tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post8370958297928760123..comments2023-10-24T03:33:39.613-05:00Comments on Bethel Philosophy Blog: Jonathan Edwards on original sinUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-47902656587151054932008-07-16T08:40:00.000-05:002008-07-16T08:40:00.000-05:00About Descartes this ambiguity between pantheism a...About Descartes this ambiguity between pantheism and dualism, the last one being used in the fourth part with the 2 substances which are defined by extent and thought, can be understood as done by will. This because if he did write at the beginning of the 5th part that he did never use an other principle in order to prove the existence of God and soul than the one used in the 4th part, he did notSerge Le Coz L'Eternelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07223106494481146426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-79126795369783444452008-07-14T08:31:00.000-05:002008-07-14T08:31:00.000-05:00For the way to pantheism I can add this quotation ...For the way to pantheism I can add this quotation of Descartes in the part 5 of the “Discourse of the method” :<BR/>…Even, in order to moderate a bit all these things, and be able to express more freely what I was deeming about it, without to have neither to follow nor to refute the opinions which are received among the learned, I determined myself to leave all this world here with their Serge Le Coz L'Eternelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07223106494481146426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-4165268965431356322008-07-12T04:11:00.000-05:002008-07-12T04:11:00.000-05:00This is the point Geoffrey Gorham.This is the point Geoffrey Gorham.Serge Le Coz L'Eternelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07223106494481146426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-35593445249248786882008-07-11T09:28:00.000-05:002008-07-11T09:28:00.000-05:00Good point, Cartesian. But I'm not sure Descartes ...Good point, Cartesian. But I'm not sure Descartes would want to deny the Christian doctrine that God creates ex nihilo (at least at the beginning). But I think all this has to mean is that the world is not made 'from' or out of something pre-existing apart from God (e.g. prime matter). Indeed, this seems to be how Descartes means it when he explains to Burman that bringing something into being Geoffrey Gorhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08549731175053629509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-68601770137129876972008-07-11T08:30:00.000-05:002008-07-11T08:30:00.000-05:00Hello, There can be confusion by writing : “Each ...Hello,<BR/><BR/> There can be confusion by writing : “Each moment is God’s (re)creating out of nothing the entire space-time reality”. Because Descartes did write that it is not possible to create anything from nothing (see 4th part of “The discourse of the method”), this being due to the fact that what we find in the effect is coming from the cause(s). Thus it is better to write that at each Serge Le Coz L'Eternelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07223106494481146426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-39053153277544223572008-07-07T14:10:00.000-05:002008-07-07T14:10:00.000-05:00Doesn't making identity depend entirely on arbitra...Doesn't making identity depend entirely on arbitrary divine fiat undermine the point of his four-dimensional picture of original sin? The idea was that we share in Adam's guilt because we are both parts of one 4-D object. But when we ask why this should be regarded as one object, the answer is 'because God makes identity'. Is this any more illuminating an explanation for original sin than simply Geoffrey Gorhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08549731175053629509noreply@blogger.com