Happiness

What is rationality? One answer is that it is the use of reason. But there are at least two rebutting defeaters to this: (1) a comatose person does not use reason and (2) a person sleeping does not use reason. Clearly a comatose person or a person sleeping are in fact a person, it does not matter if they use reason. One other answer is that it is the capacity to use reason. So, a sleeping person or a comatose person has the capacity to use reason. One undercutting defeater to this answer is that we really does not know if a sleeping person or a comatose person has the capacity to use reason. Why not say that the sleeping person or the comatose person does not have the capacity to use reason? The proponent answers that the sleeping person or the comatose person has the capacity to use reason in virtue of their nature, namely, being a human. In answer, the conclusion is begging the question. At most it seems like there could be an unidentifiable moment in a person's life whereby they...

 It is said that a kid is to listen to the adult. The Bible teaches this and society teaches this. Are there exceptions that are pertinent, however? I say yes. Consider a kid who is told by the adult to murder. The kid is not supposed to murder here despite what the adult says. Does this stand in contradiction to the Bible and what society has taught? No. The answer is no because the obligation imparted to the kid wherewith the kid has to obey the adult is to be understood in different contexts. In the case of the exhortation from the Bible and society for the kid to obey the adult, it is (1) a general rule because a kid tends to not be shrewd, (2) a truth that kids act more according to impulse as opposed to forethought, and (3) a natural method wherewith a kid is taught growth. Now, in the case of the relevant exception, the failure of the proper functioning faculties of the adult means that the kid does not need to obey the adult, such as an adult who is a lunatic exhorting a ki...

  Obj: Mary was only the ark of the covenant while bearing Jesus, not after. Ans: The ark lives in God’s temple as Rev. 11:19 says. From that, it follows that the ark has no more of an earthly use but a heavenly use. An earthly use rots away as Mt. 6:19 says, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy…” but heavenly use is “where moths and vermin do not destroy” (Mt. 6:20).  That which does not rot away is perpetual. So then the ark is perpetual. If the ark is perpetual, Mary being the ark is perpetual. Obj to the Ans: The ark never had an earthly use but always had a heavenly use, even when it was still on earth with the Israelites.  Moreover, Exodus 40:34 says, “Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.” That which has the cloud covering like so is of heavenly use, not earthly use. Ans: Luke 1:35 is where the angel told Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most...

 I may have said, “I am in existence” before. But this seems unclear to me. Is existence bigger than the “I am” so that the “I am” exist *in* it? If yes, how could existence be bigger than the “I am” if it is only through the “I am” do I know about the bigger existence or existence at all? Somehow the bigger existence is in my existent conception? One could avoid this unclearness by saying, “I exist,” instead.

 I just noticed recently that I am prideful. The pride that I have is implicit in my mind. This implicitness is why I am prideful. If I realized that I am prideful, I would have tried to stop my prideful actions or thoughts or words immediately. I did not give enough thought into how my actions are prideful. Perhaps they are not prideful actually, but just seem prideful from a third person perspective. People can find me to seemingly be prideful in anything I do so it is impossible to not seem prideful, but there exists a spectrum in which pride falls into. Pride can be seemingly miniscule or it can be absolutely puffed up. I would hope that a person who views me would at least seemingly assume that I am prideful in a miniscule manner as opposed to being absolutely puffed up.  The contrast to pridefulness is humbleness.  Humbleness does not always involve being quiet. For example, when a person asks me if I won my basketball game yesterday, it would not necessarily be hum...

  Consider this statement: some Catholic laymen and even apologists claim that it is only God who can judge who goes to hell–no pope can judge who goes to hell. I think this has to be qualified.  I agree with the statement insofar as it is ULTIMATELY ONLY in God’s power to judge who goes to hell. Whereas a pope only gets to judge who goes to hell as a participant because of the power given by God. Now that the one sense where it is only within God’s power to judge who goes to hell is out of the way, I argue that there is another sense in which a pope can judge who goes to hell. Consider this anathematization formula according to Pope Zachary in the chapter Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. Iii which says, “Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost …we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of t...

  God’s immensity or absolutely immeasurability means that God is not a relative infinite. A relative infinity can be measured by a spatiotemporal respect. For example, the universe has a spatiotemporal respect which can be considered as a set and can be measured even if the universe was infinitely big. God, on the other hand, is absolutely infinite because he is infinite in every respect and cannot be measured by a spatiotemporal respect. So, it is wrong to think the following: God is infinitely wise but that wisdom can be comprehended as a set of individual wisdoms Omnipresence is a positive and relative attribute. This means that omnipresence has a positive ontological status in the universe, the universe itself being spatiotemporal. But this does not mean that God is limited by the universe, it just means he has a relation to the universe. God is omnipresent because of his power, knowledge, and essence. It is through his essence that he is substantially present to everything cr...

Nominalists hold that God’s metaphysical essence is in the sum of all his perfections. The problem with this nominalist conception is that the sum of all his perfections does not only consist of the metaphysical but also the physical. This is so because “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14). Now, Jesus is perfect in all of his being, even his human side, one of the reasons being that he had all “but sin” (CCC 467). Therefore, the physical nature of Jesus is also what constitutes God being perfect.

The three methods of the natural knowledge of God by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite are as follows: (1) affirmation or causality, (2) negation, and (3) eminence. Firstly, affirmation or causality considers the principle of proportionate causality, which is when that which is caused must be in the causer. The causer being superior to the caused follows from the principle of proportionate causality because the causer not only has the things due to itself, it also has the caused. Creation is caused, so, that which is the causer is superior to creation. Superiority in this case is evidence for God. Secondly, negation, which is that potentiality in creations are not found in God. The denial of potentially being attributed to God is not just a special pleading denial. It is a denial of limitation. God does not have limitations, but is limitless, so limitations cannot be attributed to God. Thirdly, eminence, which is the idea that finitism found in creatures participates in the infinite God....

What is so special about God? Why do people believe in God? It seems like one answer is sufficient for this, and that is that we believe because of existence. What imparts existence (that a thing is) to a thing's essence (what a thing is)? If I have a gorilla, he has existence and also an essence. Yet, it is the case that his essence and existence is separable. If it is separable, then that means it is conjoined somehow. The gorilla does not seem to have the ability to conjoin his own essence and existence together because then he would need to have been in existence prior to either his essence or existence or both to conjoin his essence and existence. I was tempted to say that a thing which is nonexistent cannot cause anything. But saying so unqualified surely is not true. Consider a unicorn, which is nonexistent and has some causal powers on my brain to think about what it looks like. Obviously this universe causes some state in my brain at least. So my statement needs to be qual...

A proponent of the argument from change in proof of God’s existence might say that existential inertia only applies as properties of a substance. So, when the argument from change uses water as an example of a hierarchical series of changes, it does not fail to demonstrate an unactualized actualizer because existential inertia does not apply to the substance water but only to the properties of water. This argument from the proponent seems implausible for the following reasons: No justification is brought forth as to why existential inertia only applies as properties of a substance. One could arguably defend the position that existential inertia applies as a thing which is neither a property nor a substance and yet it is casually active on every single substance (as maybe a universal). If this position is true, existential inertia would apply even for hierarchical series of changes. Even if existential inertia were really just properties of a substance, the substance would still be affe...

  Pace the abortionist, from the armchair: 1. One necessary feature of being a human is that it has to only have one nature. 2. The nature of an ovum is numerically different from the nature of a sperm. 3. An ovum has one necessary feature of being a human in that it has to only have one nature. 4. But a human is not an ovum. 5. A sperm has one necessary feature of being a human in that it has to only have one nature. 6. But a human is not a sperm. 7. A human is not a sperm and an ovum considered as numerically different natures (follows from premises 1 and 2)     8. Only one nature is formed at conception/fertilization from the fusing of the numerically different natures of a sperm and an ovum. 9. Call this only one nature formed at conception/fertilization from the fusing of the numerically different natures of a sperm and an ovum by “N.” 10. So, N has one necessary feature of being a human in that it only has one nature (follows from premises 1, 8 and 9). 11....

 I tried ruling out an infinite regress of changes today by proposing that there must be some fundamental being in reality, which is an unchanged changer (see Aristotle and Aquinas First Way to the existence of God to see how this works). An objection that came up to my ruling out an infinite regress of changes is proposed by saying that there is a single universe which after its life is terminated will repeatedly come into existence again ad infinitum. It is demonstrated by a ring which is split in half, and the ring would be analogous to the universe's existence. It is after the ring terminates in its existence does it flip itself around and so and then after that existence terminates it will flip itself around again, ad infinitum, analogously to the universe.  I say this is a problematic objection for many reasons. Firstly, a potential being actualized is precisely how "change" is defined in Thomism. With that said, I pointed out that this is still a series of changes ...