It *is* (in and of itself) and is what accounts for the existence of all things, a "some-thing" cannot can't do that.

Even assuming the universe is eternal, it cannot account its existence in and of itself, meaning something is keeping, or has brought, the universe into existence.

But that "something" can "account its existence in and of itself"?

To ask what is before the beginning is a logical fallacy, there was no-thing before things began existing. Hence whatever brought things into existence is beyond all things as we know them, both material and immaterial; whereas the fact it must be beyond the material is obvious, that it must be beyond the immaterial means that it is beyond essences. That means all essences are brought into existence by something whose "essence" is existence itself.

Ens (essentiam habens esse) vs Esse Ipsum subsistens.

Even assuming the universe is eternal, it cannot account its existence in and of itself, meaning something is keeping, or has brought, the universe into existence.

Bruno:

Christian revelation tells us that it was indeed "reason" (the Word, Verbum, Logos), i.e. perfect order, logic, language, etc., that created the world.

I have not been privy to such a revelation. My reason tells me that reason came about within the world, at some very late stage, and is still mostly conspicuous by its absence—especially among Obleftivists and other Woke-Fascists. If we don't know precisely how the conceptual faculty, necessary for the exercise of reason, came into being, that doesn't matter; we should just keep digging, rather than positing "revealed" (arbitrary) "truths" (as opposed to Rand's ostensive, sweep-one's-hand-at-the-evidence axioms). I for one most certainly don't know. To say Reason created the world is simply to beg the question, in the true philosophical sense of the term "question-begging": what or who created Reason?

Eli:

Of course God exists! how could anyone doubt that - especially regulars on this website?!?

I'm appalled by your humility! I thought you were greater than God??!! At least, I thought you thought that, even if I didn't necessarily agree!

hang on! - are you meaning the other one? the God who is invisible?

course God exists! how could anyone doubt that - especially regulars on this website?!?

Thank you, Linzio for the welcome!

You must indeed come visit il Bel Paese one day to fully enjoy the artistic experience.

The concept of a revealed truth is not the same as that of an arbitrary truth,

Regarding the existence of God, or a Creator in general, it doesn't require revelation per sé, it can be arrived at through reason alone. The revelation part of the equation would be the concept of the Trinity; which itself took centuries to understand, but they wouldn't have bothered to understand or codify the concept (consubstantiality) if they hadn't accepted the truth of what was being discussed beforehand as a truth revelead directly.

As far as evolutionism and modern insanity,

You can either believe that "matter" and "primordial gobbly-gook" made reason, or you can believe that reason made matter.

There is no reason to abide by reason (hence we don't today), if reason is not ontologically primary.

Christian revelation tells us that it was indeed "reason" (the Word, Verbum, Logos), i.e. perfect order, logic, language, etc., that created the world. Hence violating the proper order of things is wrong, hence the logical precision which used to be taught in universities, another now-corrupted institution which was created originally during the Catholic era.

Caro Bruno, the crux of my problem is around the 12' 30" mark where you say certain basic truths are revealed by God (including His existence, presumably) and reason should take it from there. Perhaps Aquinas had a different experience from mine and did indeed have these truths revealed to him, but God has not revealed those truths to me and I am still sufficient of an Objectivist not to take things on faith without evidence. I find Rand's axioms a much better starting point, though I admit to being highly envious of your Duomo.

Disclaimer at the bottom of every page here:

The opinions expressed by the posters here do not necessarily align with Objectivism or with each other. This is a platform for, among other things, the free and open exchange of ideas.

Unlike Bruno I have not converted to Catholicism. I would love to do so for the art, architecture and music, but I cannot assent to the theology. If I could I would still have qualms. I would assuredly think the current Church has been usurped by Satan in arguably his most diabolical ploy ever: Woke-Fascism!

Haven't watched the video yet. Great to see you back here Bruno!