2 question about God's attributes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomas_Jennings
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thomas_Jennings

Guest
  1. There seems to be disagreement, within Christianity, about whether or not joy is an infinite attribute of God’s ( literally infinite). To what degree is this the case for theists? Is there no majority understanding?
  2. God is infinitely timeless. We are finite so we will never be. However, both in His infinite joy, timelessness, beauty, happiness etc. To what degree can we (if at all) partake in these, literally endless and unlimited in quality) parts of His being?
 
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1026.htm

Article 1. Whether beatitude belongs to God?

I answer that, Beatitude belongs to God in a very special manner. For nothing else is understood to be meant by the term beatitude than the perfect good of an intellectual nature; which is capable of knowing that it has a sufficiency of the good which it possesses, to which it is competent that good or ill may befall, and which can control its own actions. All of these things belong in a most excellent manner to God, namely, to be perfect, and to possess intelligence. Whence beatitude belongs to God in the highest degree.
newadvent.org/summa/5092.htm#article3
Article 3. Whether the saints, seeing God, see all that God sees?

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Hier. Eccles. vi): “The higher angels cleanse the lower angels from ignorance.” Now the lower angels see the Divine essence. Therefore an angel while seeing the Divine essence may be ignorant of certain things. But the soul will not see God more perfectly than an angel. Therefore the souls seeing God will not necessarily see all things.

Further, Christ alone has the spirit not “by measure” (John 3:34). Now it becomes Christ, as having the spirit without measure, to know all things in the Word: wherefore it is stated in the same place (John 3:35) that “the Father . . . hath given all things into His hand.” Therefore none but Christ is competent to know all things in the Word.

Further, the more perfectly a principle is known, the more of its effects are known thereby. Now some of those who see God in His essence will know God more perfectly than others. Therefore some will know more things than others, and consequently every one will not know all.
 
I believe Thomism teaches God has no attributes. He is infinitely simple. He says at one point God’s will comes from his love. Then that there is no difference in God’s will or love. Read Summa on God’s simplicity. God has no “parts”.
 
I believe Thomism teaches God has no attributes. He is infinitely simple. He says at one point God’s will comes from his love. Then that there is no difference in God’s will or love. Read Summa on God’s simplicity. God has no “parts”.
Click to expand...
I don’t even have to look at Aquinas to refute this one! :cool:

A thing can have more than one attribute while having no parts.
Attributes need not come from parts, but from the whole thing.
 
empther said:
I don’t even have to look at Aquinas to refute this one! :cool:

A thing can have more than one attribute while having no parts.
Attributes need not come from parts, but from the whole thing.
Click to expand...
For some reason I am unable to find what I thought I was looking at before. But this is the page.

dhspriory.org/thomas/Compendium.htm

Ok so you are saying God has no parts then but has attributes? Maybe I misread and looked at accidents. 🤷
 
empther said:
Further, the more perfectly a principle is known, the more of its effects are known thereby. Now some of those who see God in His essence will know God more perfectly than others. Therefore some will know more things than others, and consequently every one will not know all.
Click to expand...
I really like the way you said this. Thank you.

Sometimes it feels like a “need to know” basis to me.
Sometimes like a “test” to see how far I’ll go.
Sometimes it’s just Love, Mercy, and Kindness.

But within God’s Infinite Boundaries, there’s never any real need for me to know “everything, all at once.” I like living with the idea that there will always be more to know, and always more to explore =)
 
Ok so you are saying God has no parts then but has attributes? Maybe I misread and looked at accidents. 😊

Accidents, hunh?

Question 3. The simplicity of God
Article 6. Whether in God there are any accidents?
newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#article6
Objection 1. It seems that there are accidents in God. For substance cannot be an accident, as Aristotle says (Phys. i). Therefore that which is an accident in one, cannot, in another, be a substance. Thus it is proved that heat cannot be the substantial form of fire, because it is an accident in other things. But wisdom, virtue, and the like, which are accidents in us, are attributes of God. Therefore in God there are accidents.
Click to expand...
Reply to Objection 1. Virtue and wisdom are not predicated of God and of us univocally. Hence it does not follow that there are accidents in God as there are in us.
Click to expand...
univocally: having one meaning, both types of being God and human exhibiting virtue and wisdom in the same way 👍
Objection 2. Further, in every genus there is a first principle. But there are many “genera” of accidents. If, therefore, the primal members of these genera are not in God, there will be many primal beings other than God–which is absurd.
that which is in creatures must first be in God. So accidents must be in God. 😊

Reply to Objection 2. Since substance is prior to its accidents, the principles of accidents are reducible to the principles of the substance as to that which is prior; although God is not first as if contained in the genus of substance; yet He is first in respect to all being, outside of every genus.
Click to expand...
created things have received existence and their attributes are accidents and not necessary with respect to existence. But God is necessary existence and therefore all things that exist come from him 👍
 
empther said:
Ok so you are saying God has no parts then but has attributes? Maybe I misread and looked at accidents. 😊

Accidents, hunh?

Question 3. The simplicity of God
Article 6. Whether in God there are any accidents?
newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#article6

univocally: having one meaning, both types of being God and human exhibiting virtue and wisdom in the same way 👍

created things have received existence and their attributes are accidents and not necessary with respect to existence. But God is necessary existence and therefore all things that exist come from him 👍
Click to expand...
Ok I have searched and search and can’t seem to find the sources I was coming from but the argument was something like this. And I will continue searching. For God to possess something is for that to not be God. Does God have love, no God is love. Does God have truth? God’s is truth in its’ highest form. So love isn’t an attribute of God but is God. I read this and Aquinas’s name I’m sure was there. I’ll keep looking. Does that sound right?
 
billcu1 said:
Ok I have searched and search and can’t seem to find the sources I was coming from but the argument was something like this. And I will continue searching. For God to possess something is for that to not be God. Does God have love, no God is love. Does God have truth? God’s is truth in its’ highest form. So love isn’t an attribute of God but is God. I read this and Aquinas’s name I’m sure was there. I’ll keep looking. Does that sound right?
Click to expand...
That sounds pretty good to me. 👍

God Is, those things, the greatest I AM, in all of existence.

But I don’t like to get to caught up in the wording, myself. Sometimes people say things with a meaning and an intention, that is clearer to them, in their own minds, than it is, to others, when we try to speak of such things =)

It’s pretty difficult to describe that which is beyond description.

A fault of my own, that I imagine others share 😉

Sean
 
Lynxdk said:
That sounds pretty good to me. 👍

God Is, those things, the greatest I AM, in all of existence.

But I don’t like to get to caught up in the wording, myself. Sometimes people say things with a meaning and an intention, that is clearer to them, in their own minds, than it is, to others, when we try to speak of such things =)

It’s pretty difficult to describe that which is beyond description.

A fault of my own, that I imagine others share 😉

Sean
Click to expand...
That is true. You cannot describe what can’t be described 👍 but Thomism attempts it not to mention other philosophers and philosophic doctrines. He is trying to say things when he says things and then “goes back” on them; so to speak anyway. For example,

Man’s good comes from his will. God’s will comes from his good. Then he says God’s will and goodness are in separate. And then it makes sense that God does have or possess a will but is perfect will. Perfect Goodness. These things are not about him but are him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top