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

[shunyadragon]

When you say "most Christian churches", to which churches are you referring? If you are not referring to the doctrine of the Catholic church, defined with reference to the theology of Thomas Aquinas, do you have any specific churches or theologians in mind? Or is this merely your attempt to generalize with your own opinion without any substantiation whatsoever?

I said most, because churches like the Unity Church, Jehovah Witnesses reject the Trinity.

[robrecht]

I said most, because churches like the Unity Church, Jehovah Witnesses reject the Trinity.

So no substantiation whatsoever, just your own opinion contradicted by the citations I have given you.

[shunyadragon]

So no substantiation whatsoever, just your own opinion contradicted by the citations I have given you.

No contradictions whatsoever, though grasp of the English language sems to be problematic including your use of pronouns.

[robrecht]

No contradictions whatsoever, though grasp of the English language sems to be problematic including your use of pronouns.

Really weak, Shuny. Your only substantiation is your failed attempt to critique my grammar. Why not speak to the substance of my citations?

[shunyadragon]

Really weak, Shuny. Your only substantiation is your failed attempt to critique my grammar. Why not speak to the substance of my citations?

I responded specifically with substance to your citations and provided my own.

[robrecht]

I responded specifically with substance to your citations and provided my own.

No. You have provided no citation whatsoever to support your apparent opinion that the doctrines of the Trinity are only to be understood in a kataphatic manner, whereas I have shown you that according to the Catholic catechism we cannot grasp what God is, but only what he is not, specifically citing Thomas Aquinas on the more fundamentally apophatic nature of the doctrine of the Trinity (482, 483, 523). In response to this you have merely said that the fact of your opinion cannot be questioned (524).

[shunyadragon]

No. You have provided no citation whatsoever to support your apparent opinion that the doctrines of the Trinity are only to be understood in a kataphatic manner, whereas I have shown you that according to the Catholic catechism we cannot grasp what God is, but only what he is not, specifically citing Thomas Aquinas on the more fundamentally apophatic nature of the doctrine of the Trinity (482, 483, 523). In response to this you have merely said that the fact of your opinion cannot be questioned (524).

First you made a very distinct misrepresentation of my view and my references. Above, you say 'your apparent opinion that the doctrines of the Trinity are only to be understood in a kataphatic manner,' . . . We get nowhere as long as you misrepresent my view.

I never said that the Trinity cannot be 'understood' in different ways. Matter of fact the human 'understanding' of the Trinity is likely beyond human understanding, but that does not change the facts concerning the Trinity in Christian dogma and doctrine..

[robrecht]

First you made a very distinct misrepresentation of my view and my references. Above, you say 'your apparent opinion that the doctrines of the Trinity are only to be understood in a kataphatic manner,' . . . We get nowhere as long as you misrepresent my view.

I said 'apparent'. If that is not your view than please clarify exactly how you are disagreeing with my view. I have shown you that according to the Catholic catechism we cannot grasp what God is, but only what he is not, and how the catechism cites Thomas Aquinas here on the more fundamentally apophatic nature of the doctrine of the Trinity (482, 483, 523). With what specifically do you disagree with here and do you have any substantive citations to support your contrary view, whatever it may be?

[shunyadragon]

I said 'apparent'. If that is not your view than please clarify exactly how you are disagreeing with my view. I have shown you that according to the Catholic catechism we cannot grasp what God is, but only what he is not, and how the catechism cites Thomas Aquinas here on the more fundamentally apophatic nature of the doctrine of the Trinity (482, 483, 523). With what specifically do you disagree with here and do you have any substantive citations to support your contrary view, whatever it may be?

Apparent and seems get you nowhere in our dialogue. My posts have been specific and clear. The dogma and doctrine of the Trinity is clearly and specifically defined and described as the Central positive cataphatic nature of God without question.

Beyond this the understanding of God and the Trinity is clearly described as the unknown apophatic nature of God beyond the comprehension of humans.

[robrecht]

Apparent and seems get you nowhere in our dialogue. My posts have been specific and clear. The dogma and doctrine of the Trinity is clearly and specifically defined and described as the Central positive cataphatic nature of God without question.

Beyond this the understanding of God and the Trinity is clearly described as the unknown apophatic nature of God beyond the comprehension of humans.

I have already shown you that according to the Catholic catechism we cannot grasp what God is, but only what he is not, specifically citing Thomas Aquinas on the more fundamentally apophatic nature of the doctrine of the Trinity (482, 483, 523). With what part or parts of this do you disagree?

[shunyadragon]

I have already shown you that according to the Catholic catechism we cannot grasp what God is, but only what he is not, specifically citing Thomas Aquinas on the more fundamentally apophatic nature of the doctrine of the Trinity (482, 483, 523). With what part or parts of this do you disagree?

Incomplete, Aquinas describes the problem of human understanding and not the fact of the reality of Central doctrine and dogma of the Trinity as defined and described as the nature of God, which must be accepted without question nor explanation.

[robrecht]

Incomplete, Aquinas describes the problem of human understanding and not the fact of the reality of Central doctrine and dogma of the Trinity as defined and described as the nature of God, which must be accepted without question nor explanation.

If you had understood the citations from the catechism and from Thomas, you would realize that the doctrine of the Trinity does not define the nature of God, indeed that a definition of God is not possible, and that the the specifics of the doctrine of the Trinity does not denote anything positive about the nature of God. If you cannot identify anything specific with which you disagree, I think we will have to agree to agree. I agree, and Thomas would too, that his theology of the Trinity is incomplete. That the doctrine of the Trinity is fundamentally apophatic relates not only to the limitations of human knowledge or doctrine but, more importantly, to the pure actuality and unlimited nature of God himself.

[shunyadragon]

If you had understood the citations from the catechism and from Thomas, you would realize that the doctrine of the Trinity does not define the nature of God, indeed that a definition of God is not possible, and that the the specifics of the doctrine of the Trinity does not denote anything positive about the nature of God. If you cannot identify anything specific with which you disagree, I think we will have to agree to agree. I agree, and Thomas would too, that his theology of the Trinity is incomplete. That the doctrine of the Trinity is fundamentally apophatic relates not only to the limitations of human knowledge or doctrine but, more importantly, to the pure actuality and unlimited nature of God himself.

I understand the citations, the catechism, the other references I gave, and your reference, no problem. I was raised in the Roman Church, and studied for a year in consideration to become a priest. I have also made my view very clear based on these references. Yes, the ultimate nature of God is beyond the knowledge of humans, and yes, the nature of God is unlimited beyond human understanding, but . . .

. . . the reality of Central doctrine and dogma of the Trinity as defined and described as the nature of God is specifically and clearly a positive cataphatic truth of the nature of God, which must be accepted without question nor explanation.

[robrecht]

I understand the citations, the catechism, the other references I gave, and your reference, no problem. I was raised in the Roman Church, and studied for a year in consideration to become a priest. I have also made my view very clear based on these references. Yes, the ultimate nature of God is beyond the knowledge of humans, and yes, the nature of God is unlimited beyond human understanding, but . . .

. . . the reality of Central doctrine and dogma of the Trinity as defined and described as the nature of God is specifically and clearly a positive cataphatic truth of the nature of God, which must be accepted without question nor explanation.

Shuny, you are not making sense. The doctrine of the Trinity does not define the nature of God. According to the Catholic church, and the references I have given to you, we do not know what God is, only what he is not, the doctrine of the Trinity included. It therefore makes no sense for you to claim that the doctrine of the Trinity defines the nature of God. You have not, and cannot, give any substantive citation of church doctrine asserting that the doctrine of the Trinity defines the nature of God. It is simply your unsubstantiated assertion. If you think I am wrong, show me a single citation of church doctrine that presents the doctrine of the Trinity as a definition of nature of God.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you are not making sense. The doctrine of the Trinity does not define the nature of God. According to the Catholic church, and the references I have given to you, we do not know what God is, only what he is not, the doctrine of the Trinity included. It therefore makes no sense for you to claim that the doctrine of the Trinity defines the nature of God. You have not, and cannot, give any substantive citation of church doctrine asserting that the doctrine of the Trinity defines the nature of God. It is simply your unsubstantiated assertion. If you think I am wrong, show me a single citation of church doctrine that presents the doctrine of the Trinity as a definition of nature of God.

Done that!!!!!

You hang your hat on Thomas Aquinas, ignoring the clear and specific doctrines and dogmas involving the Trinity. This is an indeed fruitless discussion at this point.