(Originally written March 13, 2007 in Book 25)
Class of Notes
Philosophy of Religion
Principle of Sufficient Reason (Leibniz)
What counts as an explanation is mushy. What counts as a sufficient reason is mush. What is not mushy is the fact of causality.
A Cosmological Argument
Aquinas - Everything that moves is moved by another
Flew - From the Newtonian vantage point we can see this is false. Aquinas used the Aristotelian method of potentiality moving to actuality. But, this concept with all the archaic concepts of Aristotle are shown to be flawed by today's scientific insights.
Aquinas - Everything that moves is moved by another
Modern - Every body continues in its state of rest (or of uniform motion) unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.
Aquinas and Aristotle would have meant "change" by "move". Thus, Aquinas and Newton were really stating the same thing.
Aristotelian metaphysical is not outdated or replaced by modern science.
The Existential Cosmological Argument
Change: When something changes a potential is actualized.
Change is limited by potential.
A contingent thing has the potential to change.
Potential do not actualize themselves. It takes a cause.
Logically there can be change caused by another or an uncaused change, but not a self-caused change.
Anything that exists must be either caused by another thing or totally uncaused
1) Something exists
2) Each thing that exists is either necessary or contingent
Necessary - that which is non-contingent
Contingent - that which is non-necessary
Contingent - dependent, conditioned, caused, sustained, shaped, actualized potential
Necessary - none of the above; independent, unconditioned, uncaused, unsustained, uninfluenced
Properties of a contingent being vs. necessary being
Limited vs. Unlimited
Temporal vs. Eternal
Finite vs. Infinite
Dependent vs. Independent
Caused vs. Uncaused
Changeable vs. Immutable
3) A necessary being has the properties of "God"
- it must have all of its properties, whatever they may be, without limits
4) The world (universe) cannot be a necessary being
5) There can be, at most, one necessary being
Principle of the Identity of Indiscernables
"Cookie Monster Principle"
If you do not differ from Cookie Monster in some respect you are Cookie Monster
In order for two things to differ from each other they must differ in some respect; or, unless two things differ in some property they are identical (they are one and the same thing)
Whether or not we can derive the attributes of God from reason?
Objections:
1. If Divine simplicity is true, there would be no distinctions among any of God's attributes
2. Complex things are better than simple things, God must be the best, therefore, not simple
3. We cannot conceptualize immutability
4. The world is in perpetual flux; God is immutable. How can they relate?
5. If God is unity, how can he be a trinity?
6. God's actions change and they take place in time; therefore, how can he be immutable?
7. God might change, but it takes a long time, just as things in nature seem to be immutable but aren't
8. The concept of "one" is incompatible with God's complete unity
9. Removing all specific attributes from God in order to achieve simplicity leaves you with a God without attributes; therefore, a God who is nothing
10. Applying an attribute to God is to limit God/
Can the Attributes of God be derived by reason?
Aquinas' Attributes of God
- Simplicity
- Perfection
- Goodness
- Infinity
- Immutability
- Eternity
- Unity
God's Simplicity
- Is God a body?
- Does God consist of matter and form?
- Is God the same as his essence?
- Is existence one with God's essence?
- Is God wholly simple?
Is God a body?
arg. 1:
1) No body is in motion unless put in motion
2) Bodies cannot be necessary beings because it could not cause itself
3) God is the first mover, unmoved
4) Therefore, God is not a body
arg. 2:
1) The first Being is pure actuality with no potentiality
2) All bodies have potentiality
3) Therefore, God is not a body
Does God consist of matter and form?
Argument against matter:
1) Matter is potentiality (contingent)
2) God is pure actuality
3) Therefore, God does not consist of matter
Argument Against Form
Is God the same as His essence?
Uses the analogy of man and humanity: individual man has certain skin color, specific flesh and bones, but these 'accidental qualities' are not the same was the form or essence of humanity
Since God is not matter he cannot have 'accidental qualities', therefore God's essence and Being are one.
Is God wholly simple
arg. 1
1) Every composite has a cause (parts do not unite themselves)
2) God is uncaused
3) Therefore, He is simple
arg. 2
1) No single part can predicate a composite of parts
2) Therefore, God must be pure form and in no way composite
God's Immutability
1st arg:
1) God is pure actuality with no potentiality
2) Everything which is in any way potential is changeable
3) Therefore, God is immutable
2nd arg:
1) Everything that moves remains as it was in part and passes away in part
2) God is not a composite
3) There is not multiple parts to remain and pass away in God
4) Therefore, God is immutable
3rd arg:
1) Everything that changes acquires something new
2) God is infinite
3) He cannot acquire anything new
4) Therefore, God is immutable
Immutability belongs only to God
Unity of God
Argument from simplicity:
1) God is a simple being
2) Simple beings have no parts
3) In order to be divisible one must have parts
4) Therefore, God is one
Argument from perfection:
1) God is perfect
2) If there were two or more Gods they would have to differ
3) But an absolutely perfect Being cannot lack anything
4) Therefore, God is one
Argument from unity of the world
1) World is composed of diverse things
2) Diverse things do not come together unless ordered
3) The world has an ordered unity
4) Therefore, there must be only one God
Objections
Schubert Ogden:
1) Service is doing for God
Aquinas' God is immutably perfect
Therefore, we cannot serve Aquinas' God
Thomistic reply
True, we cannot add anything to God. We serve Him for His glory. God is not "statically completed perfection". He is pure actuality or dynamic act.
2) All genuine relationships involve mutual dependence. Aquinas' God does not depend on the world. Therefore, there is no relationship between God and man.
Thomistic reply
True, God is not dependent on the world. First premise is wrong; all relationships do not involve mutual dependence. This is absurd anthropomorphism.
Can the attributes of God be derived by reason?
Yes, I think so ... - Matt
Divine simplicity
God - One God, no Parts, No divisibility
God is one Being, one Existence, One Nature, One Substance, One essence, Not three Gods, three parts three divisions, three natures, three substances, three beings, three existences, three natures, three substances
He is three modes, persons, appearances, outward manifestations, subsistences
Whatever category God is one in He is not three. Whatever category God is three in He is not one.
"One what and three who's" - Geisler terminology
One God who manifests himself in three ways. The term used for this is "persons" which goes back to "persona" (Latin) which goes back to the Greek word meaning "mask"
Persons are three different ways of the one God manifesting himself.
These manifestations are not sequential (heresy) but eternal. All three occur simultaneously, but it is still only one being.
The three persons subsist in the one existence of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment