There can be an empty set of things which “necessarily exist” and the set (though it is empty, like an empty bag), still exists itself. Is this meant to be like Aquinas’ “third way”? Perhaps link people to that
1. Can you have an empty set? Can you imagine any category, which does not have any corresponding thing in that category (at least conceptually)? If so, give me an example. (I don’t mean that to sound combative, I’m actually curious, because I can’t think of one, but I wonder if that’s just a fact of my own limited imagination.)
2. Is saying, “there is no necessarily existent thing” just a rephrasing of “Necessarily existent things do not exist?” If so, don’t you get trapped in the contradiction described above? (Again, seriously interested in your thoughts because I really want to know if this proof checks out.)
I have so much respect for people who believe in God (or god, or goddess, or gods and goddesses, etc.). I may not have the same beliefs as them, and may support science over their thoughts on the way the universe works, but honestly. To have that much faith and heart and passion towards something that is meant to instill hope, love, compassion and forgiveness makes a person beautiful to me. At the end of the day, no one really actually knows how everything works, science seems to be factually correct and supportive of disputing religious beliefs, but who cares. Truth is subjective. Faith is heartwarming. I don’t know. I’ve just never found it okay to bluntly say to a religious person that they’re wrong. No one is right, whether you’re an atheist, a polytheist, a Christian, catholic, Buddhist, Jewish. No one. Religion has beautiful intentions at the core that I believe are pure and I respect those that actually follow any religion for those basic purposes. You all rock. You don’t rock if you think your beliefs are right over everyone else, whatever your beliefs may be.
Thank you writing this. It is nice to see someone, who though they claim no religious beliefs, sees good in others having them. An open mind like yours will serve you well.
Something I wanted to note is you said, “I may not have the same beliefs as them, and may support science over their thoughts on the way the universe works…” I just wanted to clarify that you can support science and be religious too. Religion, (at least, speaking from my Roman Catholic background) makes no claim as to how the material universe works. We recognize that that is not the role of religion, but the role of science. As Cardinal Baronius said, ”The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” (Galileo later quoted him.)
There are many Catholic scientists today, and Catholicism has always readily supported science, and some of the greatest scientists in history have been Catholics. Wikipedia actually has a list of Roman Catholic priests who have made significant contributions to science.
The Jesuits in particular have made numerous significant contributions to the development of science. For example, the Jesuits have dedicated significant study to earthquakes, and seismology has been described as “the Jesuit science.” The Jesuits have been described as “the single most important contributor to experimental physics in the seventeenth century.” According to Jonathan Wright in his book God’s Soldiers, by the eighteenth century the Jesuits had “contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light.
My reason for saying all this is simply to say, that if you are interested in religion, but feel that a strong appreciation for science prevents you from embracing it, please don’t feel that way. Science and religion can (and should) work together. As Albert Einstein said:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Meriam Ibrahim, the Christian woman who was spared a death sentence for apostasy and then barred from leaving Sudan, was welcomed by Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi in Rome on Thursday after intense international efforts to free her…She was released after intense diplomatic negotiations from the Italian government and the Vatican ended an ordeal that lasted almost a year.
The Vatican got involved. Did the Pope pull some strings and get this rescue done? I wouldn’t put it past him. Amazing that she is finally safe in a country where she cannot be arrested for following her faith, though. Thank God!
I have been staring at this part of the periodic table in a class for some time now. What kept hitting me was this TC in the middle. I didn’t know what TC stood for, but I know about the Tumblr Catholics. In the middle of all black letters was an unexpected set of white ones.
TC is a light in the darkness.
Finally tonight I asked my classmate, a science teacher, what TC was. He told me that the interesting thing about Technetium is that it is not found on earth. It was a sort of missing element that has only been found naturally coming from meteors or apart from Earth.
TC – The Tumblr Catholics : a light in the darkness that is not made for this world, but that attempts to fill the void left by the darkness and things of this world.
TC + My undying love for science and chemistry = this is just awesome.
Been a member for 3 years and I’ve never noticed that!
According to the Church, how far apart should two people be related to get married at a minimum? (Not that I or anyone I know is planning upon marring a close cousin, but I'm curious as to know this)
Paragraph 1 tells us that it is wrong for anyone to marry someone they are directly related to, ex. a parent, grandparent, great-grandparent, child, grand-child. That’s easy.
Paragraph 2 is more complicated. The Church uses a method of calculating relationships using degrees which we are not really used to. We usually say first cousin once removed and stuff like that. Luckily someone made a chart which can help us understand this:
Basically, the trick is to figure out how many people are involved in the relationship between two people (leaving out the common ancestor.)
So, in a relationship between Bob and Sarah who are brother and sister, there’s Bob and Sarah, and they are related because of their parents. But you leave out the parents because those are the common ancestor, so you have “2.” So you would say that there are two degrees between Bob and Sarah. Canon law would forbid that.
Bob and Sarah have a cousin named Joe. They are related because their Grandparents had at least two kids, Bob and Sarah’s parent, and Bob and Sarah’s parent’s sibling who would be Joe’s parent, and each parent had one kid with their spouse. So, count 1 Grandparent, 1 Parent, 1 Uncle/Aunt, 1 for Joe, and 1 for Bob and Sarah = 5 subtract one for the common ancestor (grandparent) and you get 4. Canon law forbids that as well.
So, the closest the Church allows marriages is the 5th degree of the collateral line which includes 1st cousins once removed (Your cousins’ kids or your 2nd cousins’ parents.) I suppose it would also include Great-Grand Nephew/Nieces, i.e. Your brother or sister’s great grandkids, but please, do not marry your brother or sister’s great grandkids.