See if Introibo approves my comments before St. Lucy ...

See if Introibo approves my comments before St. Lucy ... · To illustrate the ineptness of Introibo on the question ... · If Curiosity Killed the Cat ... It's Bad

I am not in a haste to stamp him as a proponent of cancel culture, though he has shown himself such in the past. Today is the Eve of St. Andrews. I preprogram the publication of this post to St. Lucy.

29.XI to 13.XII is two weeks. He has time to approve comments and respond if he feels like that. Or, more exactly and less colloquially, he will have had time to, etc.

I He gave an overview of the cosmological argument. Here I comment on that one:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.

An Atheist would answer:
If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is in the necessity of its own nature.

The fact that you subvert this by appealing to what Atheists actually say, when by lack of culture they misrepresent their own arguments doesn't make it a valid argument.

Suppose Atheists could validly claim that Christians believed in a Flat Earth and that that were in the Bible - could they say this blunder on part of one Theist position, Christianity, and its proponents, Christians, proved Atheism?

Obviously no.

St. Thomas, however, doesn't bring "the universe" in at Tertia Via, but in Prima Via.

If all the Universe is moving around one single Earth, and that single Earth cannot be what is moving it, that means, there is one Single Mover. This is how Riccioli understood Prima Via, and this is also why breaking the one universe up in several solar systems (old terminology "worlds") led to an alternative between mootness of the argument or accepting a plurality of gods, since the rotations around Sirius are not necessarily the same mover as rotations around "our" Sun. Giordano Bruno reached that conclusion and got burned. His judge concluded - very reasonably - that Heliocentrism was dangerous soul killing stuff. He was relieved when Galileo didn't go near half or even a quarter of what Bruno had concluded, but still didn't want Galileo's book to be read.

That Pius VII allowed Settele's book to be read, and Gregory XVI allowed Galileo's to be read (and Foscarini's too, I think) is in and of itself no direct statement contrary to the 1633 judgement, that the beliefs of central sun and non-central, encircling the centre, also self-rotating Earth is a correct or even innocuous belief or can be entertained without danger to the faith.

Without Geocentrism, the first three ways break down to "matter and energy are the First Mover, Cause, Being" for the Atheist pov.

We need to refute them in terms they could potentially undestand (I think I do, judging from Dick Harfield's cancel culture against me), not malign them for inside mutual encouragement.

II He also pretended to know better than the Kolbe Center, and here I comment on that one:

Question VIII: Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes? — Reply: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
______________________
The clergyman approving this was the Sulpician who had himself promoted this.

If it is only a matter of exegesis, it could "à la limite" stand (but see Mark 10:6 for refutation).

But since 1909, we have carbon dating.

This means, the Sulpician, Fulcran Vigouroux, could imagine 100 000 or a million years passed from Creation of the world to Creation of Adam, but from the creation of Adam ON, we are pretty comfy with 7000 - 7500 years to now, as per LXX chronologies of the Bible.

Since then, we have carbon dated men (whose humanity it would be highly temerary as well as disingenious to doubt) to 40 000 or even 50 000 BP. Neanderthals in El Sidrón and La Ferrassie, 40 000. Flores Hobbit, 50 000.

Now, a Young Earth Creationist can give a coherent answer, "carbon 14 rose since these people lived" - I give it in even some detail. This however is only possible if the equilibrium between decay of C14 in the atmosphere and production of new C14 in the upper parts of the atmosphere, which we observe now, had not yet been reached.

But it not having yet been reached would be impossible if the earth were 100 000 or 1 000 000 000 years.

Therefore, the Old Earth scenario, which Fr. Fulcran found compatible with the Bible, has since then acquired an extra dimension which is not compatible with it.

If you say "Adam lived 7000 years ago, but Neanderthals are correctly dated to 40 000 years ago" you get the problem, how is Adam the first man?

If you say "Adam lived 50 000 years ago, before that Neanderthal" you solve the problem how Adam is the first man, but get another one, how is Genesis 3 history?

See Haydock comment on chapter 3 for the classic answer, and see how it breaks down if Adam lived 50 000 years ago.

And one more thing. Don't construe "can be assumed" as "we should reasonably assume" it simply means "can be assumed without directly falling into heresy." (which it could in 1909) If you misconstrue it, you are as inept to write on theology as a surgeon who leaves a scalpel in a stomach is to do surgery.

[My bad on one item, I forgot that Fr. Fulcran had not put the long chronology as sole, but as alternative to the six times 24 hours exegesis, so that he left everyone entirely free to stay with strict Young Earth Creationism, as per this act. Now, the equality may well have been there in his day - apart from Mark 10:6 - but as said, no longer after carbon dating, a new factor to take into account.]

[If you feel the words are uncharitable, those are his own words about Theresa S. Benns in relation to her promotion of the 1990 Emergency Conclave.]

III Contending For The Faith—Part 10 - on this one, he's right.