[1)]

1) The set of possible events is infinitely bigger than the set of existing events.

2) Everything that exists is possible, and in its possibility lays its very essence.

3) Therefore, by 1) and 2), possible events don't arise from existing events, since there is no way of conceiving the lesser originating the greater (in absolute terms), and it cannot be figured out in which manner real things could cause their own condition of possibility.

4) For the same reason, by 2), the set of existing events is not derived from itself.

5) Thus, everything that exists in time comes from God only. Therefore, there is a Creation.


http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk

[Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):]

It's quite obvious that we have somehow fallen in the mud from which we were created. It suffices to admit that a natural law exists to appreciate to what extent is the human kind fulfilling it without coaction -fear or hope- in general terms. We can find this law in the common ground of the main religions of the world. My wife, an ex-Buddhist and a Christian nowadays, explained me about the five precepts that every normal man has to observe in her previous creed: 1) don't kill life, 2) don't steal, 3) don't fornicate, 4) don't lie and 5) don't get drunk. The first four points depend on the last one, understood in a wide sense as keeping your consciousness against passion's attack. This and infinite more, that is to say, every natural moral rule -she added- can be summarized in Christian love.

However, if we redefine the first precept as "don't kill without a fair reason" (for instance, protecting an equal good that we cannot otherwise save), none of them is violated by beasts in most cases. That's admirable and should move us to reflection: they are not rational, but they can satisfy a rational law. Never the less, we do it backwards from them, since we break the moral law continuously, and we would do it more often if there was no law or no custom forcing us to reconsider the benefits of being wicked.

Certainly, the stupid creatures slavered by us never make a war, and by the way not usually a war to death, but only for defending themselves from imminent dangers, fight with other predators in order to survive or rival with members of the same species when trying to get a female for later reproduction. They don't love any food not coming from their work. There is no hypocrisy in their kind. They avoid vague sex and waste of energy produced by it. They despise every superfluous pleasure.

Thus, we can deduce that, knowing the existence of this eternal law that even beasts are experts with, and being aware of the man, the most rational creature walking on the Earth, infringing it as he was totally ignorant; in regard of the everlasting rule written in our heart that everyone can read, I say, we can infer that something obnubilates our intelligence and moral sense in a permanent way, preventing us of being faithful to it and naturally perfect.

We can find, I don't deny it, animals whose behaviour -regular or sporadic- seem to break natural principles. But they are just the exception confirming the rule, while a good man is an exception for the whole human race. If crime was something unusual and extraordinary, laws wouldn't be needed at all, because law -Latins said- doesn't care about the insignificant.

What is, then, ruining our understanding and making us be beneath wild animals? Might it be our free will? This is similar to blaming knife for the slash. It is not for the sake of our consciousness that we are falling in the sin, but despite of it. Our oppression, then, isn't in the will, as buddhist think; more likely it's previous to its stimulus. Theologians referred to the original sin when designating this shameful prostration. Islam rejects it, and this should be enough to prove this religion wrong.

Daniel.


Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk

[Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):]

We have three axioms:

1) There is no thought without a thinking subject, and vice versa, there is no thinking subject without a thought.

2) Nobody can be his own thought, since it implies a contradiction between subject and object. The subject must be always greater than the object.

3) Nothing is without an activity.

And I infer the following:

a) "The truth is the truth" is the first truth.

b) It can't exist without an activity, so it must be thought by someone.

c) The Father thinks it, and that truth is the Son.

d) The Father is greater than the Son. Nevertheless, they are the same reality, as far as there is no thought without a thinking subject and there is no thinking subject without a thought.

e) The act of thinking itself is the Holy Spirit.

f) So, I understand the Trinity as "The Thinker (Father) in the Act of Thinking (Holy Spirit) the Thought (Son)".

* * *

I.

"'The truth is the truth' is true" is a part of the set of truths, since it is true, but only in a tangencial way, as far as it doesn't need any other truth as a fundament and it exists necessarily.

Every truth must fulfill three properties: 1) coherence with itself, 2) coherence with other truths and 3) inference from other truths. God only fulfills 1) and 2). Thus, it is part and it isn't part of the set of truths.

I'm inclined to think that God lacks a basis. If he had one, it would be someting logically previous to God, simpler than him, more elemental and, therefore, greater. In other words: truth is abstractive, that is to say, negative. That which is more composed is more contingent (it has more conditions of existence), innecessary or superfluous than that which is simpler.

II.

Trinity solves the following problem: How is possible the "creatio ex nihilo" of material things from the divine, inmaterial plenitude?

Gnostics proposed a prolation or pronunciation of God to the material world. Before this prolation occurred, it would have been some unavoidable Silence and Abyss between the Creator and the creature.

Catholic ortodoxy opposes to this conception the coeternity of the Word, engendered from the same substance of God before any time was. The divine Verb is, previous to its incarnation, the invisible Image of the Creator, but it is also the invisible or rational image of every creature. It acts as a mediator between both realities.

Truth would be inactive and it could not create anything if it wasn't, at the same time, expansive. The self-sufficient truth, then, also implies the true. So, Trinity can be condensed in this sentence: "'The truth (Father) is the truth' (Son) is true (Holy Spirit)". It doesn't exist a simpler way to express the first true proposition, the unfounded fundament of everything.

If Islam denies that this proposition is true, then Islam is wrong and leads to falsity, which can't be attributed to God, but to the doctrines of men. If Islam thinks that there is a simpler procedure in order to express this first true proposition, may Islam show it as soon as possible.

III.

1) God didn't create the world arbitrarily, but according to ideas supported by the Truth.

2) However, the Father can't be fully identified with that coeternal ideas, since they presuppose a creative intention and a preceptive order. In the other hand, the will of Creation is an accidental one compared to the eternal, unengendered and self-subsistent potency of God.

Plus, God's providence depends on his will, while his will doesn't depend on providence.

Finally, ideas are naturally conceivable, but God is absolutely inconceivable.

3) Christ (the Son) is the sum of all the ideas that tend to Creation, and he is also its engendered fundament: the Good, the Truth, the Life.

God, nevertheless, is Christ's fundament.

4) God, an absolutely undetermined potency, engenders the Truth, an absolutely determined potency. At last, it engenders the Spirit, which is the infinite and absolutely determined act, as far as it is coherent with the Truth.

Cheers.

Daniel.


Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk

[1)]

1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.

2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.

3) By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God's existence (vid. 2).

4) So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was "God doesn't exist", as far as it is asserted as a truth, it follows that God (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) exists.

5) However, if God exists, the previous proposition (vid. 4) is false; and, if God doesn't exist, it is false too, because in that case the Truth (i.e. God, vid. 2) wouldn't exist and, then, single truths wouldn't exist either (vid. 3). So, in any case, God exists.

Greetings.

Daniel.


Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):[/u]

http://www.gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm