Total posts: 332
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Not what you posted.
It is actually the same as what I posted but in different words. I was using the words of St. Thomas Aquinas there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Jesus was the second person who appeared in human form and could be seen and touched.
So did he suddenly lose being the Second Person when he became human?
There is this teaching that is in all the basic catechisms called the Hypostatic union. It means the Second Person of the Trinity took on a human nature and was hypostatically united into one person. It does not mean he lost his divinity.
The three were equal in nature, meaning equally important in their roles.
That is not what the church means when She says "equal in nature". Where did you get such an idea? have you actually studied this or are you trying to make up your own understanding?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I said:
They are the same Substantially.
Meaning they are of the same nature. That quote is directly from the Summa Theologica. That is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.
I then said:
They are not the same person.
meaning that we cannot say The Father is the Son, The Son is the Holy Spirit, etc. That is also directly from the Summa Theologica. That is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Nature is not the same thing as personhood. They are two different things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
That would add up to 3 Gods The Father, son and Holy Spirit.
No it does not.
The term "God" refers to the nature of the Trinity, which is one nature, ergo one God. If all have the same nature, which you have agreed with, then all can be predicated of that nature. i.e. we can say each one is God.
That is what the Church teaches. Look it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
equal in nature, power, and glory with the Father and the Son,
Which means The Second Person is a spirit. Use a little logic in what you are saying. If He is equal in nature then he is a spirit.
The Second Person of the Trinity is Jesus Christ Incarnate. You most certainly can say that Jesus Christ in His divine nature is a spirit.
Created:
Posted in:
Matthew 28, 19 gives us the Trinity.
"Go forth baptizing them in the name of the Father and of The Son and of the Holy Spirit."
It is the teaching of theologians who have studied this, that these three are Persons. The Third Person is the Holy Spirit because of His procession from The First and Second Person.
It is the terminology they use to help describe what is going on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
How is the sentence implying sameness?
Because words mean something.
When you give a singular idea and use it singularly to attribute it to two things, you get sameness.
That is how it works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
That would add up to 3 Gods The Father, son and Holy Spirit.But that goes against Christians worshipping a single God as in Monotheism.
No it does not.
The term "God" refers to the nature of the Trinity which is of 3 Persons. That is what I said and how I said it above in the post you quoted is how St. Thomas Aquinas presents it.
Have you actually studied this? It seems to me you don't quite understand what The Catholic Church actually teaches.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
You contradict yourself here.First you claim Holy Spirit" is a term we use to mean the Third person of the Trinity.Then you split the word Holy and Spirit to describe each person. But the term is used to describe the Third person of the Trinity. The father, the son and the Holy Spirit.
Do you how logic works? There is this thing called the siginificatio in logic. It is the thing we are talking about. The same words can be used to talk about different things.
For example: I can describe the Congress as united. I can say someone who is tired is in a certain state of being. But if I say "United States", we all know I am speaking of the country, not a bunch of tired Representitives.
The name we attribute to the Third Person is "Holy Spirit"
The word "holy" is also an adjective and can be used to describe each Person.
The word "spirit" is a noun and is an attribute of all 3 Persons.
The two words together "Holy Spirit" is simply how we refer to the Third Person.
Different significatio. Does that clear it up? This really isn't that hard to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I am not saying you are wrong to use the masculine pronoun.
I am saying you are wrong to use it to refer to two Persons of the Trinity in the same sentence, which can imply sameness.
I am pointing out what is an ambiguity that the Catholic Church was quite adamant about making clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
My statement does not imply sameness between two persons,So god is a spirit, he appears to us as the Holy Spirit, he also appeared to us as Jesus.
"He" is singular. You are using it here to mean The Holy Spirit and Jesus. Just like the Modalists did. Using it as the antecedent of "God" makes it ambiguous based on a true understanding of the notion of the Trinity. You need to be more clear.
This is basic grammar and use of words. This is why the Catholic Church is so particular about what words you use.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
This is what traps the trinitarians in their twisted up doctrine.
Actually it shows you cannot understand distinction between the concepts we are talking about here.
I'm not surprised. You do that in your debates too.
Let me make it clear to you: "Holy Spirit" is a term we use to mean the Third person of the Trinity.
"Holy" and "Spirit" taken separately are words we can use to describe each Person.
Is it clear now? You are equivocating different concepts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is all one. … So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
Yes, I read that. I agree with that. It is the following statement I disagree with because of what it means:
So god is a spirit, he appears to us as the Holy Spirit, he also appeared to us as Jesus.
You here are using language that implies sameness between two persons. You have to be careful. It would be better to say it as "God is a Trinity of three Persons. God the Son became Man and The Holy Spirit is the Comforter or Paraclete."
Like I said, I do not think you intend heresy. But I think you are using language that is ambiguous and leads one to think that there is a sameness between two persons. That is why I brought in Modalism. That is the type of language they used when discussing this. You have to be careful how you say it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I agree they are God.
I never denied that.
I deny that each person is the same one person because that is what "God the Father appears to us as the Holy Spirit" means, which is what you said. To say that is to say that they are the same person which is wrong.
One God, 3 distinct Persons. Each Person is not the other.
Created:
Posted in:
That is not what St. Thomas Aquinas teaches.In fact he teaches the opposite and that these are not three but one God.St. Thomas Aquinas begins his teaching on the Trinity by asserting that "God is Father, God is Son, and God is Holy Spirit," and that these are not three but one God. Further, God's Word is also part of his existence. Aquinas calls speech the offspring of the intellect, which he conceives as its father.
I never said they were not God. I said they are not each other.
St. Thomas is very clear in De Trinitate. The term "God" refers to the Nature of the Trinity and is a term applied to the three Persons, who are distinct persons, meaning not each other.
Have you actually studied this? To say God the Father is God the Holy Spirit is explicitly condemned. The Church Fathers condemned it.
What you assert is called modalism. It was condemned in the early Church by the Church Fathers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Is God the Father God the Holy Spirit?
The answer to this is no, as clearly stated by St. Thomas Aquinas, The Council of Trent and the Magisterium of the Church.
The First Person of the Trinity is not The Third Person of the Trinity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
What I said is the teaching of the Catholic Church according to Her dogmatic Theology following the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Go read: Divinum illud munus. By Leo XIII.
I have no idea where you are getting your explanation from. It is most certainly not what the Catholic Church teaches.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I answered the question as I understood it.
You asked: Is Father God the Holy Spirit?
I said no, because The Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity, not the First Person who is the God the Father.
You then said that I blasphemed because you thought I said that The Father is not holy nor a spirit.
Do you see the problem with your question? It is not a simple question as you seem to think.
Words mean something. When we are speaking of the Trinity it is important what words we are using and how we are using them.
So, ask the question, clearly expressing what you want to know. If it helps, here is how you could ask them:
1. Is God the Father God the Holy Spirit?
Or
2. Is God the Father a spirit and holy?
Both of those questions can be understood in what you asked. So be clear, especially since you seem to be willing to throw around some serious accusations like saying someone blasphemed.
If you can't be clear because you don't understand English or you have a terrible translator, then don't expect any constructive conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
You do know we call the Third Person of the Trinity the Holy Spirit, right?
Yes, God the Father is holy and a spirit. So, in english which I am not convinced you speak and understand very well, we would say that God the Father is holy and a spirit.
Yes, God the Father is holy and a spirit. So, in english which I am not convinced you speak and understand very well, we would say that God the Father is holy and a spirit.
To say that God the Father is God the Holy Spirit is wrong. So, I did not blaspheme.
Maybe make your questions more clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
They are the same Substantially.
They are not the same person.
All are God. Each one is God. But they are not each other. We cannot say the Father appears as the Holy Spirit. That would imply they are the same Person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
God is a spirit, he appears to us as the Holy Spirit.
No He does not. That would mean the Person if the Father is the same as the Person of the Holy Ghost, which is heresy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I believe you. Notice, I don't think you are obstinate heretic. But what you said about the Trinity is not what the Catholic Church says.
St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Teologica can give you a much better explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Is there anyone here that can defend it?Is there any one here that can debate it?
I don't speak for protestants, but the Catholic Church merely only shows how what was revealed about it is not unreasonable. She does not attempt to give an explanation to understand it since She holds it as a Mystery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Your assertion that a fetus or fetus baby is a "slave" is evidence my comments above. A slighted digression into illogical lack of common sense and critical thinking.
Do you understand English?!?!?!?
I did not assert that! That is what I said is confusing about what you are saying! You called the fetus a "human" and "property" which is what we call slave. Do you understand what I am saying?!?!?!?
Most of biologic life reality is about relative truths, and you show how black and white your pathways of thought.
I am not on the level of relation here. I am on the level of whatness. Whatness is not relative. A thing is what it is. That is the level I am on here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You have unwittingly proven my whole point. You give several times a crappy definition that I already dismissed as a bad definition and you keep trying to insist on it without clarifying anything on it.
It seems to me you don't quite know what you are talking about. You call the fertilized egg a "human" and "property" which makes the fetus sound like a slave. I don't think anyone with any common sense or critical thinking skills takes that seriously.
I'm sorry, but I don't see any point in discussing this with you anymore. You have chosen to be unclear and only repeat without explaining anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
You are correct. He does not get it. Look at his post number 67. He is proving my point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Then you confused about the mind game your playing. Go my post #6 and copy any comment that is not clearly stated, as you suggest.
Ok, lets have a look.
Fetus/baby is a temporary organism of the pregnant woman.
the whole question greyparrot presented in this thread is about personhood. He even named the thread that. Here you are speaking of a fetus/Baby as a temporary organism. You then make the comparison to a man's gonads:
Is a mans gonads his ' property '? Of course, depending how legal system defines property.
Making any person wonder if you actually even know logic and the requirements to make comparisons in a logical setting. A gonad is nowhere near the same thing as a fetus. different functions, different types of tissue, etc. It is confusing that you are throwing together a bunch of different things to draw comparisons that do not exist and frankly have nothing to do with the central idea at hand: personhood.
Are any organs of any humans their personal ' property ', of course they are, depending on legal definitions of property.
Nobody with any logic says a fetus is an organ according to the medical definition of it. Why is this relevant to the topic at hand? Even in the context of property, which is not really the question here, you are still attributing to a fetus what anybody with any logical and critical thinking skills would say has nothing to do with the fetus. Like I said, without knowing what you are talking about, i.e. a definition, how can you say anything logical at all? All you have done is prove my point.
Virtual rape stems from religious patriarchal systems of thought, not from spiritually based 1st principles.
That is most certainly debatable, and what is "spiritually based 1st principles"?
Do no harm to self or others, without their consent, except in cases of self defense,
So as long as someone gives me consent to murder them, I am acting perfectly moral? Morality is not based on what an individual thinks is right. It is based on the nature of actions and consequences that follow. Do you seriously think anyone in a court of law would get away with murder if they say: "He said I could do it."?
protect personal property and that begins with the human organism { organs of the humans } and all of the atoms, molecules etc that compose the human organism,
Once again, because you cannot define and consequently think logically, you are throwing together unrelated things to try and prove a point that ultimately proves nothing. There is this axiom in philosophy that goes: He who proves too much, proves nothing. It means you dodge the question with irrelevant points that you ultimately miss the main point entirely.
independent sovereign nations, is dumb way forward for humanity.
That is debatable, and you give no reason why and this has nothing to do with personhood as this thread is discussing here. Once again you are totally missing the point.
Did you ever attempt even attempt to look at a dictionary.
Just because a dictionary has a definition for it does not mean it is a good definition. Maybe if you could think critically you would realize that "personhood: having the quality of being a person" is a horrible definition because all it says is "personhood= personhood". I am not being lazy when I ask for a good definition. If I was lazy I would just take the definition you got from google and use that.
What percentage of philosophy revolves around people playing mind games, semantics etc.
Arguing to define something is a critical part of philosophy. Unless you want to say that all the philosophers who spend hours trying to arrive at solid definitions in order to properly reason about something and make a proper judgement of it, are lazy, I would suggest you study and think about it a little bit more than what you have. Also, I do not think philosophy is semantics. That is more something that happens in law. Philosophy is the science of reason. What a thing is, is the basis of reason. Without it you cannot say anything with a proper judgement. Any solid logician and philosopher would say that.
Do you see what I am saying now? You can sit here all day and say that I am lacking logic and critical thinking and being lazy, but you are only dodging the question and frankly proving my point.
I am not trying to slam or burn you. But if you can't define and be clear then it is not worth talking to you. Definitions are important. Trying to define something is not being semantical, when you are trying to make a proper judgement of that thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Not really.
He is saying that me trying to define something is just playing mind games when the definition of something is the very basis to any logical and critical thinking about that thing.
I find it to be quite intellectually dishonest to avoid clearly defining what you are talking about and still trying to act like you are being perfectly logical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I am not playing mind games. I don't care for those. You are not being g clear because you are not answering the question.
If you don't know, it is fine to say you don't know. I admit it a difficult thing to define. But I do not think it is impossible.
Logic and critical thinking require knowing what a thing is to make a proper judgment of it. That is the very basis of all logic and critical thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Your line of thought stems from a denial of the very basis of logic and critical thinking.
Definitions tell us what the thing is. If we don't know what it is, how can we make any judgment of the morality of it? This is not a mind game. It is the whole point we are discussing here.
I do not think it is "virtual rape" as you call it, to judge if the morality of intentionally terminating a pregnancy prematurely is right or not.
The whole debate is whether or not what is in the womb is a human. We need a definition for that or we cannot make any judgment.
You are avoiding the question. What is the definition of personhood?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Is your definition of personhood:an independent individual
?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
. the state or fact of being a person.
A good definition will not use the word it is trying to define in its own definition. Person and personhood are synonymous when being defined.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
That is not a very good definition.
You basically just said "personhood is personhood."
You did not say anything to clarify what it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How do you define "personhood"?
I am not trying to be snarky or anything. I am genuinely curious as to how people define that.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Yes and the jews and muslims do not see Him as God. That means there are different ideas of God between them.
Even the God Abraham is seen differently among the three.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Paradoxically Judaism, Islam and Christianity worship the God of Abraham.
Do they though?
All three have very different ideas when it comes to God... especially when it comes to the question of Jesus Christ being God.
Created:
-->
@Hero1000
Christian values are based on theological principles which are incompatible with Islam as you pointed out. I agree that some values are the same but most certainly not all. So you cannot use them interchangeably.
Created:
-->
@Hero1000
On the contrary, even in its inception. Islam used reason to move people away from the folly of polytheism and blind tradition. Islam is also "the final message from God told to us by the prophet Mohammed". There is not a possibility, at least under true islam, for a new kind of "God says this.." to emerge. Maybe potentially new interpretations can emerge, but these get heavily challenged and debated within the Muslim community, with reason.
Do you have a reference for that?
You're making a false equivalence between Christian values and the values of Christian societies. Both true believer Christians and Muslims recognize theologically that Abraham was going to sacrifice his son. But neither true believer would kill his son because they had a dream and interpreted it as a message from...
Not really.
I am drawing a distinction between where their principles of morality come from, which I am saying are incompatible. They are not the same.
Not to mention the Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex agendi Which means, as you believe so also you pray and so also you act. Certain parts of the morality of Christendom comes from the theological facts that Jesus Christ is God, He resurrected, etc. Especially with the Catholic Church whose Sacraments evolve around those. They use reason to explain it. Those things are incompatible with the moral system of Islam. They would say to worship Jesus is idolatry; the Christians would not. That becomes a question of morality. That goes on a personal and societal level.
So you cannot logically make a blanket statement that they could use societal or even personal values interchangeably.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Accepting Christian’s values is accepting justification for African slavery, genocide and the Holocaust.
Your bio says you are Catholic...so....
Created:
-->
@Hero1000
If I were in the presence of true proper God fearing Christians, I do not believe I would be in danger of betraying my principles or the principles of my faith by behaving under their moral standards. And I believe the same would be true with the roles reversed as well.
Uh...no.
The moral values of Islam are incompatible with any serious Christian ideal.
Even in principle they are different. Real Christian values firstly come from reason and then from Divine Revelation. And to determine it is from Divine Revelation any real Christian will use reason. So, under the hypothetical case that "god" said to rape someone, a Christian would not do it because that is against reason.
Islam values come from "because Allah said I can do it." So as long as Allah said it.... Who determines he said it, idk. I have not read anything that shows Islam uses any good philosophy or reason to justify their moral principles. If you know of something please show it to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I became an Atheist when I was 12 and my 7 year old cousin just died from cancer.
I'm sorry to hear that. My condolences to you and their family.
'The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this. '_Albert Einstein 1954
I do think Einstein was a good scientist, and without him we would be far behind in science but... what does he have to do with religion? I do not think he knew as much as he could have about religion. He was a scientist after all. I do not think he is any authority on religion. Period.
I look at those who actually claim to be religious and look at what they say.
Experts have their place. It is only intellectually honest to keep them there. If we don't, we end up agreeing with anybody who has any kind of "status" that says what we want them to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
This is why I am an Atheist.Prominent Christian televangelist and anti-vaccine advocate Marcus Lamb died after being hospitalized with Covid-19, his family announced.Lamb founded Christian television network Daystar Television Network in 1997.His wife Joni Lamb, announced the televangelist’s death on Daystar’s program streamed to Facebook. She said her husband had diabetes but was healthy and was hospitalized after being diagnosed with Covid-19.“He never talked about that, but he had diabetes, but he kept it in check. He was very healthy, he ate healthy, he kept his weight down, and always kept his sugar at a good level. But with trying to treat Covid and the pneumonia, the different protocols that are used, including many of the protocols we talked about here on Daystar, and we used those, and I used them and breezed through Covid.
You are an atheist because some wacko, who happens to believe in Jesus, is anti-science? I am a little confused... Not all Christians are like that... I am personally Catholic and I love science!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Cause: That which influences a being in anyway whatsoever.
This means that there are different types of causes and different degrees of them. Some more powerful than others and some more necessary than others.
effect: The determined result of the action of a cause
This means that without a cause there is no effect. Cause is an essential part to the definition of effect.
Principle: That from which something proceeds in anyway whatsoever.
This is not necessarily a cause, but it can be. The reason for this distinction is that a principle will never have a cause ad initio (ad initio means we look at it as a beginning and not necessarily as the beginning.)
Knowledge: Union of forms.
This definition is one of jargon. A form is "what the thing is" This does mean knowledge is some morphing of two things but rather two things that are united "side by side" so to speak, like two friends are "one thing" that we call friendship.
Free will: The rational appetite.
This one is also a jargon definition. Rational means it belongs to one with reason. One who can deduce or induce knowledge. "Free" is actually included in rational since by definition rationality means we can see, know and act on causes. appetite is a tendency towards something. Which means you need something to tend towards in order to elicit an act of free will.
Being: That which is.
This definition means that "being" is analogous. Meaning it has one common definition that can be used in various ways. For example: white does not exist the same way that a tree does. There are different ways to be.
Real: That which exists outside the knowing mind.
Which means you do not need knowledge of it for it to exist.
reality: The real as understood in the mind.
This is different from the above "real" because it does require you to have some knowledge of something in order for it to exist. So the tree in my backyard is real and its reality is in my mind and the real tree causes it to be a reality in my mind. Notice this very subtle difference. I do not use reality the same way many others do.
truth: Being as it is in the mind.
This is not much different from "reality" the nuanced difference is that "being" here is a more universal meaning and not the particular like "reality" So it is a broader concept.
goodness: Being as it is in the real.
This one is in comparison to truth, and it is important for understanding the question of evil...
true: The quality of a thing to be real.
This means we use this word to describe something that is outside the mind.
Good: Actual positive existence.
This definition means that everything that has existence is a good thing. You might ask about a tornado or hurricane. Those things of themselves are good, but their effect is not, at least in some aspects.
beauty: The good as known and pondered upon.
I like defining this one as this because it shows that contemplation of something is to see the good in it. Hence one can contemplate a violent storm and still see some good in it. I also think it is a remedy to many mental health problems that modern day people might have. But this is only an opinion and not really something I am looking to debate. But I will discuss it in a PM if you want.
evil: Lack of a due good.
This does not mean that simply because there is a lack of good there is evil. No! a diet is a lack of certain foods yet is certainly a good thing sometimes.
nature: The action and process of a thing to its end.
This means that nature has to do with purpose. There are a few ways to understand purpose which I can explain further if asked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Do you know what the conditions are for infallibility?
Do you know how many times the Church has actually infallibly defined something?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
A very interesting question.
I have only seen the first movie, but thinking about it I would say that if you think that morality is based on truth, and a person is moral when they know the truth, (like when a kid is taking apples from his neighbors tree, because he does not know better) and truth is only found in a true world, then a truly moral person can only live in a true world.
It does then seem (with this idea of morality) that there is no morality within the matrix, since at best it is a representation of the truth and not the truth itself. It does make you wonder though, then, if a person within the Matrix did say, murder an innocent person, would he have committed a crime that he is guilty of?
A very interesting conundrum.
Created:
Posted in:
After a recent conversation with 3RU7AL, I have decided I would like to start a thread that discusses a very important aspect, not only to philosophy, but also debating as well. An aspect that I think will help clear up some various confusions that I have, at least, encountered while reading other threads.
This important aspect of course is definitions. Without definitions, a conversation can become pure semantics with each side babbling and misunderstanding each other.
And so, to help get a better idea of your understanding, my dear friends on debateart, I would like to ask, if you bother with the time, to define certain words that are very relevant to any philosophical discussion and why you think that is the/a good definition.
If you think a word does not have a definition, per se, but is rather a multi-meaning word, please explain away. I am all for analogous words.
Of course, I would prefer this thread be for peoples individual philosophical definitions and as such, I do not intend for debates to happen here, even though I am perfectly willing to bring it to an actual debate.
With that said, here is the list I would ask for from you ladies and gentlemen:
Cause
effect
Principle
Knowledge
Will (or if you think as such: free will, determined will, etc...)
Being
Real
reality
truth
goodness
true
good (If you think these go in with their abstract counterparts, fine with me. Some poeple do not think so...)
beauty
evil
nature
I understand this is not an exhaustive list. If you wish to add more words that you think are important, by all means, please add it. I would love to read it.
I also understand that it is very difficult to cram philosophy into such little spaces. I think participation in this thread will ultimately just be to simply explain better if someone has a question about your definition. THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR DEBATING DEFINITIONS. IT IS ULTIMATELY JUST TO KNOW WHAT SOMEONE THINKS A CERTAIN, VERY COMMON, PHILOSOPHICAL WORD MEANS.
With that my dear friends, answer away! I will be back in August to see what you have written.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
this statement means nothing
No. It definitely means something.
"intellect" is fully causedand"will" is also fully causedandyour ability to imagine "possibilities"is fully caused
You are not even addressing what I am saying in this post.
this appears to be a distinction without a difference
There is a difference between the thing itself and its relation to other things.
Created: