Another Theology Blog

Howdy everyone! I apologize for my long absence. All that matters is that I’m back with avengeance, and I can’t wait to get blogging again! Check out the new features I’ve added. First, take a look at the new widgets on the left.  Click on them to bring up radio stations and daily readings for both Eastern and Western Christendom.  You’ll also want to peruse my new “unholy cards” series, generated using despair.com.

Of course, if you aren’t Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, you won’t understand them or appreciate them that much. Just rest assured that for us on the other side of the Tiber (or whatever river is closest to Constantinople), this kind of snarky parodying of our more liberal (read “heretical”) co-religionists is highly entertaining. Yes, I do need to get a life. I know.

Anyway, you can already see three of the “unholy cards” displayed immediately below this post, and there’s plenty more to come!

There’s a very intriguing story behind this one.  Just a note for posterity; it’s not a good idea to spend thousands of dollars to deck out a traditional Catholic Church to look like Emerald City, especially not without the permission of your bishop, and definitely not against the will of your congregation.

After a convention up in Canada, some bishops decided to celebrate the Catholic Church’s history in the New World with giant-sized puppet versions of important ecclesiastical figures.  Unfortunately, several complaints were voiced that the puppets, besides looking like something from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, apparently scared small children present at the event.  I suppose that’s what you get for trying too hard. 

Laser lights and orthodoxy may have no correlation in most Protestant congregations, but in the Catholic Church they’re usually an indication that your priest denies the divinity of Christ and sleeps with his live-in girlfriend.  Hey, let’s do a little teleological transcendence honey…

Objection 1:  It would seem the Angelic Doctor is never wrong, because I really like him.

Objection 2:  Further, everything I’ve read by him so far is right.

Objection 3:  Further, the Church says he’s a really cool guy.

On the Contrary:  St. Thomas Aquinas falsely claims that the argument of Objection 6 is not demonstrative in Article 2 of Question 46 when, in fact, it is demonstrative.  He does this because he misunderstands an objection to his position that it cannot be demonstrated the world has a beginning in time.  Instead, he maintains the clearly absurd notion that it is possible to have an infinite regress in time (an infinite past).

I Answer That:  The original objection to St. Thomas’ position is “…if the world always was, the consequence is that infinite days preceded this present day. But it is impossible to pass through an infinite medium. Therefore we should never have arrived at this present day; which is manifestly false.”  The Angelic Doctor answers “…passage is always understood as being from term to term. Whatever bygone day we choose, from it to the present day there is a finite number of days which can be passed through. The objection is founded on the idea that, given two extremes, there is an infinite number of mean terms.”  

However, the objection is not founded on the idea that, given two extremes, there is an infinite number of mean terms.  Rather, it is founded on the fact that to be in the present day means all days in the past have, well, passed.  And even though it is indeed true that for any given day in an infinite past there is only a finite amount of time between it and the present, it is also true that there yet remains an infinite amount of time prior to any given day in an infinite past that must have passed before that day.  This leads us to conclude that an infinite past is self-contradictory, because assuming the present day is here, and it is indeed here, means an infinite number of days have indeed passed, or rather an infinite amount of time has terminated.  But an infinite amount of time by definition cannot terminate.

Further, the first extreme (the present day being the second extreme) is missing, so there can be no passage to the present in the first place.  Why?  Because present conditions depend on past conditions for their existence, and an infinite past would necessitate an infinite regression in efficient cause which Aquinas has properly demonstrated as nonsensical (ironically, by using the exact same logic underlying the objection to his position on the possible infinite nature of the past).

Further, time is the measure of the motion of something moved relative to the motion of something else moved.  Thus, the speed of a car is measured relative to the rotation of the earth (miles per hour).  If there was an infinite past, it would require infinite regression in things moved since time is their measure of motion relative to one another.  Once again, this has been demonstrated by Aquinas to be nonsensical.  In order to attain the present state of motion, there must be a First Mover which is unmoved.  Therefore, time must not have an infinite past duration.

Reply to Objection 1:  I really like him too, but he’s wrong sometimes.  More often than you would think, actually.

Reply to Objection 2:  But now you’ve read even further, and found him to be wrong on occasion.

Reply to Objection 3:  Yes, but he’s not infallible, and his philosophy needs to be revised and excised of its mistakes.

For more on my argument, see this post.

Call me a pessimist, but after careful analysis, I think the best way to win the “culture wars” might be to just stand back and let our civilization die.

I’ve come to believe that the rise and fall of civilizations is as natural and inevitable as the turn of the seasons; it seems as though the same changes always occur during the autumn of nations: loosening of sexual morals, abandonment of tradition and religion, rebellion against authority, rampant corruption and violence, etc…

It’s unclear to me why halting such a process is even desirable; just like economic bailouts, I propose that moral bailouts only delay and magnify the problem. 

Let winter come:  it is futile to stop the northern winds from blowing.  Why attempt to remain in a perpetual state of decay?  I say let us die, so that new glories can rise from our ashes in the coming spring. Indeed, we have no choice but to die:  our time as a civilization has come to an end, as all things must.

Save as many people as you can, but give up on keeping the vessel afloat.

As per request by several atheist commenters on another blog, I have endeavored to lay out what I think is the most rational case for God’s existence.  I shall do this in a series of posts which will be composed throughout the next several weeks, and if needs be, I will respond to any questions or concerns at the end.

First of all, we need to decide on an acceptable definition for the word “God.”  By God, I mean a Being upon which other beings depend, or from which other beings derive.  This God has several attributes, and the main ones are omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, atemporality, and omnibenevolence.

Omnipotence:  The power to do anything that is logically possible.  By definition, that which is logically possible cannot be contrary to God’s own nature, because God gives existence to the rules of logic, and in a real sense is Logic (Logos).

Omniscience:  God knows all things past, present, and future.  In fact, it would be more accurate to say that God is the Knowledge of All Things.  As the Determining Principle of the universe, it is obvious that God should contain such perfect knowledge, since all things are contained within him.

Omnipresence:  God is present everywhere and in all things, but is not synonymous with each thing considered apart from the whole, just as a foot cannot be said to be a man.

Atemporality:  Since God is the source of motion, defined as change of any sort, his essence must not be within time, since time is a measure of motion.  Moreover, we know that the future already exists potentially in the present, and that the past exists necessarily, so God must sustain all three.

Omnibenevolence:  God is the law that determines what is good, just as he is the law that makes objects attract one another or water flow downhill.  Evil exists as a byproduct of good, since the freedom to love is impossible to have without the freedom to hate, and the good of victory cannot be had without the evil of struggle.  Therefore, God is Goodness itself; he is the reason something is good; he is the law that makes an act pleasurable, etc…  And the fulness of Goodness cannot be had without permitting the existence, or at least the potential, for evil, defined as a defect or deviation from a particular object’s good, relative to that object.

Now that you know what I mean by God, we should be able to proceed with minimal misunderstandings.  If you’re still confused by my definitions, it might be helpful to think about God just as the set of all universal laws, considered as a whole, because that is exactly what God is.  All the divine attributes can be discerned from this one fact.