Aquinas got me just so far

  • Thread starter Thread starter lenseekstruth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lenseekstruth

Guest
I have used Aquinas’ argument about God being pure ACTUALITY, ESSE, and no POTENTIALITY, in order to prove His existence. Now, “the pupil” is turning the argument around and debating that if God is pure actuality He cannot be limited by feeling, ie. love, the very fact that He “wanted” to create man, for example, would limit Him. In his eyes God can only be an immutable, unthinking “force” which is in us and in the whole universe ( Pantheism?) I cannot use the Bible or Jesus as he does not believe in either, what argument can I make? Help!
 
I have used Aquinas’ argument about God being pure ACTUALITY, ESSE, and no POTENTIALITY, in order to prove His existence. Now, “the pupil” is turning the argument around and debating that if God is pure actuality He cannot be limited by feeling, ie. love, the very fact that He “wanted” to create man, for example, would limit Him. In his eyes God can only be an immutable, unthinking “force” which is in us and in the whole universe ( Pantheism?) I cannot use the Bible or Jesus as he does not believe in either, what argument can I make? Help!
The love of God is distinct from passion. Aquinas says that God is without passion, for the very reason your pupil points out.

We can’t add anything to God - whether we go to Heaven or Hell, He’s still complete. But He’s complete good, which necessarily radiates outwards. So He wants what’s best for us for our own sake. It’s love for the sake of love, without benefit to the one doing the loving (God). So it is love, just much purer than whatever we’re used to thinking of love as.

Does that make any sense?
 
The pupil would not accept that “God wants what’s best for us” that would limit God. Any time we give God human feelings He is diminished.
I like what you said otherwise, but I don’t feel that I have a good argument yet
 
The pupil is in one sense right, as has been mentioned. The technical term (I think) is “impassibility”–God is impassible, in the sense of free of passion.

What is neat, however, is that God can “disinterestedly” have passion! God’s love as such is a disinterested regard for the good of all things, simply because God’s nature is Himself to be goodness. However, what is the greatest good for a rational creature such as humans? Is not the greatest good for a human to have a relationship of love with God?

So God can will the good of all things in a disinterested, impassible way. In the case of humans, God’s disinterested, impassible will for the greatest good is actually the very same thing as the passionate desire for union–which for us IS the greatest good!

We can’t love in this way, because our desire for union is not exactly the same thing as desire for the other’s greatest good. But God’s is—which means He can infinitely and passionately desire a relationship with us to the exact same entent He disinterestedly and impassively wills our good.

This also means that God’s love can be infinite, while ours always moves back and forth between these two poles.

My :twocents: Hope it helps.
 
The pupil would not accept that “God wants what’s best for us” that would limit God. Any time we give God human feelings He is diminished.
I like what you said otherwise, but I don’t feel that I have a good argument yet
Let me take another stab, then.

God isn’t (as many Eastern religions define Him) simply the universe or the collection of everything. It’s possible for God to be both infinite and bounded, just like there are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2, but 3 isn’t one of them.

In this case, God is infinitely good, but He isn’t evil at all.
We can know what God is in part by looking at the things which exist vis-a-vis the things which are defined by their absence. For example, there is no such thing as darkness (like you can’t have a “darkbulb”) - it’s just the absent of light. Likewise, evil is just the perversion or absence of good. Others have explained this much better than I do, but hopefully you see the line of thought I’m trying to explain.

So if God is the infinite of a finite number of things (infinitely loving, just, merciful, good, powerful, knowledgeable, wise, etc.), this explains why He behaves in a particular way.

Even the presence of evil shows God’s goodness. God is good because He *chooses *to be good. If He had no will in the matter, and could be no other way, there would be no way to place a value judgment about Him. Making a value judgment in the absence of any choice in the matter would be silly and arbitrary (even though it’s destructive, a hurricane isn’t “evil,” since evil is chosen).

Since God is good, and desires goodness, He made us with the capacity to choose good, because it is the only way for us to be morally good, rather than simply a good work. (Which is to say, all of creation is good in the sense that a painting or a good work is good, as a product and not as an action – God wishes us to be something even more than that). Since He gave us free will, the ability to choose good (and choose Him), this necessarily entails the ability to choose evil. It’s the reason that tree is named as it is in Eden. So evil, it seems to me, entered the world, because we choose evil pretty constantly, while our choosing ability was given to us as a gift from God, so we may be, in some lesser way, truly good.

I don’t think this is the perfect answer – I don’t know why God doesn’t make one more person (or for that matter, infinitely more people), knowing perfectly that they’ll end up in Heaven. There are certain questions which you just say, “I know as much as I can know from my viewpoint down here.” And that’s the answer I have the hardest time giving.
 
God is love, mercy, justice, holiness - in a word, goodness itself.

It is out of mercy that God acts: creating man, redeeming man, and sactifying man.

Love is not a feeling but an action, that is, to will the good of others. Since God is simple, and He is His Will, He created man out of mercy, willing his greatest good.

God created man for Himself, that is, He created man for happiness; God is eternal and absolute happiness, He is happiness itself, and it is for eternal and absolute happiness - for God - that man was created. This is why all men desire happiness, even before it is articulated.
 
The pupil is in one sense right, as has been mentioned. The technical term (I think) is “impassibility”–God is impassible, in the sense of free of passion.*
Can I say that God is LOVE and He creates out of LOVE? He can only create PERFECTION and ORDER. Being also JUSTICE, when He created man, He created us FREE, and we are the ones who broke the BALANCE of ORDER and PERFECTION because we chose to let evil enter God’s order. SO GOD’S PLAN of Redemption is not Plan B, or gosh plan A did not work, what am I going to do now?, but a return to ORDER. AN IMPASSIBLE consequence of return to Order.
This would eliminate all the words that my pupil rejects, ie. “wants, decided, desires, etc.”
Thank you I can definitely work with this, and I hope he doens’t shoot too many holes in it. He is a very bright pupil and at 17, having reached the peak of maturity, he is very difficult to convince.*
 
I might have given the impression that I am much stronger in philosophy than I actually am. I will continue to read the links, but I’m afraid I need simpler arguments
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top