Transubstantiation

[Benedict]

Consubstantiation is the belief that Christ is present in, with, and under the substance of the bread and wine.

In transubstantiation, the bread and wine are wholly replaced by the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

In consubstantiation, the bread and wine remain alongside the real presence.

[phatcatholic]

can someone explain how matter does not exist physically? thanks

[Pio Nono]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jan 2 2005, 03:11 AM'] can someone explain how matter does not exist physically? thanks [/quote]
JMJ
1/2 - St. Basil the Great

phatcatholic -

It's not matter in the scientific sense, but the philosophic sense. Prime matter is the basic "stuff" that can be made into anything. Thus, it is said that prime matter is "potentially everything but actually nothing." Prime matter always sits in potency, but as soon as it is actualized it loses total potency - this sounds awful convoluted, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Therefore, prime matter doesn't [i]actually[/i] exist, but it [i]potentially[/i] exists.

It's comparable to embryonic stem cells, to a degree. Those kinds of cells, if I remember right, are called "totipotent" - they can become any kind of cell in the body. Once they become a certain type of cell, though, they lose their totipotent character. Prime matter is the same way - it's "totipotent" until it actually becomes something.

I'm just being confusing now.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]It's not matter in the scientific sense, but the philosophic sense[/quote]

I think it is imprtant to state that science is a philosophy, it is one that has often been hostile to the Scholastic tradition, I tell my students regularly " remember science is about finding the Facts, not finding the Truth, those are not the same thing" but you have to understand until rescently the philosophy of science rejected the aristotilian ideas of matter but now theoretical Physics is grasping at the same ideas, they are coming from a differant direction, a far inferior one, but they are finally reaching the same conclusions, we should be hppy about this, it means that we might have some friends among our long time enemies.

[Phatmasser777]

Lol. That is really screwed up science.

"physical properties do not change but it's substance does."

Substances..What do you think the physical properties make up!!

oy.

Nice try, but science proves all that stuff very wrong and impossible.

[Pio Nono]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Jan 2 2005, 06:21 AM'] Lol. That is really screwed up science.

"physical properties do not change but it's substance does."

Substances..What do you think the physical properties make up!!

oy.

Nice try, but science proves all that stuff very wrong and impossible. [/quote]
JMJ
1/2 - St. Basil the Great

Your objection is why I attacked the argument to begin with - the way philosophers use the word "substance" and the way that scientists use the world "substance" are two different ways. You might as well be calling one "red" and another "green."

Physical substances are indeed that, physical substances - carbon, boron, radon, helium, potassium, &c. [i]ad nauseam[/i].

Philosophical substances are entirely different from that idea. A philosophical substance is that which makes a thing what it is - it is that thing which differentiates an elm tree from an oak and a fish from a dog. Aristotle saw your objection to the idea of universal categories (since everything is made up of the Elements) by positing substantial forms, which is what many metaphysicians ascribe to today.

There has been a shift in recent years (since the French Revolution) away from the idea of substantial form, but it is gaining popularity once again. The problem with rejecting universals is that one cannot speak coherently - one cannot say, "That's a dog," and mean anything, since it assumes that there are other dogs in the world. Instead of being something, a creature would just possess a bunch of properties - and since being predicates possessing, our language must reference a reality that has universal categories and substantial forms.

[Phatmasser777]

That makes absolutely no sound theory in science. You cant combine science with philosphy, giving a meaning to it thru science and add another thru philosphy.

You started off with talking about PHYSICS, but now you are trying to put a philosphical substance meaning into it.

Keep Science with Science, Philosphy with Philosphy.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Jan 2 2005, 07:17 AM'] You cant combine science with philosphy.... Keep Science with Science, Philosphy with Philosphy. [/quote]

You think you can have science without philosophy? :haha:

Come on, now!

[Pio Nono]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Jan 2 2005, 07:17 AM'] That makes absolutely no sound theory in science. You cant combine science with philosphy, giving a meaning to it thru science and add another thru philosphy.

You started off with talking about PHYSICS, but now you are trying to put a philosphical substance meaning into it.

Keep Science with Science, Philosphy with Philosphy. [/quote]
JMJ
1/2 - St. Basil the Great

You're missing the point.

It doesn't HAVE to make sense in science because I'm not talking about physics - HE'S talking about physics, and I'm trying to say that it doesn't work.

That thing which makes a dog a dog, a tree a tree, a fish a fish and a man a man is not something physical, but something [i]metaphysical[/i]. These issues eventually become scientific (in a specific way), and what's why we have a field called the philosophy of science.

You also seem to have an operating assumption that seems to run something like, "If it does not make sense in science, then it cannot be true." I defy you to prove that scientifically.

You, sir, do not comprehend the argument - you are the one who is in the wrong. Keep your biases to yourself and examine the argument.

[Don John of Austria]

Phatmasser777 Science is a philosophy nothing more, it doesn't have any more claim on Truth than anyother Philosophy, if you understood science you would know that, secondly according to Science substance has nothing to do with physical properties NOTHING AT ALL, physical properties and Chemical Properties are totally results of structure, according to physics ALL things are made up of the same basic " matter" and it is the arangement of these materials that fives them their properties. ( I would say form but the dedicated moderate Realist on the thread would be upset.)

[Pio Nono]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jan 2 2005, 01:50 PM'] Phatmasser777 Science is a philosophy nothing more, it doesn't have any more claim on Truth than anyother Philosophy, if you understood science you would know that, secondly according to Science substance has nothing to do with physical properties NOTHING AT ALL, physical properties and Chemical Properties are totally results of structure, according to physics ALL things are made up of the same basic " matter" and it is the arangement of these materials that fives them their properties. ( I would say form but the dedicated moderate Realist on the thread would be upset.) [/quote]
JMJ
1/2 - St. Basil the Great

You can say it, so long as we understand we're using different terms.

I'm a neo-Thomist, what can I do?

[Don John of Austria]

No I understand Moderate realist metaphysics, I don't even disagree with them, I simply think the philosophy of science is finally grasping at the same Truths.

[Phatmasser777]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 2 2005, 07:30 AM']
You think you can have science without philosophy? :haha:

Come on, now! [/quote]
I dont think I KNOW.

Philosphy has no place in science, since science is fact philosphy is theory (not the same as the Scientific Theory!)

[Pio Nono]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Jan 2 2005, 10:53 PM'] I dont think I KNOW.

Philosphy has no place in science, since science is fact philosphy is theory (not the same as the Scientific Theory!) [/quote]
JMJ
1/3 - Second Monday of Christmastide

Are you going to construct an argument for your assertion, or are you just going to take a shotgun to the argument? If you want to be taken seriously here, show me your argument. Otherwise, shut it.

[cathqat]

Nonsense. It is impossible to engage in any form of science without philosophical presuppositions. You would not even bother to study bees or gravity, for example, if you did not presuppose [i]that they are intelligible[/i] in some way. And that's just the beginning!

It is impossible to do anything without philosophical presuppositions. This is why it is so crucial that scientists be aware what their philosophical presuppositions are, and question and examine them.