Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves

Correspondence with Mrs. Vicki Gunn

Mrs. Vicki Gunn, CHP National Executive Director
(Source)

Table of contents

Stefan's attempt to summarize the debate
1) S. Jetchick (2008-July-01)
2) V. Gunn (2008-July-02)
3) S. Jetchick (2008-July-03)
4) V. Gunn (2008-July-08)
5) S. Jetchick (2008-July-14)
6) V. Gunn (2008-August-16)
7) S. Jetchick (2008-August-21)

0) Stefan's attempt to summarize the debate

1) S. Jetchick (2008-July-01)

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Jetchick
Sent: 1 juillet 2008 09:58
To: Vicki Gunn
Subject: RE: Info needed

Hello Vicki,

>> I have been talking to the Quebec Provincial President, Thomas
>> Sabourin, about translating our website

OK, before I invest a lot of my time donating free translations,
I need to make sure I'm not wasting my efforts.

In other words, I would like you to publicly weigh in on the
debate between Mr. Hnatiuk and I:

	Correspondence with Mr. James Hnatiuk (CHP Leadership Race)


This debate touches the very core of what the CHP is, and
as far as I know, Mr. Hnatiuk is the only candidate for
our new Leader. I don't know if I should say: "If he wins,
I'm out", but currently, I'm tempted to say that.

In Christ,

Stefan

2) V. Gunn (2008-July-02)

-----Original Message-----
From: Vicki Gunn
Sent: 2 juillet 2008 17:49
To: Stefan Jetchick
Subject: Re: Info needed

Hi Stefan

Please excuse me if I've missed the point but I am trying to respond
intelligently and today..... I don't feel very intelligent! LOL

I believe that God is the source of both faith and reason. Faith is
the foundation of our walk in Christ; it is the foundation of our
worldview. Reason is our understanding of the temporal world and its
rules.

In faith, we believe in God. While we could look at the reason we
believe in God and explain it using all of our reasoning skills to a
non-believer... even a clear sighted person of incredible reasoning
skills...  we cannot provide them with faith. Yet, they have the
ability to comprehend a reasoned discussion on temporal matters.

Scripturally speaking, if we look in Hebrews 11.....  By faith we
understand that the universe was formed at God's command.... This is
not by reason.  Reason would tell us that was impossible.

By faith Enoch was taken from this life so he did not experience
death.... This is not by reason. Reason would tell us that was
impossible. Etc.

Scripture also says, "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God""
(Ps 14:1 & Ps 53:1)

This does not exclude the fool's ability to reason. It does mean he's
a fool to not see the evidence which surrounds him and use his reason
to interpret the evidence that there is God.

That being said, I believe that our reason must be guided by our
faith, or we will end up going the way of the world.

My conclusion: Although reason should be grounded in faith, I do not
believe it is the foundation. I believe the foundation is God. On this
foundation is built all other things.

1 Corinthians 3:11 "For no one can lay any foundation other than the
one already laid, which is Jesus Christ."

On to the long version...

I would not vote in favour of adding this to the CHP Pledge because...

It establishes two types of Christians, those who can use reason to
prove and those who can't. The divisiveness of this would be noticed
when someone is labelled... "Oh, you're one of those who shouldn't do
apologetics. You can't defend your faith."

I would be leery of being classified as one of "those" and thus,
believe it or not, keep my big mouth shut! It would be similar to that
horrible charismatic discussion...  If you don't speak in tongues then
you're not a true Christian. Thus it places something measureable on
that which only God can know.

God did not gift us all the same. Those of us gifted with superior
reasoning should use it for the benefit of God and his people; those
of us gifted with hospitality should use it for the benefit of God's
people. Etc.

It appears to be a touting of one's reasoning skills and placing it
above other gifts.  1 Cor. 12.

This was a response which I gave to somebody who objected to the 5
principles. Perhaps, it will explain how I see them and explain why I
don't see your 6th as fitting in.

The CHP has 5 principles, all placing government under the authority of God.

The first one places all of the other principles in context... they
are under the authority of this God, not another God. We now have the
context of the other principles. This would be along the same lines as
contracts in Biblical times. "I am the LORD your God, who ..." It
establishes who God is.

With this established, we can go forward and lay out what principles
are being adhered to. If you take this away then you take it out of
the context of government as directed by both Old & New Testaments. We
now have one foundation laid.

This does not preclude other religions living a peace in Canada.
People of all religions have been made welcome under the Christian
foundation of this country. Western societies based in Biblical law
are the freest societies.

The second principle builds on the first. We have established which
God is above all gods for the CHP. No need to worry about Sharia Law,
that's not part of God; Father, Son & Holy Spirit. The Holy Bible is
the Word of God; Father, Son & Holy Spirit. That Word establishes what
the laws are.

The third principle builds further. We have now placed civil law under
God's law. Thus, no matter what the situation, Biblical Law will be
the measuring stick.

The fourth principle, establishes the mandate of civil government. It
is not to establish law, it is to ensure freedom and justice for
Canada's citizens by adhering to the principles stated in 1,2,3.

Canadians now are secure in: recognition of the Author of our
freedoms; what the law is.. the immovable standard; government's
placement in the established law; the purpose of government; finally
ensuring that government does not overstep its boundaries.

This is security for all Canadians.

Whew! Now I'd better get to work... I have a meeting in 1 hour and
haven't done the July Party Link yet! O_O

Thanks, Stefan, for asking me to defend what I believe.

Vicki

3) S. Jetchick (2008-July-03)

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Jetchick
Sent: 3 juillet 2008 16:06
To: Gunn, Vicki CHP
Subject: Can I post our correspondence?

Hi Vicki,

OK, now I have more time to respond (intelligently, I hope and pray!).
Sorry this e-mail is long, but as usual your e-mails are filled
with intelligent and true assertions, so I have to be very careful.


>> I believe that [§1.1] God is the source of both faith and reason.

Excellent start for an answer!


>> Faith is
>> the foundation of our walk in Christ; it is the foundation of our
>> worldview. Reason is our understanding of the temporal world and its
>> rules.

I can't find anything wrong with those statements. I can see
omissions, but I cannot find any errors.


>> In faith, we believe in God. While we could look at the reason we
>> believe in God and explain it using all of our reasoning skills to a
>> non-believer... even a clear sighted person of incredible reasoning
>> skills...  we cannot provide them with faith. Yet, they have the
>> ability to comprehend a reasoned discussion on temporal matters.

I can't find anything wrong with those statements either (even though
I can see omissions again).

When you say:  "... we cannot provide them with faith", you are
totally right. [§1.2] No logical argument can force anybody to become a
Christian. It is a grace of God. (But of course, good logical arguments
can remove many obstacles to conversion, and they can provide reasons to
believe, etc.)


>> Scripturally speaking, if we look in Hebrews 11...  By faith we
>> understand that the universe was formed at God's command... This is
>> not by reason. [§2.1] Reason would tell us that was impossible.

OK, first time I actually disagree with anything in this e-mail.

Reason can prove God's existence, and by "God" we mean an infinitely
good, infinitely wise, infinitely powerful being, i.e. the
Supreme Being. For all the gory details, see:

	The Proofs of God's Existence: Some Preliminary Groundwork


By definition, [§3.1] everything which doesn't involve a self-contradiction
(like a "square circle" or "dehydrated water") is possible to an
all-powerful being. The universe doesn't involve a
self-contradiction, therefore God can create it. We can figure this
out using only reason (and of course we can get to the same conclusion
by reading the Bible).


>> By faith Enoch was taken from this life so he did not experience
>> death... This is not by reason. [§2.2] Reason would tell us that was
>> impossible. Etc.

No. See above. [§3.2] Reason cannot prove that miracles WILL occur, but
reason can prove miracles COULD occur, IF an all-powerful Being
existed, a Being who could momentarily suspend the Laws of Nature
if He wanted. After all, He wrote those Laws to begin with!

Then, reason proves such a Being does exist.

Reason cannot possibly "deduce" the contents of the Bible. No matter
how hard you think, you cannot prove "mathematically" that some dude
called Enoch will experience this or that miracle. But reason can
prove that miracles are not absurd or impossible.


>> Scripture also says, "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God""
>> (Ps 14:1 & Ps 53:1)
>>
>> This does not exclude the fool's ability to reason. [§1.3] It does mean he's
>> a fool to not see the evidence which surrounds him and use his reason
>> to interpret the evidence that there is God.

Totally agree with you here.


>> That being said, I believe that our reason must be guided by our
>> faith, or we will end up going the way of the world.

AMEN!

As you know, it's not because I defend reason against the heresy
of Fideism, that I want to fall into the contrary heresy of
Rationalism! I clearly explain that, in some ways, Philosophy is
the work of the Devil. See Section 2 of

	A defense of Philosophy against arguments by some Evangelical Christians


>> My conclusion: Although reason should be grounded in faith, I do not
>> believe it is the foundation. I believe the foundation is God. On this
>> foundation is built all other things.

Tricky. It all depends on how you define "grounded in Faith". You seem
to define "grounded in Faith" as meaning: "If we cannot see something
clearly with our reason, but God tells us some assertions about that thing,
then we should believe those assertions, despite the helplessness
of our reason in that specific case".

In other words, by "grounded in Faith", you would mean:

	"The obedience of faith is to be given to God who reveals"
	[Dei Verbum, #5]

If that is how you define it, then of course I agree with you. Moreover,
of course the only Ultimate Foundation is Jesus Christ, as you so aptly
quote from [1Cor 3:11].

Except you're missing the point. (You just knew I couldn't throw you some
flowers like that, without some flower pot following close behind! :-)

You have to take my question in context. In my original e-mail, I refer
to the e-mail I sent to Mr. Hnatiuk containing my question ("Do you
believe Faith is the foundation of reason?"). In that e-mail, in order
to explain the context of my question, I point to my correspondence
with Mr. Tim Bloedow. And that hyperlink takes you directly to the "bone
of contention". But I admit Mr. Bloedow's horrendous assertions were two
clicks away, so I'll repeat a few of them here:

	"a non-Christian may be able to "do Math" but he can't explain
	[...] how Math works"

	"I believe in [...] the impossibility of Christians and non-Christians
	being able to find a neutral intellectual meeting ground around which
	they can arrive at a basic body of shared truth"

In other words, you have to carefully read my e-mail to Mr. Bloedow
(the one called "5) S. Jetchick (2008-Feb-06)"). That will hopefully
make the intent of my question crystal-clear.


>> It establishes two types of Christians, those who can use reason to
>> prove and those who can't.

No it does not.

Let's take an example. Suppose you're a Medical Doctor, and I'm not.
We are both Christians, but you're the only one who is an M.D.
Does that mean there are two kinds of Christians?

No.

We both have the same Faith. Period. You happen to currently have more
human skills than I do, that's all. It's the same situation as a
mother and her young child. Both can be Christians, but the mother
will have more human skills.

Philosophy is a human skill. You learn it in school. (Good schools, which
are bloody rare in the Province of Quebec these days!) Anybody with
time on their hands, and enough intelligence to tie their shoelaces,
can start learning Philosophy. Once you're a competent Philosopher,
you can do things listed in my proposed Sixth Clause.

Are you fully a Christian even if you have no inkling about this
"Philosophy" thing? Of course! Are you well-equipped to answer the
most abstruse philosophical objections of non-believers, even if
you have no Philosophical training? It depends. If you are a good
Christian, you can already point to your own sanctified life and
say: "I'm not sure I understand all your objections, but this Bible
stuff really works, and I'm a living proof of that!" Then, if you
have a little bit of common sense, you can add: "I'm currently
Philosophy-impaired, but I know this other Christian called
so-and-so who is really good at it. She might be able to help you
with all of your philosophical objections. Here is her phone number."

Notice this is the same common-sense reaction you would have if
someone started talking about some physical ailment. You know
you're not a Medical Doctor, but you also know where to find
Medical Doctors! So you would just refer this person to the right
place.


>> "Oh, you're one of those who shouldn't do
>> apologetics. You can't defend your faith."

As I explain here above, it's impossible to be unable to defend
Christianity, if you lead a good Christian life. That is why the
History of the Church is filled with Martyrs, many of them
children, and many of them simple folk with no fancy university
degrees.

That being said, there is such a thing as incompetence. If you
are a klutz at Math, you shouldn't impose your opinions about
complicated calculations. If you're an ignorant in Medicine, you
shouldn't give medical advice to sick people. Same with legal
advice if you're not a lawer, etc., etc.

This is just common sense. We all have to try to learn more every
day, and we all have to know our limits.


>> It would be similar to that
>> horrible charismatic discussion...  If you don't speak in tongues then
>> you're not a true Christian.

If lack of Philosophical training caused you to be "un-Christian", or
"less of a Christian", then you would be right. Except it doesn't,
as explained above. Philosophy is not a "gift of the Holy Spirit",
it is a human skill acquired by hard work and good books.

By the way, if there are people out there who actually claim that
"If you don't speak in tongues then you're not a true Christian",
then I hereby announce to them, in a tongue they don't understand:

	"Vous vous mettez le doigt dans l'oeil jusqu'à l'omoplate."


(See, I can speak in tongues! :-)


>> God did not gift us all the same. Those of us gifted with superior
>> reasoning should use it for the benefit of God and his people; those
>> of us gifted with hospitality should use it for the benefit of God's
>> people. Etc.

Amen! But remember Philosophy is not a gift, strictly speaking.


>> It appears to be a touting of one's reasoning skills and placing it
>> above other gifts.

No.

Nowhere in the Sixth Clause is there any insinuation that
having some training in Philosophy somehow proves you are superior
in virtue or gifts of the Holy Spirit.


>> [§1.4] The CHP has 5 principles, all placing government under the
>> authority of God.

And of course, I have nothing against those 5 Principles, as I
constantly repeat!


>> With this established, we can go forward and lay out what principles
>> are being adhered to. If you take this away then you take it out of
>> the context of government as directed by both Old & New Testaments.

No it doesn't. Go read all of Section 7 again.

Another way of putting it is: "Look at how carefully I read your e-mail.
Like a surgeon with his knife, I carefully separate what I agree with
and what I disagree with."

Look at how many times I directly quote your e-mail. Everybody can see
I've carefully read it. Have you given the same treatment to my
Section 7?


>> This does not preclude other religions living in peace in Canada.
>> People of all religions have been made welcome under the Christian
>> foundation of this country. Western societies based in Biblical law
>> are the freest societies.

Amen, of course!

But that doesn't prevent these "Biblical Principles" from being also
knowable by reason, as explained in my Section 7.


>> Canadians now are secure in: recognition of the Author of our
>> freedoms; what the law is... the immovable standard; government's
>> placement in the established law; the purpose of government; finally
>> ensuring that government does not overstep its boundaries.

You are just giving an overview of why the first 5 Principles are good.
But we already agree on that! No use knocking down open doors!

Once again, you have to carefully read my e-mail to Mr. Bloedow
(the one called "5) S. Jetchick (2008-Feb-06)").


>> Whew! Now I'd better get to work... I have a meeting in 1 hour and
>> haven't done the July Party Link yet! O_O

Well, for a quickie answer to my question, barely 24 hours after I
sent it, I think you did pretty good!

Can I vote for you as National Leader at the upcoming Leadership
Convention? Or is a Catholic vote like a kiss of death in the CHP?

;-)

But I'm not 100% joking. Are you going to be a candidate for the
position of Party Leader? So far, you would be ahead in the race,
in my book at least.

In Christ,

Stefan

4) V. Gunn (2008-July-08)

-----Original Message-----
From: Vicki Gunn
Sent: 8 juillet 2008 01:25
To: CHP Louis Hebert (QC) Stefan Jetchick
Subject: it's back to you....

>> Reason can prove God's existence, and by "God" we mean an infinitely
>> good, infinitely wise, infinitely powerful being, i.e. the
>> Supreme Being. For all the gory details, see:
>>
>> 	The Proofs of God's Existence: Some Preliminary Groundwork

Can God make a rock so big that He cannot lift it? LOL

Motion - You have started with the presupposition that in order for
there to be a motion there must be an 'author' of that motion. While
I agree with the logic because I believe that God is the author of
all things, I agree only because I believe that God is the author of
all things.

Scripture says that, "By faith we understand..." We now must
determine whether Scripture is correct or not correct; thus whether
Scripture is right or wrong. I am starting from the presupposition
that Scripture is always right because if it's not then it leaves the
entire Bible, the whole plan of salvation, our entire worldview up to
the whims of what we chose to believe. This is what got us into our
present pickle of relativism. If there is one tiny molecule out of
God's control then we cannot be certain any of the things He promises
are true.

[§2.4] If I start with the atheistic presupposition that life can spring out
of non-life then my conclusions will be totally different.

Each one involves a leap of faith. Neither is determined by reason
because both involve a 'supernatural' event.


>> Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient
>> cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Not everyone gives the first efficient cause the name
"God". Some people call it the "Big Bang". You started with the
presupposition that it was God who brought the first 'event'. I agree
with you totally... in faith.

My reason tells me that it could be God, or the Big Bang, or the
Giant Spaghetti Monster. I have no reason to believe that the first
cause was a loving, all powerful, all knowing God. It could be a
small minded, mean spirited being. Faith tells me it was God.

The 3rd way... Who or what created God?

The 4th way, lays out the imperative that there 'must be' but that is
the conclusion which you have drawn from the gradation of things. You
have chosen to call it God but that does not prove that God is good,
all knowing etc.

The 5th way... a star fish floats on the water but that does not
prove meaning or direction to the floating. It just floats!


>> Reason cannot prove that miracles WILL occur, but
>> reason can prove miracles COULD occur, IF an all-powerful Being
>> existed, a Being who could momentarily suspend the Laws of Nature
>> if He wanted. After all, He wrote those Laws to begin with!

However, if an all-powerful Being does not exist and thus, there are
none who could suspend the laws of Nature, then a miracle could not
occur.


>> Reason cannot possibly "deduce" the contents of the
>> Bible [...] miracles are not absurd or impossible.

Only if I accept the presupposition that there is an
all-powerful being who exists and performs miracles.


>> In other words, you have to carefully read my e-mail to Mr. Bloedow
>> (the one called "5) S. Jetchick (2008-Feb-06)").

I'm not prepared to defend Mr. Bloedow's analogies but
I'll defend my own.

You start with the presupposition that the existence of God can be
proved by logic. IMO you have failed above to prove that because it
requires the initial presupposition.

I approached your presupposition above with the presupposition that
God did not exist. I interpreted the data I had, the way I would as a
non Christian. (I did spend the first about 25 years of my life as a
nonbeliever so I have argued that side)

If a Christian and Atheist approach the same data, each will
interpret according to their own presupposition... One that, God did
this... The other person that, as chance would have it this happened.
This will not allow for the same conclusion because the causal factor
is different in their interpretation of the facts.


>> Principle 6) "We all believe the five preceding clauses, but some of
>> us know [etc...]

You have indicated that some people can prove by reason alone. But I
do not believe you have met the burden of proof. You have drawn your
conclusion that you have proved the truth of God by reason alone,
however, the presupposition of an atheist is that life sprang from
non-life. Your presupposition is that miracles can occur therefore
there must be a Creator. But, again, either one is a supernatural
event.


>> Let's take an example. Suppose you're a Medical Doctor,
>> and I'm not. We are both Christians

Should the assertion that some of us are Medical Doctor's appear on
the Principles, I would find myself wondering why such an assertion
was being made. If I have to sign a statement saying that some of us
are MDs and some of us are not, I'd wonder why I need to sign written
affirmation of what is an obvious fact. Then I would wonder,... oh
suspicious me... whether someone felt it necessary to rub my nose in
their accomplishment. There could be no other reason for making me
sign such an acknowledgement.


>> Nowhere in the Sixth Clause is there any insinuation that
>> having some training in Philosophy somehow proves you are superior
>> in virtue or gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Surely that is something which is dependent on the
person's perception of the world.



In summary: To add Principle 6 to our existing 5 Principles places
something where it doesn't belong. The 5 principles establish Who is
the Author of our laws and freedoms thus ensuring that Christian,
Jew, Atheist etc. all know the source of the laws and freedoms. It is
an immovable standard because it is not an earthly standard but was
established by that which is above temporal matters.

Then the standards are written so there is no confusion about what
they are.

Again government's placements under the authority of Scripture is
established, then government's purpose, finally its boundaries.

The 6th principle lauds man's reasoning skills and offers up
something which Scripture says is knowable by faith as if it were
provable by reason. You have given a sincere effort but the proof is
not there because, believer or atheist, each starts with their own
presuppositions. This proposed principle does not fit in with the
other 5, nor does it support its own claim.

You have not offered compelling proof beyond a reasonable doubt that
there is an immortal soul. I believe it, by faith.

We have already stated in the 5 Principles who established the laws,
what they are, where they can be found written, and civil laws
subordinate position. Therefore, it is unnecessary to re-state it
calling in "Natural Law" and detailing the laws further.

It's back to you... I'm going to bed!

:-D

Vicki

5) S. Jetchick (2008-July-14)

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Jetchick
Sent: 14 juillet 2008 13:54
To: Vicki Gunn
Subject: RE: it's back to you....

Hi Vicki,

Sorry for the long delay, but you're really giving me a
heck of a philosophical workout!

:-)


>> Can God make a rock so big that He cannot lift it?

No.

	"As God's power is identical with God's Essence, it cannot imply anything
	which contradicts the Essence and the Attributes of God. Thus God
	cannot change, cannot lie, can make nothing that has happened not to
	have happened, cannot realize anything which is contradictory in
	itself."
	[Ludwig Ott, p. 47]


>> [§2.3] Motion - You have started with the presupposition that in order for
>> there to be a motion there must be an 'author' of that motion.

If Saint Thomas had started out with that presupposition, then
I agree with you that his "proofs" would be full of horse manure!

Except he didn't. You have to read them carefully. The principle
he uses is: "But [§3.3] nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality,
except by something in a state of actuality." That principle is
itself based on other principles, like the principle of non-contradiction
and the principle of sufficient reason, themselves proved in
"Ontology" and "Criteriology", two other parts of "Metaphysics",
which precede the part of Metaphysics we are currently looking at,
called "Theodicy" or "Natural Theology".

Yes, this is technical stuff, but we are talking about a science here!

As I clearly indicate in The Proofs of God's Existence:
Some Preliminary Groundwork, there are many prerequisites to
understanding those proofs. It might be a good idea to re-read them.


>> I am starting from the presupposition
>> that Scripture is always right because if it's not then it leaves the
>> entire Bible, the whole plan of salvation, our entire worldview up to
>> the whims of what we chose to believe.

Distinguo.

[§1.5] If we reject the truth of God's Revelation (i.e. the teachings of
Christ transmitted to his Apostles and their successors, under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit), then all Hell breaks loose. As you
say, "the whole plan of salvation, our entire worldview", etc., are
up for grabs. And they end up being grabbed by Satan!

So for that interpretation of your preceding sentence, Concedo.

[§3.4.2] Now the delicate part, as far as I can see, is the little bit at
the start of your sentence, where you say: "I am starting from the
presupposition..."

You seem to be implying that the first act of Faith is a total leap
in the dark; a pure, blind, unmotivated acceptance. This is a
delicate theological problem. Many more Distinguos are required,
and I'm not a trained theologian. I would start here:

	What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths
	appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural
	reason: we believe "because of the authority of God himself who
	reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived". So "that
	the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance
	with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation
	should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit." Thus
	the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's
	growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability "are the
	most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the
	intelligence of all"; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva
	credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no
	means a blind impulse of the mind".
	[CCC, #156, my emphasis]

So if in your above sentence, you define "starting from a presupposition"
as meaning "a blind impulse of the mind", Nego.

Whew! Quite a workout for one lousy little Nego! :-)


>> If there is one tiny molecule out of
>> God's control then we cannot be certain any of the things He promises
>> are true.

Concedo, but I don't see the connection with our debate.


>> If I start with the atheistic presupposition that life can spring out
>> of non-life then my conclusions will be totally different.

Here again, you show that you have been contaminated with Tim
Bloedow's mistake. You presuppose that reason is based on a
presupposition. That is simply false.

Tim projects on everybody his misconception of the act of Faith.


>> Each one involves a leap of faith. Neither is determined by reason
>> because both involve a 'supernatural' event.

Here again, distinguo.

[§3.4.1] The assertion that "Out of non-life can spring life, with no
cause" is a contradiction of the principles quoted here above
(i.e. non-contradiction, sufficient reason, etc.). Hence it is
a false statement. Atheists claim otherwise with their lips,
but all their arguments can be shown to be wrong. (Which of course
doesn't mean that they will agree! None more blind...)


>> [§2.6] Not everyone gives the first efficient cause the name
>> "God". Some people call it the "Big Bang".

You're just getting confused with terminology. The "Big Bang" had
a cause (because "nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality,
except by something in a state of actuality", as stated above).


>> My reason tells me that it could be God, or the Big Bang, or the
>> Giant Spaghetti Monster.

Yes, because your reason is not yet a Jedi reason. You still
need a bit of training.

A Giant Spaghetti Monster would be a material being, hence it
would not be a pure act. Beings are divided in two categories:

	[§3.5] "Potency and act divide being such that everything that is,
	is either pure act, or is necessarily composed of potency
	and act as first and intrinsic principles"
	[Denzinger, #3601]

But it can be proved that the first cause is pure act. (Quick
reminder about potency and act: a big chunk of marble is a
statue of Jesus Christ in potency. Once the sculptor finishes
chipping away, it is a statue of Jesus Christ in act.)

[§3.6] Big Bang: it is a change, and all changes are reduced from potency
to act by a being which is already in act. So the Big Bang
cannot be God. See above.


>> I have no reason to believe that the first
>> cause was a loving, all powerful, all knowing God. It could be a
>> small minded, mean spirited being.

Nego.

After proving the existence of God, we can prove some attributes
of God (omnipotence, omniscience, infinite goodness, etc.). See above
explanation for the parts of Metaphysics. I do have a good Philosophy
textbook on my web site that explains all of this, but it's currently
only in French. But there are many other ones in English, some listed
here.


>> Faith tells me it was God.

Concedo, but Reason can also tell you (given a bit more training).


>> The 3rd way... Who or what created God?

God is pure act. He cannot be reduced from potency to act (i.e.
change, or start to be, or be created, etc.).


>> You have chosen to call it God but that does not prove
>> that God is good, all knowing etc.

As said here above, Theodicy (fourth part of Metaphysics) is itself
divided into several parts. First, it proves God's existence. Then
it proves some of God's attributes. The text I referred to does not
discuss God's attributes. That comes later.


>> The 5th way... a star fish floats on the water but that does not
>> prove meaning or direction to the floating. It just floats!

Floating on water is not "acting for an end". But when the starfish
looks for food so it can grow and eventually reproduce, it is
acting for an end. Even an acorn acts for an end (it works hard
to become an oak tree), etc.


>> However, if an all-powerful Being does not exist and thus, there are
>> none who could suspend the laws of Nature, then a miracle could not
>> occur.

Concedo. But reason can prove God's existence.


>> Only if I accept the presupposition that there is an
>> all-powerful being who exists and performs miracles.

There you go again with your "presupposition"! See above.


>> I'm not prepared to defend Mr. Bloedow's analogies but
>> I'll defend my own.

Distinguo.

Tim Bloedow's ideas have two aspects: in a way, they are his own
ideas, and of course in that sense Concedo, since I don't expect
anybody but Tim to defend them!

But insofar as Tim Bloedow's ideas are integrated into the official
policies of the Christian Heritage Party, they become your ideas,
and you have to defend them. (Or do like me and publicly repudiate
them.)

Are Tim Bloedow's ideas official policies of the CHP? That is a good
question! I can't answer that question perfectly, since I'm still
looking for an answer. I do have some pieces of the puzzle, though:

	- Tim and I agree on many, many things. Maybe 95% or even more.
	  (See our correspondance.)

	- Tim and I disagree on some critical points, which
	  I consider are serious enough to jeopardize the very
	  existence of the CHP.

	- Apparently, not all CHP members disagree with Tim on those
	  critical points.

	- One of those CHP members could become National Leader and
	  therefore take action to officialize serious errors into
	  CHP policies.


>> You start with the presupposition that the existence of God can be
>> proved by logic.

Nego.

If I did, you would be right. But I don't. I start with the
presupposition that we don't know whether God exists or not,
then I observe reality, and reason on these facts using logic.


>> If a Christian and Atheist approach the same data, each will
>> interpret according to their own presupposition...

Distinguo. If by "Christian" you mean someone who acts
irrationally, as described in CCC #156 above, and by "Atheist"
you mean someone who irrationally asserts that "Out of non-life
can spring life, with no cause", then Concedo.

But good Christians don't act irrationally, even as regards
their acceptance of Jesus Christ as their personal saviour.
And good non-Christians don't act irrationally, and they
can see the validity of the proofs of God's existence.


>> You have indicated that some people can prove by reason alone. But I
>> do not believe you have met the burden of proof.

Notice what you've just written in the preceding sentence!
I'm not asking you to believe that I have proved anything!

I'm asking you to carefully read a good Philosophy textbook.

Since that takes time, I don't expect you to become a Jedi
philosopher overnight. You're already making efforts to read
some of my texts, which is an excellent start.

I would say that the next skill you need to acquire is the skill
to stop reading! Seriously, it's better to start at the top
of the page, then read slowly, and when you hit a snag, just
stop and e-mail me the sentence that blocks you. In theory,
the articles listed here are roughly in increasing order of
difficulty, so if you start at the top and work your way down,
eventually you'll see I was right!

;-)


>> Should the assertion that some of us are Medical Doctors appear on
>> the Principles, I would find myself wondering why such an assertion
>> was being made.

Concedo, but I never said we should do that. I used the
example of MDs to explain human skills don't determine a new
class of Christians.


>> Then I would wonder [...] whether someone felt it necessary to
>> rub my nose in their accomplishment. There could be no other
>> reason for making me sign such an acknowledgement.

Nego.

Re-read (slowly) Section 7:

	"If these Biblical principles were only knowable by Faith,
	then in fact, we'd really have a "theocracy", [... etc., etc.]"
	[Does The CHP Want To Establish A Theocracy?]

Asserting that all CHP members reject such a theocracy is not
a spurious detail. It goes down to the very core of what it
is to do politics.


>> In summary: To add Principle 6 to our existing 5 Principles places
>> something where it doesn't belong.

Nego, see above.


>> The 5 principles [are]
>> an immovable standard because it is not an earthly standard but was
>> established by that which is above temporal matters.

Concedo, of course! (I signed that Pledge, remember!)

Statement #6 talks about how we can know those "Biblical Principles",
not what these principles are. The "Biblical Principles" remain
the same, but we just observe that they can be also known
by right reason.


>> Then the standards are written so there is no confusion about what
>> they are.

Concedo. Once again, I have nothing against the first 5 principles
of the CHP Pledge.


>> You have given a sincere effort but the proof is
>> not there because, believer or atheist, each starts with their own
>> presuppositions.

Nego. See above.


>> You have not offered compelling proof beyond a reasonable doubt that
>> there is an immortal soul. I believe it, by faith.

You have not offered compelling proof that you have even read
the proof that we have an immortal soul!

See how carefully I read your e-mails? See how carefully I take
my "philosopher's scalpel" to carefully distinguish between
what I agree with, and what I disagree with? Where is the proof
you did that with my arguments that we have an immortal soul?


>> We have already stated in the 5 Principles who established the laws,
>> what they are, where they can be found written, and civil laws
>> subordinate position.

Concedo.


>> Therefore, it is unnecessary to re-state it
>> calling in "Natural Law" and detailing the laws further.

Nego. Statement 6 doesn't just "rename" and "give a few more
details". Statement 6 says, in other words, that:

	The CHP does not want to establish a Theocracy, and
	we're not just saying that to comfort you. We can
	really prove it.


Anyway, no rush for your next installment. Our debate is about
very important and rather difficult matters. The CHP, and all of
Canada, needs a high-quality debate on this issue.

Cheers!

Stefan

6) V. Gunn (2008-August-16)

-----Original Message-----
From: vickigunn
Gunn ED CHP
Sent: 16 août 2008 18:37
To: Stefan Jetchick
Subject: Re: it's back to you....

Hi Stefan

I had a great vacation but figured I'd not leave you sitting on
tenterhooks waiting for my next response.

:-D

It was becoming an organisational challenge for me so I've switched to
'he said, she said'.

Stefan: "But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality,
except by something in a state of actuality."

Vicki" While you and I accept that because we believe that God is,
for those who deny God's existence, their reasoning follows
different paths one being...

"Have you ever debated with a creationist about the origin of the
universe? They flat-out assert that because the universe is here, it
must have a creator, because all things have creators. Then if you
ask them what created god, they say something like, "That question
can't be asked." or "The question has no meaning.""

... "current evidence overwhelmingly points to a Big Bang creation.
That Big Bang created both space and time. If time didn't exist
before the Big Bang, then the progenitor of the universe, the
singularity or whatever it was, can share the same property as this
mystical god that the creationist argues for. In other words, it
needed no creator. His whole argument was based on suggesting that
the universe can't exist without a creator. Unfortunately for him,
by the same rules under which he assumes his creator can exist
without an earlier creator, the universe may also exist without a
creator."

This person, supporting these statements, challenges Saint Thomas by
saying, if that's your criteria then something must have preceded
God's existence also. We would answer with, "God is eternal". He
would say, "the universe is eternal".

Stefan: God is pure act. He cannot be reduced from potency to act
(i.e. change, or start to be, or be created, etc.).

That's an absolute statement, however, the atheist would have to
accept the truth of that statement which he does not. You have
presupposition here... There is such a thing as a "pure act". Where's
your proof that there is a 'pure act'?

You've pointed out that the principle about motion is based in the
principle of non-contradiction. This person above has said, "then
Christians can't say that if something actual must have brought the
potential to the actual without accepting that something actual must
have brought God from potential to actual".

The response from your proof is, "Therefore it is necessary to
arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this
everyone understands to be God." But, where we are encountering
difficulty is that not 'everyone' understands it to be God. Some
people 'understand' it to be the first motion was the "Big Bang".

Your site says that, "many "intrinsic" prerequisites must be
satisfied,". Those 'intrinsic prerequisites' are little short of
pre-suppositions. You say you must work from the effects to the cause
and an atheist would counter, but your deductions commit the 'non
causa pro causa' fallacy. Then you can counter with, "That's because
you don't know his effects". In the end, stalemate!

You tell me, if I don't believe what you do then trying to prove
God's existence is a waste of time. However, the whole issue is
about people who don't believe as we do.

Stefan: 3.1) Materialism. If you are convinced that only matter can
exist, obviously we can forget about God! Mind you, you can also
forget about yourself, since your thoughts are only an epiphenomena
of matter!

Vicki: The atheistic response would be .... My thoughts are an
interpretation of electrical impulses in my brain.

Stefan: 3.2) Skepticism. If you've been trapped by the corrupt
philosophers who teach that "our senses deceive us", and that "we
can never know anything with any certainty", then we all know with
an absolute certainty that you won't be able to prove God's
existence!

Vicki: You've used an appeal to emotions... "trapped by corrupt
philosophers". It's not people's senses which convince them of God.
It's their spiritual being in communion with God's.

"The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's
children" Romans 8:16

I would argue your 4.2 second way the same as the above atheist
argued it. Then what is God's 'efficient cause'?

You say that I'm making Tim's error of 'presupposing that reason is
based on a presupposition.'

However, you are working backwards from effect to cause and
determine that God created. The atheist is working backwards from
effect to cause and determines that the "Big Bang" created. You each
work backward to one event... creation/big bang and reach a different
conclusion. Each of which you have approached from what you believe...
God exists therefore first event is He created. God doesn't exist
therefore first event is big bang. Each conclusion of primary cause
is based in the presupposition of the person stating the conclusion
based on the effect.

Thus, your primary belief will decide which of the events the
primary event is.

Stefan: The assertion that "Out of non-life can spring life, with
no cause" is a contradiction of the principles quoted here above
(i.e. non-contradiction, sufficient reason, etc.).

Vicki: Then we return to the above dilemma.... From where did God's
life come?

Stefan: Yes, because your reason is not yet a Jedi reason. You still
need a bit of training.

Vicki: LOL I always did like the way Princess Leia mirrors my
intensity! LOL

Stefan:

Nego.

After proving the existence of God, we can prove some attributes
of God ...

Vicki: But you still haven't proved the existence of God.
Stefan: eventually you'll see I was right!

;-)

Vicki: LOL Is that a presupposition or fact? ;-)

Stefan: Re-read (slowly) Section 7:

	"If these Biblical principles were only knowable by Faith,
	then in fact, we'd really have a "theocracy", [... etc., etc.]"
	[Does The CHP Want To Establish A Theocracy?]

Asserting that all CHP members reject such a theocracy is not
a spurious detail. It goes down to the very core of what it
is to do politics.

If the Bible contains principles on which civil laws must be
founded, then these principles are either also knowable by reason,
or we need Faith.
If these Biblical principles were only knowable by Faith, then in
fact, we'd really have a "theocracy". Citizens who would not have
Faith would need to be excluded, since they couldn't know the
fundamental principles of good government. We could tolerate them
(while waiting for them to accept Jesus as their personal saviour),
but not let them participate in the government of the land. The
Biblical principles are known by both hearing and seeing because
they have been outlined in the Word of God. We can read them, we can
hear them, we can speak them. Most people have the ability to
receive instruction in one of those ways.

The benefit of Biblical principles can be attested to by the success
the Western world had while in submission to them. Since the Western
world rejected these principles then the effect can be seen in the
disappearance of our fundamental rights. Ie. Freedoms of speech,
religion, press, political opinion. We've seen a demographic
decrease which threatens western civilisation initially but close
behind the whole world since the refusal of people to 'go forth and
multiply', since the refusals to remain within their covenantal vows
in marriage, since the refusal to respect the sanctity of life.

We can see similar patterns in the fall of other civilisations,
which logic would tell us with the similar pattern then there is an
link between this effect and the cause.


Vicki: In summary: To add Principle 6 to our existing 5 Principles
places something where it doesn't belong.

Stefan: Nego, see above.

Vicki: Affirmo, see above ;-)

Vicki: You have given a sincere effort but the proof is not there
because, believer or atheist, each starts with their own
presuppositions.

Stefan: Nego. See above.

Vicki: Affirmo. See above. ;-)

Stefan: You have not offered compelling proof that you have even
read the proof that we have an immortal soul!

See how carefully I read your e-mails? See how carefully I take my
"philosopher's scalpel" to carefully distinguish between what I
agree with, and what I disagree with? Where is the proof you did
that with my arguments that we have an immortal soul?

Vicki: Trust me, I read your email's carefully and visit the links
to which you send me. :-D However, you had not sent me to the above
link, so I hadn't read it prior to now.

Bearing in mind that I am playing the atheists role, in the absence
of an atheist, I humbly request that we do not digress into another
area. It would become like organising a plate of spaghetti if I had
to challenge this also.

The ball is back in your court!
Have fun!
Vicki

7) S. Jetchick (2008-August-21)

Hi Vicki,

I tried to summarize our debate so far. Please tell me if I missed
some "Concedos", etc.


>> Vicki: While you and I accept that because we believe that God is,
>> for those who deny God's existence, their reasoning follows
>> different paths one being...

Oops, sorry, I simply don't understand that sentence.


>> They flat-out assert that because the universe is here, it
>> must have a creator, because all things have creators.

Actually, the Atheist you quote is misrepresenting the
argument. Knowledgeable Christians avoid begging the question,
i.e. they don't presuppose everything has a Creator.
See previously quoted [§2.3]


>> His whole argument was based on suggesting that
>> the universe can't exist without a creator.

Yes, Christians untrained in Philosophy might construct
their argument in such a flawed way. But that is not the
correct argument. See quoted references above.


>> This person, supporting these statements, challenges Saint Thomas by
>> saying, if that's your criteria then something must have preceded
>> God's existence also.

Yes, he thinks he is challenging Saint Thomas, but he is not.
He is challenging a misrepresentation of Saint Thomas.  See
quoted references above.


>> You have
>> presupposition here... There is such a thing as a "pure act". Where's
>> your proof that there is a 'pure act'?

No. That is not a presupposition. The fact that there is a "Pure Act"
is the conclusion of the demonstration, not the presupposition!
See quoted references above.


>> Christians can't say that if something actual must have brought the
>> potential to the actual without accepting that something actual must
>> have brought God from potential to actual.

:-)

By the extreme dullness of mind of the Atheist you are quoting,
I would guess that quote comes from Richard Dawkins!

I'll try to explain it yet again:

	6.1)
		We observe that beings exists.

	6.2)
		We observe that all beings we can see are a mixture of
		potency and act.
		(See [§3.5])

	6.3)
		We logically reflect upon the nature of potency and act,
		and see that being, in itself, doesn't imply a limit.
		In other words, a being which is pure act is not a
		contradiction in terms (the way a "square circle" is).
		We carefully set aside this conclusion, for future use.

	6.4)
		We logically infer that the same being cannot
		be both in potency and in act at the same time
		and in the same respect
		(See Principle of Non-Contradiction

	6.5)
		We logically infer that an infinite series of
		beings that are composed of potency and act cannot
		reduce themselves to act
		(See Saint Thomas)

	6.6)
		We conclude that since beings that are a mixture
		of potency and act really exist (Step 1), and since they
		cannot self-create (Step 4), nor work together to
		yank themselves out of inexistence (Step 5), therefore
		there must be a being that is not a mixture of potency
		and act, a being that is pure act, and therefore a
		being that doesn't need to be reduced from potency
		to act (Step 3).


>> The response from your proof is, "Therefore it is necessary to
>> arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this
>> everyone understands to be God." But, where we are encountering
>> difficulty is that not 'everyone' understands it to be God. Some
>> people 'understand' it to be the first motion was the "Big Bang".

I've answered that objection already. See [§3.6]


>> Your site says that, "many "intrinsic" prerequisites must be
>> satisfied,". Those 'intrinsic prerequisites' are little short of
>> pre-suppositions.

Nego.

First of all, "intrinsic" in that context is opposed to "extrinsic".
As clearly explained in that text, there is a difference
between "intrinsic" prerequisites (like if you want to play hockey,
you "intrinsically" need skates and a hockey stick), and "extrinsic"
prerequisites (like if you want to play hockey, but are 800 pounds
overweight and love to hit people over the head with a stick, you
will need to go on a diet and learn to respect the rules of the game).

Secondly, the word is "prerequisite", not "presupposition". By
"prerequisite" I mean "something that has to be done chronologically
before something else". The word "presupposition" in our discussion
means "an unexamined and unproved hypothesis, which is then
used as a premiss in a demonstration".


>> your deductions commit the 'non
>> causa pro causa' fallacy.

Wow! You sent me into a tailspin with that one! I had to look it up
on Wikipedia. Apparently, "non causa pro causa" is a generic term
that covers a whole slew of questionable causes. So you will have
to tell me which one you are talking about. See Section 4 of:

	Error: "Soft-Boiled Eggs Are Better Than Hard-Boiled Eggs"


>> You tell me, if I don't believe what you do then trying to prove
>> God's existence is a waste of time.

I'm not sure I understand that sentence. Did you mean this?

	"Stefan, you gave me arguments supposedly proving that God
	exists, yet I shot them full of holes. Therefore it is
	impossible to prove God's existence. But we need God to
	exist in order to do good politics, therefore we must
	believe that God exists, and non-believers should
	either start to believe, or stay out of Canadian politics."


If so, all I can do is point to the various locations in this debate
where I have shown that you have not shot full of holes into
the proofs of God's existence.


>> Vicki: The atheistic response would be .... My thoughts are an
>> interpretation of electrical impulses in my brain.

As I say in that article, the complete refutation of those
errors is contained elsewhere. For example, the error called
"epiphenomenism" (thoughts are an interpretation of electrical
impulses in my brain) is explained here (sorry about the French).


>> Vicki: You've used an appeal to emotions... "trapped by corrupt
>> philosophers".

No. I clearly explain why our senses don't deceive us right here.


>> "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's
>> children" Romans 8:16

Amen! But beside the point.


>> I would argue your 4.2 second way the same as the above atheist
>> argued it. Then what is God's 'efficient cause'?

See various locations where I answer that question.


>> You say that I'm making Tim's error of 'presupposing that reason is
>> based on a presupposition.'

Yes.


>> However, you are working backwards from effect to cause and
>> determine that God created. The atheist is working backwards from
>> effect to cause and determines that the "Big Bang" created.

See [§3.6]


>> Vicki: Then we return to the above dilemma.... From where did God's
>> life come?

See various locations where I answer that question.


>> Vicki: LOL I always did like the way Princess Leia mirrors my
>> intensity! LOL

:-D

I would not want to run into you in a dark alley, or at least
not without a light saber!


>> The
>> Biblical principles are known by both hearing and seeing because
>> they have been outlined in the Word of God.

For someone who doesn't consider the Bible to be the Word of God,
they are just human words.


>> The benefit of Biblical principles can be attested to by the success
>> the Western world had while in submission to them. Since the Western
>> world rejected these principles then the effect can be seen in the
>> disappearance of our fundamental rights.

Once again, you are knocking down open doors.
See [§1.4]


>> Vicki: In summary: To add Principle 6 to our existing 5 Principles
>> places something where it doesn't belong.
>> Stefan: Nego, see above.
>> Vicki: Affirmo, see above ;-)

Well, it sounds like we are going to "agree to disagree" on this one!


>> However, you had not sent me to the above
>> link, so I hadn't read it prior to now.

I admit it was four clicks away: the very first e-mail I sent
you, refers to e-mail I sent to Mr. Hnatiuk, which refers to
my article on Theocracy, and in that critical paragraph, if
you click on "[...] that we have a spiritual and immortal soul",
you find that text.

OK, for someone as busy as you, it was not obvious. Sorry.
That will teach me to have such a large web site!


>> It would become like organizing a plate of spaghetti if I had
>> to challenge this also.

You mean, "On top of having to organize the CHP, since I'm the
CHP National Executive Director"?

:-D

Seriously, you've really put in a long, hard effort. You have gone
beyond the call of duty to answer my question. I think we can
agree to disagree, and we'll see what all the National Leadership
candidates have to say about it.

I'm sure they will gladly profit from all your hard work. (Once again,
a woman does all the work, and men will reap the benefits!)

Cheers!

Stefan

Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves