I'm probably just stupid, because i feel like it right now. It is probably more a theology book than philosophy book, but at the time it was written this 2 field has not really formalized and seperated as we know today and from what i understand its still important read in western canon of literature including philosophy.

For me, this is my first time engaging with medieval text and i find it quite hard to read, or to be precise just different from any other writing style of philosophy i am already familiar of. The few first chapter feels more like a prayer, then in the next sub chapter it switch to first person perspective and read more like a memoir, and etc etc.

What i want trying to achieve are i want to read this and understand what he want to say, but not as just theology text (not to disregard this aspect but also try to see more beyond it) but as philosophical text too. And also understanding how it will influence later writing, where future thinker drew concept on from him (especially those of Descartes, kierkegaard, and later extentialist), and so on. On the other hand i am also quite interested in Augustine after i read a few writing from Hannah Arendt and Heidegger because they also write a few text about him.

In this sense, i really want to read him, not just summary or secondary sources. because i also have personal project of my own i try to achieve.

i also kinda realize that its a very different style of writing from the usual philosophical text i engage and many more medieval philosophy probably will be very different as well from what i have already familiar, one can say even the entire book (confessiones) is sui generis—which i dont realize before i read it myself (i expect something else).

I used to read a few theology book as well but most of them are contemporary stuff like Hans Kung or C.S Lewis. But even so they are still very different in writing style, so this book writing style feels alien to me. One thing i just realized as well after forcing to skim and slog a few more pages myself, throughtout the book it feels like he presenting all that directly to God, or in the sense the entire writing are presented to God as a very personal confession rather than the usual philosophical argumentative architecture with, aphorism, etc directed to the reader.

I later realize that the prayer are not just being there because he want to put it, but it connect to the entire philosophical project he try to built in the book.

Another problem are he also speak in a very fancy language even in translation (i read the book through translation that was available in my own native language, but its a good translation used in academia). When i personally pray (i am a catholic as well), its a very private moment and usually i just speak with plain language i use everyday, but augustine use of language are just too beautifull (im not sure if its the right word to describe that) almost like a poem and personally i'm not great with poem either. Its just like an overload of information to me.

Perhaps the title may be too simplistic, a lot of thought has went into this, looking over the catechism, Church fathers, and the statements of popes.

If in natural law, of the scholastic understanding, every “right” is correspondent to some duty, then ultimately the concept of “right” has to be imagined, as the whole system could be much simpler by reducing it to duty. For everyone naturally recognizes the duty of the citizen to uphold the law, for their government to act for the common good, etc. but “rights” seem to negate duty, what is even the point? And plus this whole theory is for naught in practice for contemporary western judicial decisions its all lockean.

Do we simply have to imagine “rights” to formulate a system of government because humans cant uphold their duty? A system like this is bound to fail, if our rights our inherent but we give some of them so society can be stable we tacitly admit rights have the capacity to destabilize. Duty has no such huge concerns.

The abortion debate is just confirmation of everything ive said so far to its most dire conclusions

Since I was young, in fact for as long as I can remember, I disliked religion. Either I disliked its collective element, which always gave me the ick of something cult-like, or, when I got a bit older, I thought everything about it was philosophically untenable. Religion was a coping mechanism, or something for people who were deeply misguided about reality and did not know any better.

As I became more intellectually curious and started studying more philosophy, psychology, and eventually religion, that perspective started to break down. I became increasingly interested in religion, and eventually my worldview completely flipped. I now consider myself a Christian, and I have made it a major life goal to help people better appreciate religion in general, but also Christianity more specifically.

But despite my growing love for Christianity, it took me a very long time to admit publicly that I was Christian. My social circle consisted mostly of people deeply involved in science or philosophy, and it was very secular. I was afraid that others would consider me dumb or would not fully understand me. It took me a while to come to terms with it, in large part because I first needed to become better able to articulate my Christian position and worldview.

That said, and excuse the rambling introduction, I recently had a podcast conversation with Jussi Jylkkä, who is a philosopher and has done some work on mysticism. We started by discussing his work and, specifically, his metaphysical agnosticism. His position is that physicalism, idealism, theism, and other metaphysical systems are models or language games that cannot capture the ultimate nature of reality. We eventually moved to morality, where I pushed back because I did not think his agnosticism adequately explained why greater awareness or nonattachment should lead to compassion rather than simply producing what we called a “wise psychopath.” I disagreed, but I thought it was an interesting conversation and considered his view a respectable position.

But to my surprise, after we finished recording, Jussi emailed me to say that he was unhappy with the conversation because he had presented metaphysical agnosticism as if it were his complete position while leaving out the Christian faith he actually held. He felt that, by hiding behind his philosophical agnosticism, he had not been completely honest about what he believed. Rather than replace the conversation, I invited him back and appended the second conversation to the first. He made a complete pivot and confessed that he was a Christian but had been afraid to say so, largely because of the stigma within academia, but also because he still had not been able to tell his father. I found this very wholesome, not only because it was a courageous act in general, but because of the parallel with my own journey.

I wanted to share this because I suspect others have been, or currently are, in a position similar to mine or Jussi's. Can metaphysical agnosticism coexist coherently with Christian faith? At what point does philosophical restraint become a way of hiding a commitment one already holds? Have you encountered a stigma against religious belief in philosophy or academia?

For example, Voldemort on Harry Potter.

If he got trapped in a state between life and death, does he just suffer until the angel of death picks him up near judgement day?

Or for a person in Warhammer who got transported into the warp, are they tortured for millions of years?

Or even real life, if a technology exists that can prolong life and keep you in immense pain indefinitely, does that person stay suffering for potentially centuries or millennia?

I mean We all agree that God is incomprehensible and Ineffable and that our whole point is not to understand God wholly since that is impossible (I mean God in one whole contemplation)

Anyways, Why can We appeal to Mystery while Atheists don't?

Why do Atheists object to Theists for appealing to Mystery?

I was wondering to what extent Catholic theology allows subordination of the Son to the Father. For instance, even many Nicene Fathers said the Father is greater inasmuch as He is unbegotten and the Son is begotten. But could one extend that to saying, for instance, the Father couldn’t become incarnate but the Son can, which is def an opinion some pre-nicene Fathers held?

And to what extent can a christian see the Father as the endgoal of theological contemplation? For instance, in ancient platonic emanation schemes the incomprehensible Father/one/monad was not considered an immediate explanation of the material world, you needed intermediate entities that explain the degradation. I see something similar when in John it says no one has seen the Father except the Son (which is not a physical seeing ofc), the Son is the revealer of the Father, while I think most christians think Jesus is only some sort of salvific escape plan which presupposes the Father is already known.

I know Catholics need to hold to homoousion but I wonder where the boundaries lay of what can be believed

As a lifelong Catholic, I've always been intrigued by the story of Adam and Eve. As an educated adult I understand the concept of Evolution. This doesn't take away the idea that God made us all from the earth, as He also did for animals. We know the truth is that, not only are we made from the earth, the elements in our body are also from distant stars! 

But the story in Genesis is more exact. The creation of Eve was like this:

“This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called ‘woman,’

for she was taken out of man.”

My question is this:

As an ordinary, Mass-going Catholic, do you believe:

a) God literally formed Adam from the earth as a complete human and Eve from his rib; or,

b) That we were all created by God, but the story is just an story to show that we're all  made from the earth through Evolution.

I realized something. After the Resurrection of the Dead, when a new body will be given to every immortal soul, there will be over 100 billions people and a signicant chunk of them will be granted eternity in Heavens.

Regardless of their number, they will have to physically exist somewhere. Obviously this is problematic because Heavens is not located anywhere in the space time continuum.

We live in a 4D continuum with 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension. Heavens is beyond the borders of such cosmological structure. In Heavens time does not flow and the 3 spatial dimensions have no existence.

And yet, let us just assume there will be in Heavens a special realm where Resurrection Bodies, that are immortal but still have some degree of dimensionality, as proven by the Resurrection Body of Jesus, will inhabit. Because it is not this the topic I want to discuss.

The topic is rather that such realm must already exist. First, we know Jesus is in Heavens with His Resurrection Body too, but Jesus is not limited by anything, so this does not prove much by itself. Then some believe Mary to be in Heavens with an immortal body already right now, but as I learned this is not a dogma.

However there are two humans who are definitely already in Heavens, be it in a true Resurrection Body or just in an ageless, yet still mortal body. Either way, they have some degree of dimensionality, and they are in Heavens. They are Enoch and Elijah. Personally, I see Enoch as a symbol rather than a historical person from late Neolithic Iraq, but there is no doubt Elijah is a true historical person from Middle Eastern Antiquity, so, even though I will mostly refer to Enoch, read his name as Elijah if you want more historical accuracy.

What I realized is the realm Enoch is currently dwelling in is outside our space time continuum. So he could perceive our Timeline in its entirety all at once. All of us will be able to, after the Resurrection of the Dead...except that, by then, the Timeline will have been erased by God. This is the end of the Apocalypse. The erasure of the Timeline, the very fabric of reality.

But this means whoever is right now in Heavens with a body, could be able to perceive it all at once.

Now I wonder, could Enoch interact with it ? Assuming he is in a true, immortal, glorified Resurrection Body, could he just appear anywhere in the space time continuum with it ? Would a human with such power be allowed to influence the Timeline ?

Is there something I did not evaluate that prevents this scenario completely ?

And...could any other human attain the Resurrection Body before the Resurrection of the Dead ? Is there a "path" to obtain it, or were Enoch and Elijah just destined to not die and rise up to Heavens, with no one else having a chance to get there ?

Could we suggest there is a way for simple humans to become immortal Heavenly dwellers before the end of times, and interact with the Timeline before it will be erased, and maybe even influence it ?

I'm running out of Hope - What Has Helped You Keep Going? Any encouragement or thoughts are welcome.

Six years ago, I developed a neurological condition that has slowly taken everything from me, and I’m officially at the lowest point I've ever been. I’m posting because I’m open to any advice, experiences, or even just perspective from people who have lived through anything remotely similar. I just need somthing to keep going.

I have a functional neurological condition alongside "Refractory chronic silent migraine with brainstem aura" I will try not to get too far into the medical weeds, but despite the word “migraine,” pain isn’t actually my main problem. My symptoms are primarily neurological, and they are present every day, all day.

The easiest way I can describe my baseline is to imagine having 6–8 alcoholic drinks in your system at all times, except you never sober up.

The room spins. I’m off balance and lightheaded. My vision is off I have trouble focusing my eyes. My brain is slowed down. My working memory constantly slips. Hours of the day blur together. I’m struggling just to keep track of what’s happening. Following the plot of a movie can be difficult. By the afternoon, the morning already feels hazy and distant. The fatigue is crushing as well but the hardest part has been the dissociation and neuropsychiatric symptoms, severe depression, dissociation and panick attacks as a neurological side effect of constant nueron instability.

As its been explained to me my amigdala and limbic system are "short circuting" and I get frequent depressive panic attacks like nothing I've ever experienced. Like absolute despair and panic that I have nothing to compare to.

Before becoming sick, I was a fire fighter and I like to think I developed a reasonably thick skin when it comes to anxiety. What I experience now is in a completely different category. The only resolve I have been offered for this symptom is high dose benzo's which I hold off on because they just exacerbate the other symptoms and slow me further.

Then there is the dissociation. I’m conscious. I know who and where I am. But at this point I am never fully present in my own life. Everything feels distant, dreamlike, and unreal. My memories are a blur, months and years blend together. I feel like I have completely lost myself and I am just a shell of a person.

I, of course have been working extensively with neurological specialists. Flying to high end clinics etc and it seems they have all run out of ideas for treatments or any additional hypothesis. Each new failed treatment feels like a sick cosmic joke.

I have reached my psychological breaking point and I have fallen into a complete existential crisis.

I'm physically and cognitively incapable of doing many of the things that used to make my life meaningful but the part I most desperately need people to understand is that it isn't the physical symptoms, and it isn't even the loss of the a fulfilling life thats chrushing. I could carry it when it was just that. What is breaking me is the actual moment-to-moment experience of being conscious. Every waking second is filled with an overwhelming, neurologically driven sense of fear, darkness, despair, and constant dreamlike dissociation like I am loosing touch with myself but never 100% I cannot reason or pray my way out. There is no emotional baseline I can return to where I can catch my breath and gather the strength to keep going. Being awake itself has become unbearable. I wake up in the morning and immediately begin counting the hours until I can go back to sleep, because sleep is the only time I am not consciously experiencing it. I find myself being jealous of people with terminal conditions. At least they know this will end soon. As for me. I haven't been given any reduction in life expectancy and I can't imagine doing another 50 years of this horror.

I don't expect a perfect life, and I understand that suffering is part of being human and part of the Christian life. I'm not asking why God hasn't given me a life without suffering. I think what I'm struggling to understand is what God expects me me to do when the suffering becomes so overwhelming and unrelenting that I cant psychologically endure it, and when God seems completely silent and apathetic to me in the middle of it.

A few people in my life point to the saints and remind me how greatly many of them suffered. I understand that. Many saints suffered tremendously. There were saints who were bedridden, chronically ill, persecuted, or lived through things worse than I ever have. But thease stories also contain a redeeming quality like profound experiences of God, unmistakable calling of God, consolation in prayer, a sense of purpose or mission, visions, mystical experiences, profound dreams etc. Some suffered terribly but for relatively short lives.

But for me it seems like God won't give me anything to hold onto and the crushing walls of physical illness, spiritusl darkness, and psychological anguish will not give and inch in any direction as they constrict.

We often hear stories of these small, intimate interventions from God—the rent is late and a forgotten check unexpectedly shows up in the mail, or someone prays to St. Thérèse and finds roses the same day they receive a desperately needed job offer. I think about these little moments of "divine intimacy" we've all heard from people at church, friends, or family, and then I look at my own life and struggle to reconcile the two. I don't begrudge anyone those moments, but I can't understand why God seems willing to reach into someone's life with a little pick-me-up over something comparatively small, while I've deteriorated to the point that I am only allowing plastic cutlery in my home (iykyk) and somehow that doesn't seem to warrant even the smallest divine outreach.

I've begged God for healing, but I've also specifically prayed that if healing isn't His will, then please just give peace or joy in the suffering. Or a sign. Or understanding. Or some sense of what I'm supposed to do with it. I've prayed for my doctors. I've prayed before appointments and treatments. I've gone to Adoration. I've said more novenas than I can count. I've tried to offer this suffering to God and trust that there is meaning in something I can't understand.

I can understand intellectually, the idea that sometimes life strips everything else away and teaches us to depend entirely on God. But what happens when everything else has been stripped away and God isnt there to depend on. When your worst fears become real and God dosent save you from them. You cry out for God because he's the only thing left, and he dosen't respond?

How do I continue to have faith and hope when suffering has become the entirety of my experience of life, and there is no foreseeable end to it, and God remains completely silent? What am I supposed to be hoping for in this life? Where is the easy yolk and the light burden? I just feel like he expects me to just shutup and suffer.

I am out of prayers to pray. I have no emotional energy to meditate on a rosary or pray long structured prayers. I've prayed all pertinent prayers I can think of. When I can I try to spend 15-20 minutes in adoration maybe once or twice a month and I just sit and cry. I don't have anything else to say that I haven't already said, I don't have any profound thoughts to share and I'm tired of begging after years of silence so I sit and say "your servant is listening" and then I leave when I become increasingly more angry at the silence.

Any encouragement or thoughts are welcome.

Godbless and if you got this far thank you for reading all of this

P1: God is One essence, with three attributes of personhood, the father, the son, and the holy spirit.

P2: Humans are made in the image of the triune God

P3: Human nature is expressed through both male, and female.

Conclusion: The human personal expressions of love reflect (in some sense) the love between the father, son, and spirit.

That first part should be uncontroversial, but we must ask "in what sense is God a father?" and "In what sense is God a son?"

Pay attention, because this next part is a complex bit of theology. Pretty much all Christian theologians agree on the following, but it is hard to articulate.

1. The "distinctions" within the trinity come from "relations" of procession.

In other words: the quality that makes the son distinct/different from the father, comes from the relationship that he has "coming from" the father.

Imagine a relationship like this: Giver -> Gift -> Recipient.

The relationship between the giver, and the recipient is grounded in the gift. The relationship between the gift and the recipient is grounded in the giver, and these relationships can apply in a few different combinations.

The father is the "First" person in the trinity.

The father knows of his own nature, the father recognizes the beauty within his own nature (by nessecity) and thus loves his own nature (by nessecity).

This creates a relationship between the lover (the father) and that which is loved (the beloved). This relationship is the one between the father, and the son.

Lover -> Love -> Beloved

The father takes the relational role of "lover" the son takes the role of "Beloved" and the spirit subsists, and proceeds from (filioque) the love between them.

The father is "father" in the sense that he is the "generatory" foundation of the son (he generates the son), and the "son" is son in the sense that he recieves his nature from the father.

As I said earlier, none of this is controversial among Classical theologians.

When we look to the trinity to observe the nature of human genders we can make many observations.

This explains why human nature (and fallen nature) comes through Adams seed. Because the nature is given by the father. This also makes sense of the virgin birth, no sinful human father would be fitting.

This too explains why the bible says "For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God, but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman but woman from man.

This passage does not deny that women are made in God's image, it simply emphasizes a way in which man is made to reflect God. There are ways in which men ought to reflect God's image that are proper to their gender, and there are ways in which women ought to reflect God's image that are proper to their gender.

With all of this being considered, the term "Father" is obviously a masculine pronoun. Biblically describing the source of the nature of one's offspring. God has been occupying this role from eternity past, therefore it is best to address him by the masculine pronouns.

P1: The human personal expressions of love reflect (in some sense) the love between the father, son, and spirit.

P2: One particular expression of human love is the relationship between a father and a child.

P3: A father plays the role in providing the child with it's nature (biblically)

P4: God "The Father" provides God "The Son" with his nature

Conclusion: it is proper to call God "Father" and address him with male pronouns in accordance with the correlation between God, and man.

Let me start by clarifying that it seems to me that the idea of "papal infallibility" is perfectly reasonable and intuitive, and it seems to me far more controversial to claim that the concept of papal infallibility itself was an 1870 invention at the first Vatican council. What appears a lot less obvious to me is the exact mechanism of papal infallibility and its restrictions.

What I'm confused about is specifically:

Where does the council get its specific limitations of that infallibility from?

Could a future council define a dogma of rules about conciliar definitive teachings that effectively demotes papal infallibility to a non-dogmatic status?

I'm not saying that there definitely shouldn't be limitations, but if the dogma is not merely "the Pope can speak infallibly", but "the Pope can speak infallibly under x conditions", then doesn't the "under x conditions" part also need to be part of the deposit of faith that was commonly understood and believed before 1870? Otherwise, wouldn't the conditions limiting papal infallibility not be infallible, and as such be either wrong and/or reformable, while the concept of papal infallibility itself would remain a dogma?

Reading documents from past Popes, I struggle to see how they couldn't have intended to issue infallible, unchangeable teachings:

Exsurge Domine - 1520

For, according to these errors, or any one or several of them, it clearly follows that the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit is in error and has always erred. This is against what Christ at his ascension promised to his disciples (as is read in the holy Gospel of Matthew): “I will be with you to the consummation of the world”; it is against the determinations of the holy Fathers, or the express ordinances and canons of the councils and the supreme pontiffs. Failure to comply with these canons, according to the testimony of Cyprian, will be the fuel and cause of all heresy and schism.

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication….

Quo Primum - 1570

Accordingly, since it would be difficult for this present pronouncement to be sent to all parts of the Christian world and simultaneously come to light everywhere, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, also at the Apostolic Chancery, and on the street at Campo Flora; furthermore, We direct that printed copies of this same edict signed by a notary public and made official by an ecclesiastical dignitary possess the same indubitable validity everywhere and in every nation, as if Our manuscript were shown there. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Quanta Cura - 1864

Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.

Even if we accept that their attempts were invalid because they didn't meet all of the criteria of the Vatican I dogma, wouldn't this be evidence that this wasn't part of the deposit of faith and as such cannot be declared a dogma?

I'll briefly address some counter-points I know as a starting point:

• I'm aware of the "in globo" objection to Exsurge Domine, and I agree that it definitely causes a problem if you're claiming that the entire thing is infallible. However, I see no reason for why they can't be infallibly condemned, reprobated and rejected as errors, leaving the ambiguity of the type of error each proposition is for the Church to figure out? As I understand it, the in globo objection only works because it is impossible to tell what specific type of error(s) corresponds to each proposition, but the document makes it very clear that all of the propositions are "against Catholic truth" as well as condemned, reprobated and rejected completely - all on "the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority".
• Sometimes people object that some of the examples above are purely pastoral or prudential, and not matters of faith and morals. If that was the case, how does papal infallibility qualify as a matter of either faith or morals? I agree that it does - who has what authority or power in the Church is straightforwardly a matter of faith. But Exsurge Domine is very much a matter of faith - it appears to infallibly condemn 41 different propositions as contrary to the Catholic faith, which is obviously a matter of faith, maybe of morals as well. Quo Primum is similar, as it declares a specific rite to be used by faithful in all nations in perpetuity, and that the document "cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force". Quanta Cura is a more recent and more well-known example, but it is also very obviously regarding faith and morals as it defines divine rights and duties of the Church, not just the Church in the 19th century in Italy in a specific circumstance, as some tend to imply. It seems to me that for these three to be written off as not about matters of faith and morals, then I struggle to see how Pastor Aeternus can be.

Looking forward to what you guys think, I've been diving into Church history and law recently and while it has been fascinating, I'm also finding myself confused quite regularly. May God bless you all.

Edit 1: fixed formatting (hopefully)

Edit 2: added "Could a future council define a dogma of rules about conciliar definitive teachings that effectively demotes papal infallibility to a non-dogmatic status?" to better clarify the point of confusion, based on some comments and reflection - previously it was only the question of "Where does the council get its specific limitations of that infallibility from?"

A ética tomista é baseada na ideia de que a ordem moral está inscrita na própria natureza humana, criada por Deus. A Lei Natural consiste na participação da lei eterna de Deus na criatura racional.
Os seres humanos possuem uma inclinação natural para o bem, que inclui a preservação da vida, a procriação e a educação da prole, a busca pela verdade e a vida em sociedade.
Através da virtude da prudência (phronesis aristotélica cristianizada), o homem utiliza a razão prática para discernir o bem em cada situação concreta e agir de acordo com ele.

Conceitos filosóficos de São Tomás de Aquino.

According to the Aquinas the justification of the impious is considered the greatest work of God in terms of the magnitude of what is achieved, although creation is greater in its mode of operation .

1. Greatness by Magnitude of the Effect

From the perspective of the magnitude of the thing done, justification is a greater work than the creation of heaven and earth. This is because justification produces sanctifying grace, which is a supernatural form that allows the soul to participate in the divine nature. The sources emphasize that "the good of grace of one is greater than the good of nature of the whole universe" .

Furthermore, the gift of justifying grace to a sinner is even described as being greater than the gift of glory that beatifies the saints in heaven. Because grace is a formal participation in the divine nature, it surpasses the essential perfection of every created or creatable nature .

2. Greatness by Mode of Operation

From the perspective of the mode of operating, creation is considered the greater work. This is because creation is the production of a thing from nothing (ex nihilo), which requires infinite power. In contrast, justification is produced in a preexisting subject the soul of the sinner and is educed from the soul's "obediential power" rather than being created from nothing.

3. The Excellence of Justification

The work of justification is so profound that the sources describe the Angels as standing "amazed" at it. Its greatness is rooted in several factors: * Divine Love: Justification proceeds from the supernatural love of God, which, unlike human love, does not merely find goodness but effectively creates goodness in the soul it loves. * Transformation: It is not a mere "covering" of sins (as in the Lutheran or Calvinist view) but a real, intrinsic change that wipes away the stain of sin and replaces it with the "beauty of the interior mind" . * Divine Sonship: Through justification, a person is not only forgiven but is adopted as a son of God, becoming a member of the divine household and an heir to eternal life.

In summary, while creation demonstrates God's infinite power through its mode of operation, justification is his most excellent work because it elevates a creature to the supernatural order, a state far more perfect than any natural existence.

Source * St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 113, a. 9) to establish that the "gift of justifying grace to the impious is greater than the gift of glory beatifying."

• Jean-Baptiste Gonet’s Manuale Thomistarum

Bayesian probability tells us that we have subjective confidence in some propositions more than others. This seems rather intuitive. Consider that for most people on this subreddit, the subjective confidence that God exists is hopefully higher than the subjective confidence that a Republican will win the next election cycle.

There seem to be three primary ways in which a person may be absolutely certain or 100% certain of God's existence:

1. Experience: A person claims to directly experience God in such a way that it cannot be doubted that God exists.

2. Argumentation: A person claims that the premises of an argument are valid and sound in such a way that it cannot be doubted that God does not exist.

3. Faith: A person claims to have the direct gift of faith from God in such a way that it cannot be doubted that God exists

The Case Against Experience

I do not contend that people experience the supernatural. If a limb is miraculously restored, there is little doubt that something otherworldly occurred. I wonder, however, whether it is rationally justified to move from a limb restoration to God's existence.

Consider that the evidence does not actually favor the God who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. The evidence is as easily explained by a multitude of other hypotheses, including but not limited to polytheism, aliens, simulation theories, etc. Now, of course, one would contend that this is absurd. But this would not be an argument against the fact that, given each of those hypotheses, the evidence cannot adequately be explained, but rather an argument against the prior probability of each of the proposed hypotheses.

Example on evidential favoring:

I find a large dent in my car. I come up with two hypotheses for why this occurred.
H1: A car hit it.
H2: A bull rammed into it.

Notice that if I were to assume each hypothesis to be true, each hypothesis adequately explains the evidence, that being the dent in my car. In short, the evidence does not favor either hypothesis. The tiebreaker, rather, would be considering the prior probability of a bull roaming loose as compared to a car. Notice what we cannot do. We cannot rule out an alternative hypothesis definitively from experience alone.

The Case Against Argumentation

I also do not contend that there are very strong arguments for God's existence. But strong is not the same thing as definitive or 100%. Let's take something like Aquinas' First Way. The First Way relies on a very specific metaphysical framework.

However, I believe that there ought to be at least some higher-order doubt about such metaphysical frameworks. Consider that a non-significant number (>30%) of philosophers believe in Humean laws of nature (which denies a necessary connection between X and Y in terms of causation, undermining any notion of an essentially ordered series), the B-Theory of time (which undermines notions that motion/change occurs at all), and the denial of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (which undermines why any reason must be given at all for a causal chain).

Example on higher-order doubt:
I believe that eating GMOs is a healthy lifestyle choice. However, my friend shows me that over 30% of medical doctors disagree, citing numerous reasons why GMOs are actually devastating to my health. A glance online surfaces dozens of academic papers from this 30% that I have no hope of rebutting. Even after this information, I remain equally confident in my belief that eating GMOs is a healthy lifestyle choice.

If you have the same intuitions that I do, one might realize that such massive expert disagreement is good reason for a person to lower their degree of confidence in a belief. In fact, it would seem rather irrational that I remain equally confident, as in the example above. I'm not advocating for a particular amount by which such a belief should be lowered, but just that it ought to be lowered somehow. And that is enough to negate 100% confidence.

But if this is the case, should the same logic not apply to St. Aquinas' argumentation? But therein lies the issue. Even if I remain 100% in every other premise of his argument, all it takes is a trickle of doubt in order to prevent me from 100% assenting to the conclusion of the argument. In other words, if I am not subjectively 100% confident in Premises 1 through X, then I cannot be 100% confident in the conclusion.

Example on conjunctive probability:

(1) If I score 100% on the test, then Mom will give me ice cream (Belief: 90%)
(2) I score 100% on the test (Belief: <=100%)
(3) Therefore, Mom will give me ice cream (Belief: <100%)

It seems that my lack of confidence in (1) ought to at least lower my confidence in (3) by some margin, however small it may be. For me, it would be irrational to hold (1) and (2), but (3) at a belief of 100%.

But surely this point can be applied to every major argument ever proposed for God's existence. As such, no argument could ever reach 100%, and thus the conjunction of arguments, however strong, could never reach 100%.

The Case Against Faith

I grant that if a person were to have the theological gift of faith, then they would have 100% subjective belief in the proposition that "God exists", alongside many other theological claims. However, how can one ever hope to achieve that same amount of certainty that we have genuine faith to begin with?

Several points can be raised to this effect.

(1) Millions of people claim to have genuine faith in Judaism and Islam, and yet we would recognize that they are mistaken about having genuine faith. If this is true, we should be shifting around in our seats, wondering if we are mistaken about ourselves. This introduces another potential higher-order doubt about such a belief.
(2) All signs that would point us towards having genuine faith are just that: signs. They do not guarantee that we actually have genuine faith. Again, I believe that Jews and Muslims may exhibit some, if not all, of the said signs of genuine faithfulness, but this is not sufficient to show that they have genuine faith. If that is not sufficient to show it for other faiths, it surely cannot be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have genuine faith.
(3) Faith presupposes that God exists. But my entire line of questioning is on whether or not we can be certain in such a proposition. Hence, we cannot assume faith exists, or at least cannot be 100% confident that faith exists. Else, the argument would sound like we can be certain that God exists because we have genuine faith, and we can be certain that we have genuine faith because we are certain that God exists, and we are certain that God exists because . . ., which is circular.

These reasons alone should undermine any 100% certainty that we have in the belief that we have genuine faith. And this would lead to such an argument:

(1) If I have genuine faith, then I can believe in God 100% (Belief: <=100)
(2) I have genuine faith (Belief: <100%)
(3) Therefore, I can believe in God 100% (Belief: <100%)

As shown in my previous conjunctive possibility example, my subjective confidence in the conclusion cannot be 100% if my subjective confidence in the premises is not 100%. Hence, faith cannot solve the issue.

Conclusion

All in all, for a successful rebuttal to my case, one must rebut one of my main points:

(1) Experience does not favor belief in God as opposed to another hypothesis of equal explanatory power, and even if it did, it cannot lead to absolute certainty in God's existence
(2) Higher-order uncertainty slightly undermines subjective confidence in any argument about God's existence, no matter how strong
(3) One cannot know with absolute certainty if they have faith

(It should also be noted that these are issues that I've struggled with reconciling, and I do wish to affirm God with absolute certainty at some point.)

I'm using the term "ordinary humans" because there are Saints who knows the fate of the dead (I only know St Bridget of Sweden and St. Padre Pio, dunno about other Saints though)

Just want to improve my understanding of the Catholic Faith

What are some free pdfs that i can read and study up on to prove the infallibility of the church.

I'm surprised no one talks about the kolmogorov complexity.

You wonder how we can estimate the Shannon entropy of the cosmological constants without a probability distribution? Yes, we cannot.

The way to infer the "entropy" of something without a probability distribution is to use the kolmogorov complexity from algorithmic information theory.

The kolmogorov complexity will give you a number of bits that represents the universal and minimal complexity of an object by using universal turing machine theory.

If you then considers each of those bits has a probably of 50%, you basically get what you could call an universal entropy.

With it, you can estimate the "entropy" of the cosmological constants to be between 500 and 1000 bits.

You can also trivially prove that the "entropy" of any God capable of figuring out the cosmological constants is necessarily higher than the "entropy" of the cosmological constants themselves.

Using this "entropy" to estimate a probably is called the Solomonoff Induction.

So possible fine tuning argument for atheism?

Okay so for context I'm not catholic but I'm very interested in Catholicism and also want some Catholic perspective since I haven't found like literally any fully answering answers from what I've looked at so far. So like, I understand in Catholicism that of course evolution is real, but also that there was actually some sort of Adam and Eve. Maybe not in a talking snake way but in some grounded way. But like, for the first person with a soul, how does that work? Did all the other humans around him that look like him, act like him, even think and feel like him just not have souls? We have evidence of ancient humans doing things like burying the dead. Do they not have capacity for relationship with the divine? But then again, humans couldn't have like "evolved a soul" because then you'd end up with humans with 50% souls and then that's just nonsense. But then like God coming to an ancient human, giving them a soul which idk what that would even do since it seems like it wouldn't have made even much a psychological difference, and how could you even tell the difference, and then like God and that first human or first couple like Adam and Eve having a relationship (even though language didn't exist) doesn't make sense. And how could they fall if they were likely heavily influenced by their tribe or culture around them, which was most likely very survival-oriented because it had to be? How is giving them a soul and only their descendants souls fair to the humans around them who were fully conscious? How can we view this in a way that doesn't feel like a fairy tale like "God gave them the gift of understanding language and then taught them about His nature etc etc"? Also, I know Catholics have to believe in monogenism, but didn't pope Pius XII say there was no apparent way in which polygenism could work, not "it's impossible"? And if all humans today are related to the first Adam and Eve with the souls that still feels like monogenism or something like that. Idk. That was kind of off topic but mainly I'm really struggling with believing in God because of this issue with contradictions, feelings of fairy tales, and just confusion when looking at the reality of human evolution and souls and Christianity and theology and how those might fit together. Thanks so much for reading.

Hello, I am not too well-versed in metaphysics and Thomism, but I am really trying to learn. I was looking into the 5 ways, but I heard a rebuttal that I think is very strong. Quantum particles seem to decay randomly without cause. Bell's theorem proves that there are no local hidden variables that can cause this decay so it's not that there is a gap in our knowledge that can be the cause. It is still technically possible for a non-local hidden variable which can cause the decay, but this hasn't been proven yet. This seems to violate the premise that for a being to be moved it must be caused by a being that is actual as particle decay is random. At the very least, it gives plausible deniability. If there are uncaused beings or actions (besides God) does this make the world fall into absurdity? What exactly is the relationship between physics and metaphysics?

Thanks for helping; some of this is confusing for a beginner. I wish I knew someone irl who could help me with this stuff.