@curiousdannii @PeterTurner Someone from C.SE needs to answer this Phil.SE question since no-one seems to have the right idea of apophatic theology and how humans participate in God's rationality so we can reason in the first place and knows God partially through reason as well as through faith, despite not knowing everything about God in His essence:

@GratefulDisciple It starts on the wrong foot by saying that apophatic means God can only be known through negative statements.

I didn't want to respond because it's description of the "problem of the creator of God" just seems to misunderstand the Kalam argument. Didn't seem a very serious question.

@curiousdannii Yes, I saw that. What concerns me is that none of the top answers do a frame challenge on the question, but pile on with more wrong things, thus compounding a misunderstanding already in the OP. And that question became a hot network having 4K views so far. I see it as a evangelism opportunity. I understand why you wouldn't take it on; just want to drop it in here for someone to notice.

@GratefulDisciple any excuse to quote Chesterton is worth doing, even if done badly

@PeterTurner Not surprising coming from you :-). I was going to post an answer (maybe this weekend) using just references to theology textbook about how kataphatic (including the analogy of being) should be used along with apophatic, and that apophatic has to do with knowing God's essence rather than our ability to intuit God kataphatically using reason. If I know Chesterton enough, I'll quote him as a cherry on top.

@GratefulDisciple I'd never heard the term apophatic before, I figured it had something to do with apotheosis or apoptosis

@PeterTurner No. apotheosis is completely different. Apophatic is also known as negative theology.

Yeah, I did read a little about it, it doesn't seem like a bad starting point.

@PeterTurner It starts right, but then misapplies it with our capacity of reasoning, which is participation in God's own rational life, the little he graciously shares with us when he creates us in the image of God.

Ha, I think we're on the same page!

@PeterTurner What I appreciate from Catholicism is their language of "sharing in the divine life", which is not the kind of language I hear much in Protestantism. Bishop Barron pointing us to be "co-creators" though is quite common in recent days (NT Wright) and is now being popularized through the Bible Project, as in this video, one of my favorites.

Euthyphro dilemma is about morality though, and I also like the Catholic Natural theology answer rather than Protestant divine command theory.

Too bad the Wisdom series isn't longer youtube.com/playlist?list=PLH0Szn1yYNeeKPNIy7YXjO3MGD8h8ifhr almost seems like God intended there to be a few more books there.

@PeterTurner They should have covered Catholic canon's wisdom books ! Or at least include a few videos on Psalm and Song of Songs. Judges can be read as wisdom book too, and Genesis 1-11.

Gotta go. Nice to touch base with you.

Before I go, I'd like to re-share this YouTube short on Galileo that I just got from JD (my new conversation partner in Phil.SE).

If anyone's got meta posts for features they think should be looked at, I think the CM's want us to put them in "status-review" it would be great the get a feature out of our meta

@GratefulDisciple oh that's fantastic coming from him (major respect earned, he gets a refund on his Galileo tax)

@PeterTurner Yeah, JD is quite aware of historical development in the philosophy of science, so when judging Galileo one cannot project back our modern scientific paradigm shift which is much more than most people today imagine (coming from metaphysical speculations + rationalistic natural philosophy of the time).

See his comments here, consistent with the Catholic Answers article here.