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

[robrecht]

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

As I've said many times, I do not expect you to accept the testimony or beliefs of any theologians, I just want you to stop misrepresenting their beliefs and theological explanations. Without that there can be no theological discussion, but merely fruitless polemics.

[shunyadragon]

As I've said many times, I do not expect you to accept the testimony or beliefs of any theologians, I just want you to stop misrepresenting their beliefs and theological explanations. Without that there can be no theological discussion, but merely fruitless polemics.

I am not misrepresenting anyone. I disagree with them. I do not buy their line, which is to justify their beliefs regardless of the contradictions.

believe the Trinity is a form of polytheism and a heracy, and they do not. That is a disagreement, not misrepresentation.

[robrecht]

I am not misrepresenting anyone. I disagree with them. I do not buy their line, which is to justify their beliefs regardless of the contradictions.

believe the Trinity is a form of polytheism and a heracy, and they do not. That is a disagreement, not misrepresentation.

When someone defines their beliefs in no uncertain terms as absolutely monotheist, and you refuse to acknowledge that, and claim they are polytheists, that is misrepresentation. What you define as a polytheistic explanation of the Trinity is not what we believe.

[shunyadragon]

When someone defines their beliefs in no uncertain terms as absolutely monotheist, and you refuse to acknowledge that, and claim they are polytheists, that is misrepresentation. What you define as a polytheistic explanation of the Trinity is not what we believe.

No it is a disagreement as to what constitutes a monotheist. I simply do not accept their definition of monotheism. A person can define themselves as a horse in no uncertain terms as absolutely a horse, and I do not have to agree with them.

Most Hindus consider themselves monotheists in no uncertain terms as absolutely monotheists, and Brahman being the one and only unknowable Source where all Vedic Gods are only aspects and attributes of Brahman. Many Christians disagree like Kbertsche

Hinduism is more about appeasing the gods than in having a close personal relationship with them.

[robrecht]

No it is a disagreement as to what constitutes a monotheist. I simply do not accept their definition of monotheism. A person can define themselves as a horse in no uncertain terms as absolutely a horse, and I do not have to agree with them.

Most Hindus consider themselves monotheists in no uncertain terms as absolutely monotheists, and Brahman being the one and only unknowable Source where all Vedic Gods are only aspects and attributes of Brahman. Many Christians disagree like Kbertsche

No, it is more than that. What you define as a polytheistic understanding of the Trinity is not what we believe and is explicitly rejected in no uncertain terms. If you criticize Kbertsche for misunderstanding or misrepresenting Hindu beliefs, you should also see that you are doing the same thing in misunderstanding and misrepresenting a Christian monotheistic belief in the Trinity.

[robrecht]

Shunya, why didn't you respond to Jim B, who cited this expression of Baha'I belief:

"God, the Creator of the universe, is all-knowing, all-loving and all-merciful." This is from Baha'i.org.

Previously, you had criticized 'God is ...' statements as defining God (eg, #429).

[shunyadragon]

No, it is more than that. What you define as a polytheistic understanding of the Trinity is not what we believe and is explicitly rejected in no uncertain terms. If you criticize Kbertsche for misunderstanding or misrepresenting Hindu beliefs, you should also see that you are doing the same thing in misunderstanding and misrepresenting a Christian monotheistic belief in the Trinity.

I do not criticize Kbertsche at this point for misunderstanding or misrepresenting Hindu beliefs. He has the same evidence for Hindu belief systems as I do and disagrees with my understanding.

No, I am not misunderstanding and misrepresenting a Christian monotheistic belief in the Trinity. I am disagreeing with their interpretation and consider the Trinity a heresy and polytheism.

It is obvious that What I define as a polytheistic explanation of the Trinity is not what most Christians believe, but it remains a different interpretation and not misrepresentation.

[shunyadragon]

Shunya, why didn't you respond to Jim B, who cited this expression of Baha'I belief:

"God, the Creator of the universe, is all-knowing, all-loving and all-merciful." This is from Baha'i.org.

Previously, you had criticized 'God is ...' statements as defining God (eg, #429).

Previous statements were too simplistic. Baha'i writings aer clear these are descriptions of the attributes of God, and not simple generalizations such as; God is love and God is good. Please not there is statement concerning good nor goodness.

[robrecht]

Previous statements were too simplistic. Baha'i writings aer clear these are descriptions of the attributes of God, and not simple generalizations such as; God is love and God is good. Please not there is statement concerning good nor goodness.

Are not these Baha'i statements not also 'God is ...' statements? We're you being too simplistic when you said 'God is ...' statements are definitions of God? Or why exactly do you think that these Baha'i 'God is ...' statements are any more complex than comparable Christian statements? Or is this just an example of special pleading on your part?

[robrecht]

I do not criticize Kbertsche at this point for misunderstanding or misrepresenting Hindu beliefs. He has the same evidence for Hindu belief systems as I do and disagrees with my understanding.

No, I am not misunderstanding and misrepresenting a Christian monotheistic belief in the Trinity. I am disagreeing with their interpretation and consider the Trinity a heresy and polytheism.

It is obvious that What I define as a polytheistic explanation of the Trinity is not what most Christians believe, but it remains a different interpretation and not misrepresentation.

What I have bolded above is an admission that your critique of Christian Trinitarian belief is indeed a misrepresentation of what most Christians believe!

[JimL]

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."

Well if he himself admitted that all his works were straw, then I think that theists should take him seriously and stop using his works to defend the position of the existence of god. So now all we have from him is his extraordinary claim of having experienced a beautific vision of god 6 months prior to his donkey running his head into a tree and killing him. Did he, or could he define the vision? Of course not.

[robrecht]

Well if he himself admitted that all his works were straw, then I think that theists should take him seriously and stop using his works to defend the position of the existence of god. So now all we have from him is his extraordinary claim of having experienced a beautific vision of god 6 months prior to his donkey running his head into a tree and killing him. Did he, or could he define the vision? Of course not.

"... like so much straw compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me." Not all have received such gifts so they may still find some passing value in his writings.

[shunyadragon]

Are not these Baha'i statements not also 'God is ...' statements? We're you being too simplistic when you said 'God is ...' statements are definitions of God? Or why exactly do you think that these Baha'i 'God is ...' statements are any more complex than comparable Christian statements? Or is this just an example of special pleading on your part?

Brush up on your English, saying God is all-Loving is most definitely not the same as saying God is Love. It is a matter of understanding sentence structure, nouns and adjectives, etc. Think about it carefully, saying 'John is a loving person,' is most definitely not saying 'John is love.'

Your trying real, real hard, too hard.

[Adrift]

Brush up on your English

Your trying real, real hard, too hard.

"You're"

[shunyadragon]

"You're"

Just very special for you. Everyone should have a purpose in life.