquinas is said to have pondered from the time he was a small child. Not, who is God, as some might mistakenly prefer to pose the question, but, "What is God?" Toward the end of his life, after experiencing a moment of rapture in contemplative prayer during the celebration of the Eucharist, he tried to burn all his written works, reportedly claiming they were "as straw."

[shunyadragon]

I do not expect that you can prove anything here. As for your misunderstanding of the Trinity, that is beyond the scope of this thread and I have previously attempted to address it elsewhere, but you insist on misrepresenting it as polytheism and refuse to engage in genuine theological discussion of the doctrine by leading theologians of the Catholic tradition, eg, Thomas Aquinas or some of his modern expositors, eg, Karl Rahner.

The problem here is your expectations is that I should accept the testimony of these theologians. I am not a believer, therefore I do not accept the testimony of your references as determining my beliefs. As far as Thomas Aquinas, I have no problem with his belief that the ultimate nature of God is apophatic and unknowable, but I believe he accepted the Trinity as positively true describing God, as does the Catechism of the Roman Church, and the other references I provided. Transcending human comprehension does not impact the fact that they are believed to be positively absolutely true and catphatic without question. I personally seriously question this dogma and consider it heretical and polytheistic.

Source: https://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/SIPLIGHT.HTM

36 Philosophical character of this doctrine

The truths about God thus far proposed have been subtly discussed by a number of pagan philosophers, although some of them erred concerning these matters. And those who propounded true doctrine in this respect were scarcely able to arrive at such truths even after long and painstaking investigation.

But there are other truths about God revealed to us in the teaching of the Christian religion, which were beyond the reach of the philosophers. These are truths about which we are instructed, in accord with the norm of Christian faith, in a way that transcends human perception.

The teaching is that although God is one and simple, as has been explained above,42 God is Father, God is Son, and God is Holy Spirit. And these three are not three gods, but are one God. We now turn to a consideration of this truth, so far as is possible to us.

© Copyright Original Source

[Jim B.]

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).

© Copyright Original Source

The trinity doctrine doesn't tell us what the three persons share in common, their essence, which remains an apophatic mystery.

The Eastern Orthodox distinguishes between God's essence(ousia) and his energies, or his activities as actualized in the world. The attributes are potentially knowable by humans but the essence is unknowable. God is an infinite mystery at the heart of being. Eastern Orthodox teaching also believes that kataphatic understanding is inferior and is merely a means of approaching the deeper apophatic teaching.

Modern western Christian theology has emphasized the long-standing apophatic tradition in the west, and understands any positive statement about God as being necessarily analogical and metaphorical.

"God, the Creator of the universe, is all-knowing, all-loving and all-merciful." This is from Baha'i.org. So saying that "God is x" does not necessarily mean that you're stating a literal, exhaustive kataphatic truth.