tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post6596034089272184924..comments2024-03-29T04:58:54.003-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: McCabe on the divine natureEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40632127289321669072019-08-29T17:43:36.141-07:002019-08-29T17:43:36.141-07:00@grateful to God:
"4. Could not God (G1) thi...@grateful to God:<br /><br />"4. Could not God (G1) think of the concept of God (G2) thinking that God (G3) is thinking of God (G4)."<br /><br />A thomist, I believe, would respond that God's(G1) self knowledge of Himself(G2) would include knowing that He is self knowing. So the distinction between the two Persons are exhausted here because the Son's self knowledge also came with Him from the Father.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20947622999920633062019-08-11T09:58:30.866-07:002019-08-11T09:58:30.866-07:00The fact that God is existence just is the consequ...The fact that God is existence just is the consequence of God's being necessary and entirely eternal and independent of any external thing. God exists, but not the way you and I and other finite things exist; He just is that which is behind all existence, all being. <br />Plato certainly seemed to identify God with the Form of Good and Aristotle's view that the First Mover moves by being desired is quite congenial to theism.<br />And saints are not gods; they're just very virtuous people whose lives we admire and whom we can ask to pray to God for us (like we can ask any friend to pray for us).Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61529442594317036382019-08-11T09:53:57.741-07:002019-08-11T09:53:57.741-07:00I also wish to apologize for being too rude to you...I also wish to apologize for being too rude to you in the past. Sometimes I get carried away in discussions, and I can be nasty. I hope you'll feel better soon. God bless.Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23519663977001046502019-08-09T20:21:30.127-07:002019-08-09T20:21:30.127-07:00@Mozy01,
I assume you don't really celebrate ...@Mozy01,<br /><br />I assume you don't really celebrate Eid but are just trying to make Eid look bad.<br /><br />I celebrate Eid which celebrates how Abraham was so sacrificing to God...but don't waste peoples time sending messages that are not pertinent to the topic. Respect peoples' time. - Grateful to GodAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10296579972827824652019-08-09T04:28:51.400-07:002019-08-09T04:28:51.400-07:00@Grateful to God
I had time now to study it a bit...@Grateful to God<br /><br />I had time now to study it a bit further. SHort: I agree with him on the historical development, but he is wrong about us not being able to read the Trinity back into the Synoptics. Okay, maybe not the Trinity, because of the Holy Spirit, but we should only care for Jesus in this context. And there it happens, that many will agree that they include him in the divinity, among those are Ehrman himself. The most important example is in Mark between Jesus and the High Priest.<br />"Are you the Messiah, the son of God?"<br />"I Am"<br />Brant Pitre pointed this out (link below, when asking Ehrman), that Jesus himslef was supposed to make a divinity claim here. The High Priest reacts with tearing his clothes apart, but what exactly did Jesus claim here? Claiming Messiahship was not against the law and happened dozens of time a year, while Jesus was accused of blasphemy, something that is not applied to those who claim Messiahship. So the Priest himself understood Jesus as making a claim for divinity<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EeO8zRtFusDominik Kowalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14634739012344612398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83708916446598316062019-08-09T03:55:20.233-07:002019-08-09T03:55:20.233-07:00Bakra Eid Wishes
Eid Mubarak Wishes
Bakra Eid imag...<a href="https://www.happydiwali2018wallpaper.xyz/2019/08/bakra-eid-wishes-eid-ul-adha-messages-eid-mubarak-2019-quotes-status-and-images.html" rel="nofollow">Bakra Eid Wishes</a><br /><a href="https://www.happydiwali2018wallpaper.xyz/2019/08/bakra-eid-wishes-eid-ul-adha-messages-eid-mubarak-2019-quotes-status-and-images.html" rel="nofollow">Eid Mubarak Wishes</a><br /><a href="https://www.happydiwali2018wallpaper.xyz/2019/08/bakra-eid-wishes-eid-ul-adha-messages-eid-mubarak-2019-quotes-status-and-images.html" rel="nofollow">Bakra Eid images</a><br /><a href="https://www.happydiwali2018wallpaper.xyz/2019/08/eid-ul-adha-wallpaper-bakra-id-quotes-wallpaper-eid-mubarak-2019-status-images-greeting.html" rel="nofollow">Eid-Ul-Adha Wishes Images</a><br /><a href="https://www.happydiwali2018wallpaper.xyz/2019/08/eid-ul-adha-wallpaper-bakra-id-quotes-wallpaper-eid-mubarak-2019-status-images-greeting.html" rel="nofollow">Bakra Eid 2019 Quotes</a><br /><a href="https://www.happydiwali2018wallpaper.xyz/2019/08/eid-ul-adha-wallpaper-bakra-id-quotes-wallpaper-eid-mubarak-2019-status-images-greeting.html" rel="nofollow">Bakra Eid 2019 Wallpaper</a><br /><a href="https://www.happydiwali2018wallpaper.xyz/2019/08/bakra-eid-mubarak-greeting-eid-status.html" rel="nofollow">Bakra Eid Mubarak Greeting</a><br /><a href="https://www.happydiwali2018wallpaper.xyz/2019/08/bakra-eid-mubarak-greeting-eid-status.html" rel="nofollow">Bakra Eid Mubarak Status</a><br /><a href="https://www.happydiwali2018wallpaper.xyz/2019/08/bakra-eid-mubarak-greeting-eid-status.html" rel="nofollow">Eid Mubarak 2019 images</a><br /><a href="https://www.happydiwali2018wallpaper.xyz/2019/08/bakra-eid-mubarak-greeting-eid-status.html" rel="nofollow">Eid Mubarak 2019 wallpaper</a><br /><a href="https://www.happydiwali2018wallpaper.xyz/2019/08/bakra-eid-mubarak-greeting-eid-status.html" rel="nofollow">Eid Mubarak 2019 status wishes sms</a><br /><a href="https://www.happydiwali2018wallpaper.xyz/2019/08/eid-mubarak-images-bakra-eid-2019-images-wishes-status-messages-quotes.html" rel="nofollow">Eid Mubarak 2019 quotes wallpaper</a><br /><a href="https://www.happydiwali2018wallpaper.xyz/2019/08/eid-mubarak-images-bakra-eid-2019-images-wishes-status-messages-quotes.html" rel="nofollow">bakra eid 2019 images</a><br /><a href="https://www.mywishes.site/2019/08/eid-mubarak-quotes-status-bakra-id-messages-wishes-images-wallpaper-greeting-for-eid-al-adha-2019.html" rel="nofollow">Eid Mubarak Quotes 2019</a><br /><a href="https://www.mywishes.site/2019/08/eid-mubarak-quotes-status-bakra-id-messages-wishes-images-wallpaper-greeting-for-eid-al-adha-2019.html" rel="nofollow">Eid Mubarak Status 2019</a><br /><a href="https://www.mywishes.site/2019/08/eid-mubarak-quotes-status-bakra-id-messages-wishes-images-wallpaper-greeting-for-eid-al-adha-2019.html" rel="nofollow">Eid Mubarak Wallpapers 2019</a><br /><a href="https://www.mywishes.site/2019/08/eid-mubarak-quotes-status-bakra-id-messages-wishes-images-wallpaper-greeting-for-eid-al-adha-2019.html" rel="nofollow">Bakra Eid wallapper greeting wishes sms 2019</a>Mozy01https://www.blogger.com/profile/06911446499201722544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57529700242092594122019-08-08T21:13:47.233-07:002019-08-08T21:13:47.233-07:00@R.C.
Dear R.C.
I had a few more questions and I...@R.C.<br /><br />Dear R.C.<br /><br />I had a few more questions and I adding the new questions to the previous numbered list...<br /><br />4. Could not God (G1) think of the concept of God (G2) thinking that God (G3) is thinking of God (G4).<br /><br />Would that not entail 4 persons of God from the argument you (and perhaps McCabe and Ed) are making?<br /><br />6. Same as #5 above, could this not go on ever more to <br />5 persons, 100 persons, 1 billion persons, etc.<br /><br />7. I realize that God's essence includes His existence. But when the essence and existence are the same thing, how can we know for sure that God's self understanding is the same as understanding....I mean we can explain that when understand something we hold the form of that thing in our mind, but can we say that God's understanding is in the same way....I realize we can say so analogically but can we say it is the same way?<br /><br />Of course, God's understanding would be absolute but would <br /><br />8. God has all knowledge of all things ....so when God is having self-understanding, is God understanding all things twice?....once as Himself and then again when he does self-understanding<br /><br />9. Relating to the majority Christian doctrine of death of Jesus, did that mean that the second person died and if so, then did the self-understanding of God vanish?grateful to Godhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03337758690863008570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73520077562471896642019-08-08T17:44:25.799-07:002019-08-08T17:44:25.799-07:00There's no legitimate reason for you to think ...There's no legitimate reason for you to think that. I'm criticizing an obvious troll, who has been told by Ed to lost, yet still habitually returns to fill comboxes with utter bilge. What don't you understand about people like him making it worse for all of us here? Do you just not care? Maybe you should think about your contribution here, and hopefully knock off the compulsive troll feeding (which, again, Ed has specifically told us to stop).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5782099304662809882019-08-08T17:39:11.711-07:002019-08-08T17:39:11.711-07:00It's not obvious to me that in your mind "...It's not obvious to me that in your mind "logorrheic troll" and "people who disagree with Ed" are distinct concepts.HolyKnowinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06109864288446595298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29215000950201618602019-08-08T17:36:57.763-07:002019-08-08T17:36:57.763-07:00Ed specifically told CR to get lost. He has repeat...Ed specifically told CR to get lost. He has repeatedly told logorrheic trolls to get lost. And CR has certainly acted as a logorrheic troll, only one step down from SP or Santi. Yes, I don't like that kind of person. He doesn't present proper arguments, anymore than SP or Santi do. If he reforms, though, that would be a different matter. Why on earth would we want logorrheic trolls here? <br /><br />You know who I also don't much like, the compulsive troll feeders and apologists. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56155392385385792042019-08-08T14:34:16.728-07:002019-08-08T14:34:16.728-07:00Oh, you just replied... okay, let me read through ...Oh, you just replied... okay, let me read through that....<br /><br />Re: "no longer a Cambridge property": Yes. That's (one of the reasons) why I said I suspected it belonged in an entirely different category (as shown in my bulleted list at the bottom of my 1:35 PM post). By referencing Cambridge properties I was only intending to convey that there <i>are</i> properties of God which don't logically necessitate a complete absence of distinctions. Cambridge properties are one variety; I posit that relations are another. And if creatures are to Creativity as relations are Relation-as-such, then we have an example of something existing in the divine nature (Creativity) which instantiates in things that aren't identical.<br /><br />But the rest of your reply is more detailed, and for all I know may convince me that you're correct. So, I need to read it more carefully before I respond.R.C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78112261575485890842019-08-08T14:23:35.816-07:002019-08-08T14:23:35.816-07:00@Bill:
One other thing, but it's not importan...@Bill:<br /><br />One other thing, but it's not important....<br /><br />In reply to my paragraph, "It appears that Aquinas is on your side.... But then you (he?) go (es) on to say that all God's relations just are the divine essence, and that's where I posit a different view," you said, "You read my post twice and you couldn't figure out that I linked to the Summa where Aquinas said that?"<br /><br />No, that was obvious. That wasn't what I was uncertain about, when I put "he" in parentheses with a question mark.<br /><br />I was expressing uncertainty, not about whether you were citing Aquinas, but whether you correctly understood what Aquinas had intended to say.<br /><br />You seemed to be saying that because Relation <i>as such</i> in God is of the divine essence, all the individual relations which instantiate Relation are also of the divine essence (which I dispute). And you are saying that Aquinas says the same thing (which seems possible, but there are phrases he uses which are unclear to me, which makes me less-than-certain).<br /><br />If he hadn't meant what you were saying, then he wasn't really "saying it," in which case only <i>you</i> were saying it. That's why I said "you" definitively, but put "he" in parentheses, questioningly: "(he?)"<br /><br />Like I said, not really important. (I do wish I could understand Aquinas more clearly in the linked passage, though.)R.C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64891946886442513832019-08-08T14:21:50.153-07:002019-08-08T14:21:50.153-07:00@RC, you need to consider further what Feser wrote...@RC, you need to consider further what Feser <a href="https://theopolisinstitute.com/conversations/simply-irresistible/" rel="nofollow">wrote</a> about Cambriddge properties:<br /><br /><i>Now, what the doctrine of divine simplicity claims – contrary to what Mullins supposes (in what he labels premise (9) of his argument) – is, not that all of God’s properties are identical and thus are as necessary as he is, but rather that all of his real properties are. He can have Cambridge properties that are merely contingent.</i><br /><br />He states earlier that for Socrates to grow a beard involves the acquisition of a real property. But if Socrates becomes shorter than Plato because Plato has grown taller, the real change is in Plato, not Socrates. However, the DT asserts that the distinction between the persons of the Godhead is a real distinction, not a contingent one. So, your appeal to Cambridge properties doesn't work.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><i>Therefore, a relation could be a property of God, provided it isn't the kind of property... involved in divine simplicity.</i><br /><br />Now, this is a logical leap.You move from contingent properties vis-à-vis creatures to assuming they can exist within the divine essence. But if it exists in the divine essence, it is no longer a relation between God and creatures; it is a <b>real</b> relation between divine persons which means it's no longer a Cambridge property. If you insist that the relations aren't "real," then they're contingent which would make the persons contingent. Remember, a Cambridge property involves change in a creature, not God, so you cannot apply it within the divine essence.<br /><br /><i>And even if a relation is not a property at all, but some kind of (very eccentric usage of the term) "creature," then this would not make either God the Son or God the Holy Spirit a "creature," but only the relation between them would be creaturely.</i><br /><br />Then the "creature," as I've stated, is merely a conceptual difference from our perspective. If Plato grows taller, Socrates doesn't change, and if we perceive some sort of relational distinction in God in order to comprehend something about Him, nothing changes in God.<br /><br />The mistake you're making is you're attempting to cash in on creaturely distinctions by applying them to God. You say:<br /><br /><i>Anyway in my view individual relations (as that between God the Father and God the Son) are not "real" properties of God (even though Relation as such is...</i><br /><br />But if this relation is God knowing Himself, as you've stated, then it doesn't justify the claim that He knows another. It does not necessitate the existence of another person. Besides, "another" implies something other than God, so that can't work either.<br /><br />Since the DT asserts a real distinction between the persons and that the distinction is the relations between said persons, your claim that they aren't "real" in God is not trinitarian.<br /><br />And if the relations aren't "real," then they are contingent, and all contingencies are in creatures.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10835020566801826392019-08-08T13:35:33.274-07:002019-08-08T13:35:33.274-07:00@Bill:
Re: "Either the relations are the div...@Bill:<br /><br />Re: "Either the relations are the divine essence or they are not. If they are not the divine essence, then they either creatures or notional distinctions."<br /><br />I dispute the second sentence in that.<br /><br />First let's distinguish between Relation <i>as such</i>, and particular relations.<br /><br />God's Power is God's Creativity is God's Will, per divine simplicity. I guess then that Relation <i>as such</i> (God's "Relatability?") is, like these other things, a label signifying the divine essence.<br /><br />But individual relations (particular applications of Relation) will not themselves be identical, any more than individual creatures (particular applications of Creativity) are.<br /><br />God's Power just is the divine essence. But God's power as applied to raising Lazarus from the dead <i>is not</i> God's power applied to killing Uzzah. (If it were, killing would be resuscitating and Lazarus would be Uzzah. These applications of God's power aren't identical, though God's power refers to the divine essence.)<br /><br />And I've been arguing the same is true with relations: The relation that pertains between God and you <i>isn't</i> the relation that pertains between God and Satan (unless you've been holding out on us, Bill).<br /><br />So individual relations aren't identical. Does this non-identical-ness imply that individual relations are creatures? Not necessarily: Ed wrote something in reply to Ryan Mullins which distinguishes between "real" properties (what I've been calling "attributes") of God and "Cambridge" properties, noting that divine simplicity does not require that <i>all</i> of God's properties are identical, but only "real" properties. The "Cambridge" properties can not only vary from one another, but change, without implying composition or change in God. For example, if God loves me and I lose my hair, the "Cambridge" property "God loves a salt-and-pepper-coiffed fellow" changes to "God loves a bald guy," without thereby implying change in God: God's love is still God's love.<br /><br />Therefore, a relation could be a property of God, provided it isn't the <i>kind</i> of property (previously I called them "attributes" but the term Ed uses is "real" property) involved in divine simplicity. If relations can be a "Cambridge" property, or even some third category apart from "real" and "Cambridge," then God's individual relations differing from one another doesn't contradict divine simplicity.<br /><br />And even if a relation is not a property at all, but some kind of (very eccentric usage of the term) "creature," then this would not make either God the Son or God the Holy Spirit a "creature," but only the relation between them would be creaturely. Things like begottenness and procession could be eternally-extant "creatures" made by God; but in each of those relations neither the subject nor the object is a creature.<br /><br />But as I said above, this seems to stretch the definition of "creature" out of all recognition. My guess is that it ought to be a whole other category, such that God has:<br />- "real" properties (which all correspond to the divine essence)<br />- "Cambridge" properties (which are not of the divine essence, and can differ, and can change)<br />- relations (which can differ)<br />- creatures (which obviously differ)<br /><br />Anyway in my view individual relations (as that between God the Father and God the Son) are not "real" properties of God (even though Relation <i>as such</i> is, and even though, in this particular relation, the Subject, the Object, the Subject's Knowledge of the Object, and the Subject's Will towards the Object, are all divine).<br /><br />Maybe taking that view sacrifices something critical to either Trinitarianism or Divine Simplicity. If so, I don't know what that is. If you know of something, please let me know so that I can look for some other solution.R.C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58415655264716433882019-08-08T10:10:26.329-07:002019-08-08T10:10:26.329-07:00No his contributions aren't. The community wou...<b>No his contributions aren't. The community would be better without his contributions, as they. If they markedly improve, then that might change.</b><br /><br />Is there one person here who disagrees with Ed that you welcome as constructive to the community? If not, that might be evidence that you don't hate the arguments ACR presents but rather hate the type of person ACR is.HolyKnowinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06109864288446595298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69761115908677418102019-08-08T07:30:28.655-07:002019-08-08T07:30:28.655-07:00Its Ok CR, take a break from any internet debates....Its Ok CR, take a break from any internet debates.Calm yourself, everything will be alright.<br /><br />And well the arguments of this side are way less than convincing to you but I hope you would at least develop a more charitable approach towards the perspective.<br /><br />Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569340378356607760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90166021696292357802019-08-08T03:09:24.018-07:002019-08-08T03:09:24.018-07:00No his contributions aren't. The community wou...No his contributions aren't. The community would be better without his contributions, as they. If they markedly improve, then that might change. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36471927810981363862019-08-08T01:56:03.977-07:002019-08-08T01:56:03.977-07:00Is it accurate to say, "God's will is God...Is it accurate to say, "God's will is God"? I find I've been thinking it in my prayers. It helps me with loving God's will.Edward Isaacshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15178867205047028725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72651977364511647872019-08-07T23:10:26.767-07:002019-08-07T23:10:26.767-07:00@Tony,
Thanks for your post. I agree in essence w...@Tony,<br /><br />Thanks for your post. I agree in essence with what you are saying, but my statement relates to logical contradictions.<br /><br />It is one thing to be unable to express in words what one is experiencing; it is another altogether to affirm a logical contradiction. It is my contention that those who believe the Doctrine of the Trinity (DT) ask me to affirm a contradiction, and that is something I cannot do.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23564895027637039692019-08-07T23:04:01.093-07:002019-08-07T23:04:01.093-07:00@RC, you write:
You say all relations are identic...@RC, you write:<br /><br /><i>You say all relations are identical except in signification, and all actually signify the divine essence. I posit (while willing to be corrected) that that's wrong; that relations aren't attributes, and that attributes point to the divine essence (or else there'd be composition in God), but relations needn't (they have no implications re: composition).</i><br /><br />Either the relations are the divine essence or they are not. If they are not the divine essence, then they either creatures or notional distinctions. Any aspect of the divine essence unique to a person to the exclusion of the other persons is composition by definition.<br /><br /><i>It appears that Aquinas is on your side, although the first time he says they differ only in "signification" he seems only to be saying that origin and relation are two different ways of describing the same thing (from opposite ends, so to speak). That's fine with me. But then you (he?) go (es) on to say that all God's relations just are the divine essence, and that's where I posit a different view.</i><br /><br />You read my post twice and you couldn't figure out that I linked to the Summa where Aquinas said that? Anyway, it is definitely Aquinas who states that the relations and the divine essence are one and the same and that they differ "only...its mode of intelligibility."<br /><br />As to your other posts, you start out that arguing in favor of a distinction between God's "who-ness" and "what-ness." But in God the who and the what are one and the same. Who God is is what He is for His essence is to exist. Given that, the distinction exists in your mind to assist your understanding of God. It does not establish a real difference in God.<br /><br />You then argue that God's relationships with other things differ, which you don't think impeaches divine simplicity. But the analogy commonly used is the Morning Star and the Evening Star. From our perspective, we relate to one in the morning and the other in the evening (thus the difference) but nothing changes in the star in that regard.<br /><br /><i>Any personal self can have a relationship to itself;</i><br /><br />Even if this is applicable to God, we do not multiply persons to have that relationship. What follows from this point is that God is one person with distinct relations. That's not the Trinity.<br /><br /><i>The Son is God's self-understanding, which is to say: God's understanding of existence itself, the intrinsic goodness of existence itself...</i><br /><br />So God, in understanding Himself, necessitates another person? Sorry, but that doesn't follow.You have to show how self-understanding necessitates two other persons. And again, if all you're saying is that God is aware of Himself, you've taken zero steps closer to showing that the Trinity is rational. In fact, you've done more to advance modalism.<br /><br />Now, with respect to my post and your posts, I have in mind this:<br /><br /><i>His knowledge of God just is God; the only way it "differs" from Him (if one can call it a difference) is by a difference of relation between the One who is doing the knowing (God) and the one who is being known (God). Other than by a relation in which one is derivative of the other, they are both God; if they weren't, you would be saying that God's self-knowledge was imperfect.</i><br /><br />This is essentially what Aquinas argues, and that is what my original post is all about (that the relation and the essence are one and the same). What you've argued is a logical contradiction for the reasons I've elucidated. The PC is what makes the persons the same, and the PD is what makes them distinct. The PC cannot equal the PD, but that is what both Aquinas and you are arguing. If the relation isn't the divine essence, then the relation is a creature.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49157189118986969162019-08-07T20:32:21.372-07:002019-08-07T20:32:21.372-07:00@RC,
Thank you for your polite exchange and your ...@RC,<br /><br />Thank you for your polite exchange and your detailed response. I appreciate it.<br /><br />You write, "Well, you'd have the "form of God" perfectly instantiated in the mind of God, wouldn't you? Being a mental apprehension it wouldn't be material...but then, neither is God, so non-materiality wouldn't distinguish God's understanding of God from God Himself. What would there be, then, to distinguish God's Knowing Of God from God? Just the act of existing...but here again, God's existence is the divine existence, not a created act-of-existing, so that too is no distinction."<br /><br />1. I understand that you find it persuasive. I am asking others...Are there others that are persuaded this to be true? Why or why not? <br /><br />Is this the same argument that McCabe is making?...and what Ed I assume finds to be persuasive?<br /><br />2. @RC, I do not find it persuasive. But I am willing to try to understand more.<br /><br />I have a question. Imagine that God gives me the ability to perfectly understand myself. Let's denote M for myself and M2 for the concept of myself within me.<br /><br />M3 is concept of me understanding myself within M2. And M4 is the analogous thing.<br /><br />Now let us suppose that I can fully understand myself understanding myself....and again me fully understanding myself understanding fully myself understanding myself <br /><br />So let us denote that as M grasping M2 and M3 and M4.<br /><br />3. When I understand M3, and M4 perfectly, then I do not need another person or persons, correct?<br /><br />So why must there be another person to describe God.<br /><br />4. How does this provide proof for a Trinity and not 2 persons of God or 4 persons of God?<br /><br />Again, I would appreciate for others to chime in if the evidence that @RC and I assume McCabe and Ed are making is persuasive. <br /><br />-Grateful to GodAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82689717128863682962019-08-07T19:09:25.863-07:002019-08-07T19:09:25.863-07:00I have to know what I'm affirming before I can...<i>I have to know what I'm affirming before I can affirm it. You cannot reasonably expect me to affirm the Trinity when you explain the Trinity with logical contradictions.</i> <br /><br />I would like to offer a note of distinction that makes this not-quite-true. The substance of faith is in us under a two-fold aspect. On the one hand, there is the <i>propositional</i> aspect of the faith, which is in the mind as distinct truths expressed in words, which we assent to with positive acts of the intellect affirming their truth. On the other hand, there is the <i>non-propositional</i> aspect of faith, which includes both the urging of grace to assent, and the light which informs our intellect with knowing that is not reducible to clear words and propositions, because it exceeds our capacity to express in words. The latter is, for example, the kind of light the saints experience in union with God in a state of ecstasy, which cannot be communicated clearly to others because we haven't the words. Both are of faith, and in a sense we assent to both, though in the latter case it is less a matter of assent than of simple experiencing the light. But that light <i>could</i> be rejected by an act of the will. <br /><br />We humans are terrible at knowing when our interior experiences are sound and from God, and thus we have the works of revelation - Scripture and Tradition - which are concrete guides to set us on the right path and keep us from delusions. But both aspects of faith are valid. Hence it is indeed possible - in a sense - to assent to something that one cannot put into words. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62483960377625473092019-08-07T16:56:29.348-07:002019-08-07T16:56:29.348-07:00@gratefulToGod:
You say, "May God guide us a...@gratefulToGod:<br /><br />You say, "May God guide us all and bless us all"; allow me to emphatically agree! Your point 2 tells me you aren't convinced by what I've said, but want your disagreement to be taken as respectful, not hostile. Perfect! Allow me to reciprocate: Peace be with you and yours.<br /><br />I agree the Trinity is an extraordinary claim, and sympathize with your request for "extraordinary evidence." (Or, more accurately: "a persuasive metaphysical demonstration," since we're not talking about tire tracks or trace fibers.)<br /><br />Now, some of the verbs you chose, like "carved within" (which suggests divisibility, which suggests composition, which entails: Not God) and "added to" (Jesus ain't no sidecar), are misleading. I don't describe the Trinity that way, and wouldn't defend such a description.<br /><br />But, I do argue that God's "thick" personhood <i>really does</i> imply precisely three persons differentiated by relation. If my argument holds, then the extraordinary claim <i>would</i> have been demonstrated.<br /><br />God <i>relates</i> to both Himself and to other non-God creatures, and these relations aren't "attributes" in the sense of all referring to the same essence (divine simplicity).<br /><br />Recall that when we know something, we hold the form of it in our minds, non-materially. If it's a material thing (e.g. an apple) we're comprehending, then the fact that it's non-material in our reason is critical: If our minds contained both the matter <i>and</i> form, then there'd just be an actual apple in our heads, since the form-of-apple united to actual matter just <i>is</i> an apple.<br /><br />Recall also that God's use of symbol has power to not merely <i>signify</i>, but <i>cause to be</i> that which is symbolized. From "let there be light" to "this is My body," the Word of God has power: What He asserts is, is. (We can expect no less of that which is subsistent existence itself.)<br /><br />What would it mean, then, for God to actively assert-as-true, in His own mind, the fullness of everything that was true about God, including the fact that God's existence is (by definition) not a created act-of-existence (as with an apple or an angel), but the divine existence itself?<br /><br />Well, you'd have the "form of God" perfectly instantiated in the mind of God, wouldn't you? Being a mental apprehension it wouldn't be material...but then, neither is God, so non-materiality wouldn't distinguish God's understanding of God from God Himself. What would there be, then, to distinguish God's Knowing Of God from God? Just the act of existing...but here again, God's existence is the divine existence, not a created act-of-existing, so that too is no distinction.<br /><br />The only distinction between God's understanding of God in God's mind, and God Himself, is just the relationship between the "conceiver" and the "conceived." That's it. To posit any other distinctives between God's self-knowledge and God would be to say his self-knowledge was imperfect. But it isn't imperfect. So whatever it is that God concevies as true about God just <i>is</i> God, truly God, in every way, apart from the fact that this "conception" comes <i>from</i> God.<br /><br />No disrespect if you aren't persuaded! I am, but I've had time to ponder.<br /><br />So far as I can see, the explanation doesn't contradict anything about itself, or anything we know of God...and yet, the conclusion is too brain-bendy and non-intuitive to be the kind of thing we humans would come up with on our own. (I certainly wouldn't have.) We expect circular orbits in a solar-system; we get ellipses. We expect indivisible atoms; we get quarks and double-slits and the Uncertainty Principle. To me, the Trinity has that same "taste" of the real.R.C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90033964048015387462019-08-07T14:28:08.697-07:002019-08-07T14:28:08.697-07:00@Bill:
I grant you were paraphrasing (rather than...@Bill:<br /><br />I grant you were paraphrasing (rather than quoting) Vallicella. My bad, I should have been more careful to say that precisely.<br /><br />Re: Your argument: I've re-read it twice. I don't see how what I said doesn't address it.<br /><br />You say all relations are identical except in signification, and all actually signify the divine essence. I posit (while willing to be corrected) that that's wrong; that relations aren't attributes, and that attributes point to the divine essence (or else there'd be composition in God), but relations needn't (they have no implications re: composition).<br /><br />It appears that Aquinas is on your side, although the first time he says they differ only in "signification" he seems only to be saying that <i>origin</i> and <i>relation</i> are two different ways of describing the same thing (from opposite ends, so to speak). That's fine with me. But then you (he?) go (es) on to say that all God's relations just are the divine essence, and that's where I posit a different view.<br /><br />What did I leave out?R.C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36532447165063725902019-08-07T14:12:12.249-07:002019-08-07T14:12:12.249-07:00Walter,
I get that that's the point of Divine...Walter,<br /><br />I get that that's the point of Divine Simplicity. And I agree that to say that the persons of the Trinity differ only in mode of signification is probably heretical, and so for the sake of argument I presume that it is.<br /><br />When you stress the word "We" in "<i>We</i> can make a distinction" I realize you're quoting my own words back at me, but you're applying the analogy I was making for a use beyond its intention. (I'm beginning to regret mentioning the cube analogy, because that's happened twice in this conversation. I find it a helpful analogy for explaining the Trinity to middle-schoolers, but any interlocutors here are likely to try to consider it an attempted "proof" of the distinction I'm making between relation and attribute...but it's no good for that, and I never meant to use it that way.)<br /><br />Since...<br />- I get that the point of Divine Simplicity is that the divine attributes themselves are the same even though we use differing terms in signification of them; and,<br />- I get that saying that "the Son" and "the Father" are merely different representations of the same person is heretical<br />...it doesn't seem to me that I'm misunderstanding the issue.<br /><br />But I am positing that...<br />1. A relation is not an attribute any more than a person is a nature;<br />2. Divine simplicity logically applies to attributes but not to relations (else God's relation to Himself would be exactly the same relation as His relation to a cockroach, the Virgin Mary, a rock, or the Pegasus galaxy);<br />3. God's divine "attributes" are all referring to the same thing under different significations (divine simplicity is true);<br />4. God's relations are not attributes, are not all one relation, and are distinct from one another, and this does not in any way contradict divine simplicity (God is not composed of His relations);<br />5. The persons in God differ only by their relations but not in their divinity;<br />6. Since they differ in relation (a real difference) but not in divinity, they are really distinct persons, in a divinely simple God whose attributes all refer to the same God.<br /><br />Maybe that's wrong. As I say, I am positing it. But it does seem to directly address the issue <i>unless</i> there is some other aspect of the issue that you didn't mention in your last reply to me.R.C.noreply@blogger.com