Aquinas & The Trinitarian God

[MindOverMatter]

I believe, that based on Aquinas’s five ways, we can come to knowledge of at least some of what we understand as the Christian God, in so far as proving that the first Cause is personal. But can we give a metaphysical proof that God is “Love” by nature of being, based only on the five ways?

If we can do that, i believe that i can show good deductive reason why we ought to believe that God is more then one person.

Let me see what you got.

 

[True_Believer_1]

Do you mean, Three divine persons in One God? Or are you speaking of Three Seperate Gods, (Like the Mormons believe)?

There is only ONE GOD, in Three Divine Persons–Father, Son and Holy Spirit!

NOT JUST STRONG…CATHOLIC STRONG!!!

 

[MindOverMatter]

Do you mean, Three divine persons in One God? Or are you speaking of Three Seperate Gods, (Like the Mormons believe)?

There is only ONE GOD, in Three Divine Persons–Father, Son and Holy Spirit!

NOT JUST STRONG…CATHOLIC STRONG!!!

What is the point?

 

[reggieM]

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

There is a gradation of goodness to be found in beings. Some things are partially good, some are better. The hierarchy of values require reference to the uttermost case of goodness. The maximum goodness is the cause of all other goodness.

In the hierarchy of human values, love is the greatest virtue and highest expression of goodness.

Since God is the perfection of goodness, God must possess perfect love.

 

[MindOverMatter]

There is a gradation of goodness to be found in beings. Some things are partially good, some are better. The hierarchy of values require reference to the uttermost case of goodness. The maximum goodness is the cause of all other goodness.

In the hierarchy of human values, love is the greatest virtue and highest expression of goodness.

Since God is the perfection of goodness, God must possess perfect love.

Thanks for your reply reggieM.

This is a good arguement. I absolutly agree, but only in so far as i believe in objective values. So the real question is, how do we stop it from becoming a mere tuatology? For example; some people would suggest that values, such as better or worse, are nothing more then subjective ideals that we have invented in response to pleasure and pain.

 

[reggieM]

Thanks for your reply reggieM.

This is a good arguement. I absolutly agree, but only in so far as i believe in objective values. So the real question is, how do we stop it from becoming a mere tuatology? For example; some people would suggest that values, such as better or worse, are nothing more then subjective ideals that we have invented in response to pleasure and pain.

That’s an interesting question, MindOverMatter. Ok, I think the response that was given is self-refuting.

The claim is that values such as better and worse do not really exist for the reason you gave.
In other words, there is a better argument than the one based on objective values. One is better, more true, than the other.

So, this refutes itself. If there was no better and worse, there could be no arguments to use against the existence of God or of anything else. The notion that there is no better and worse is refuted by the argument that says, for example, “relativism is better than belief in objective truth”. This means that one position is better. But it is not a perfect argument if any flaws can be found in it.

The fact that human beings criticize anything at all points to a standard of “better”. One argument is claimed to be “worse” and the other “better”. The standard of measure is an absolute truth – a best and perfect argument that has absolutely no flaws and cannot be refuted in any way.

The same standard holds for everything. If we can see a flaw in it, it is not perfect. This measures the thing against a standard of perfection (a thing that is flawless and impossible to criticize in any way).

Every contingent, dependent being can be criticized as not perfect because it has to depend on something for its existence. A more perfect thing would be that which is not-dependent and self-existing.

But more to your point, how does an atheist argue against a hierarchy of values by using a hierarchy of values to prove their points?

If there was no better and worse, then there would be no reason to argue against the existence of God. But we see atheists doing this all the time – so they accept a hierarchy of values.

As for whether good and bad are tied to pleasure and pain, this doesn’t seem to be relevant (I might not understand it). As long as there is a flaw, then the thing is “worse” than a thing that doesn’t have the flaw.

If someone then says, “yes, but I can criticize God”, then this is an absurdity because God, by definition is perfect and flawless. It’s like saying that you have a four-sided triangle.

 

[Shike]

The claim is that values such as better and worse do not really exist for the reason you gave.

That’s not what I took away from his post. In his argument he didn’t say that values didn’t exist/ are not real. He claimed that they were subjective. More specifically he claimed that better and worse were subjective, which leaves room for objective values actually existing. Claiming a subjective better and worse is not the same as relativism, one could easily accept the objective truth of a subjective value.

If there was no better and worse, then there would be no reason to argue against the existence of God. But we see atheists doing this all the time – so they accept a hierarchy of values.

So you are saying that objective truth is a better/worse type of thing. But is it possible that better/worse also be a subjective type of thing; can both exist separately in reality? I don’t think his original argument claimed that there was no objective better/worse, just that this case was a subjective one.

What exactly do you mean when you say, “do not really exist”? If by that phrase you merely mean not objective, then it doesn’t look like you’ve made your point but just restated the problem. If you mean non-existence/not real, then it doesn’t look like you properly addressed the problem either.

Where do we go from here?

peace,
Michael

 

[reggieM]

Interesing thoughts, Michael. Thanks for replying.

That’s not what I took away from his post. In his argument he didn’t say that values didn’t exist/ are not real. He claimed that they were subjective. More specifically he claimed that better and worse were subjective, which leaves room for objective values actually existing. Claiming a subjective better and worse is not the same as relativism, one could easily accept the objective truth of a subjective value.

You could very well be correct here about the original post about subjectivity. I was responding to the idea that since the concept of “good” is subjective, then you can’t say that God is the fulfillment of all good. A subjective good would mean “what is good for you is bad for me” – so there would be no objective good. That is, if “good” was only subjective. But you’re right that it could be both subjective and objective.

If that was the case, then I think that answers the objection also. As long as “good” is objective, then the hierarchy of values exists.

So you are saying that objective truth is a better/worse type of thing. But is it possible that better/worse also be a subjective type of thing; can both exist separately in reality? I don’t think his original argument claimed that there was no objective better/worse, just that this case was a subjective one.

Yes, you’re right. I was responding to the idea that better/worse is *only *a subjective thing. If that was true, then better/worse would lack meaning. Better/worse has a couple of reference points. As part of the main argument, it has a reference point to the ultimate, uttermost “better” or “worse”. But it also has a reference to an object. Something is better or worse. Then it references a purpose. It is better/worse *for *something. When talking about God, we have the ultimate of “better” in the highest category of “for” – and that is pure being. So, we say *supreme *being. God is the fulfillment of the good and there cannot be a higher good beyond God.

So, we could say “subjective better/worse” still has meaning because it is “better/worse” in relation to that person. So, in either case, we travel up the hierarchy of values and we see flaws or imperfections and speak about something “better” – but that is always in reference to something which could not possibly be better in any way. And that is God.

What exactly do you mean when you say, “do not really exist”? If by that phrase you merely mean not objective, then it doesn’t look like you’ve made your point but just restated the problem. If you mean non-existence/not real, then it doesn’t look like you properly addressed the problem either.

Ok, again – I was responding to the stronger argument which would claim “the good is totally subjective, there is no objective good and no objective way to say better/worse”. If that is true, then what is good for one person’s interpretation is bad for another. There couldn’t “really” be any better/worse because the same thing could be either one.

But if we took your view, then we would say that better/worse is sometimes subjective, but there does remain an objective better/worse. In that case, we could use St. Thomas’ argument on the 4th proof of the existence of God.

Where do we go from here?

peace,
Michael

I would like to know more about your objections. If I say that a “totally subjective” quality of better/worse means that better/worse “does not really exist”, then I think you’re agreeing with that. If that was true, then we couldn’t use the 4th proof of a gradation of being (or a hierarchy of values).

But I’m saying that better/worse is not only subjective. It would not be possible to have an argument or use reason or logic at all if there was no better/worse.

 

[Jessi_Thomist]

St. Thomas explicitly says that the Trinitarian God is a matter of faith and not philosophically arguable.
Now it can be argued philosophically that it is proper that God is Triune, and you will find your answer in Thomas’ commentary on Augustine’s De Trinitate, if that is really what you are looking for. Augustine thinks that evidence of the Trinity is found in nature, Aquinas doesn’t think that such is evident to the unlearned unbeliever-- but only to the faithful.

God is identical to anything that can be predicated of His essence (because His essence is His existence i.e., esse). Goodness, Being, Truth, Beauty-- any of the transcendentals of the ancient pagans are predicated of creation only analogically, insofar as that predication is referable to God as the Creator. In other words, only God is Beauty, Goodness, Existence… perfectly.
Now, Love (caritas) is primarily an action for Aquinas, in which a person wishes the good of someone else. Goodness is thus intrinsically tied up with Love. God must wish the goodness of Himself— for nothing is proportionate to receive the goodness of the will of God but God Himself.
This is why Augustine says that The holy spirit is the love of Father to Son. And it is thus appropriate that God would be Triune. We know this from scripture though, not philosophy.

Fulton Sheen writes about this very well in his small and excellent book called The Divine Romance.

But the answer to your question is no. There is not definitive proof that God is love or that God is Triune, and to use Aquinas to try to find such a proof would be against his own words. This is not to discount the use of philosophy for the defense of theology— it is not contradictory to reason, and it is appropriate but that is far as philosophy can take you (at least for Thomas, as I said Augustine thinks that you can sort of argue for it).

Remember that theology is the queen of the sciences and is the most certain.

Peace.

 

[Shike]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I am now more confused than before; a good sign.

But you’re right that it [the good] could be both subjective and objective.

If that was the case, then I think that answers the objection also. As long as “good” is objective, then the hierarchy of values exists.

I agree that an objective good implies that a hierarchy of objective values actually exists. What I am currently wondering about is…

“Fine, grant the objective hierarchy. But does the specific better/worse in your original argument have to connect up with the hierarchy? What if your better/worse in your specific argument was only a subjective one. Would a subjective better/worse connect up with the hierarchy?”

Does this even make sense? I’m starting to get confused…

So, we could say “subjective better/worse” still has meaning because it is “better/worse” in relation to that person. So, in either case, we travel up the hierarchy of values and we see flaws or imperfections and speak about something “better” – but that is always in reference to something which could not possibly be better in any way. And that is God.

I don’t get how a subjective better/worse can travel up the hierarchy. Why can’t the “buck stop here” when someone says, for instance, ice cream is better than chocolate (to use a crude example)?

But if we took your view, then we would say that better/worse is sometimes subjective, but there does remain an objective better/worse. In that case, we could use St. Thomas’ argument on the 4th proof of the existence of God.

How can we differentiate the subjective and objective better/worse?

I would like to know more about your objections. If I say that a “totally subjective” quality of better/worse means that better/worse “does not really exist”, then I think you’re agreeing with that.

No, I don’t think that I agree fully. Right now I see things as there are these two different and non-univocal (either analogical or equivocal) better/worse’s, one is subjective and one is objective. The “totally subjective”, or fully subjective, quality might not exist whilst the objective quality still could. They are perhaps independent of one another?

In this case, you would need to prove which better/worse you were using before you could use Aquinas’ 4th way, that is if the two better/worse are independent and one couldn’t get to the objective through the subjective route.

But just maybe… perhaps by “totally subjective” you mean that the only better/worse that exists is the subjective one. In that case I could agree that it “does not really exist”… ie. that it is not objective better/worse.

I think I’m lost.

peace,
Michael

 

[reggieM]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I am now more confused than before; a good sign.

I was going to start my previous post with almost exactly the same words.

I’m getting confused also because there are two (at least) ways to look at “subjective better/worse” and I mixed those up.

“Fine, grant the objective hierarchy. But does the specific better/worse in your original argument have to connect up with the hierarchy? What if your better/worse in your specific argument was only a subjective one. Would a subjective better/worse connect up with the hierarchy?” Does this even make sense? I’m starting to get confused… I don’t get how a subjective better/worse can travel up the hierarchy. Why can’t the “buck stop here” when someone says, for instance, ice cream is better than chocolate (to use a crude example)?

Yes, that does make sense. If we’re talking about subjective judgements of things, then it wouldn’t be able to show St. Thomas’ gradation of being. Like your example, ice cream cannot be said to be better/worse than chocolate as the things they are. This is one of the classic objections to St. Thomas’ 4th proof where one philosopher said that the gradation of being would mean that somewhere there is “the best island” or in our case, the best ice cream. That would have to be an objective value, but it’s not possible.

But another way to look at “subjective better/worse” is not with regards to the object, but with regards to the human judgement. It doesn’t matter if ice cream is objectively better than chocolate because better/worse must always relate to some kind of purpose or reason. It is better/worse *because *… or it is better/worse *for *… whatever reason. Ice cream is better because … it tastes better. That is subjective, but the term “better” still has objective meaning. The person uses the term to mean that one thing is better than the other – for a specific reason. A person cannot say that something is better than the other for no reason. This denies the meaning of the word “better”. This preserves the hierarchy of value. A person may say that grass is better than ashphalt. But that statement cannot stand alone. We have to know why one is better – what is grass better *for *than ashphalt? We could say something like playing football or soccer and then have logical reasons why grass is better. The same argument can be reversed. Ashphalt is better than grass. In this case, for playing basketball.

So there’s no objective better/worse with grass or ashphalt except for the purpose it serves. (For ice cream or chocolate a person would have a harder time explaining why one is better – usually it would be because of taste.)

But questioning a person about ice cream, for example … it’s better than chocolate, that means you can compare the values of ice cream with chocolate. When you compare them, you decide one is better and one is worse. But this supports St. Thomas’ idea, I think because his argument states that there is an ultimate better that we’re comparing with. Ice cream is better than chocolate because it tastes better … but what are the flaws with ice cream? Can we find anything to criticize about it?

If so, then we still move up the chain of hierarchy of values. The pleasure of ice cream only lasts a little while, it costs money, it melts, if you have too much you get sick, in the winter it is too cold, you can get bored with it, it can make you fat … etc.

So, we see that something could be “better” still. But it’s not compared with chocolate but with the “values” that ice cream provides.

How can we differentiate the subjective and objective better/worse?

My suggestion was through a negative appraisal. We look at something and if there is a flaw, then it is worse than the thing would be without the flaw.

No, I don’t think that I agree fully. Right now I see things as there are these two different and non-univocal (either analogical or equivocal) better/worse’s, one is subjective and one is objective. The “totally subjective”, or fully subjective, quality might not exist whilst the objective quality still could. They are perhaps independent of one another?

I have to think about that because I think I confused myself again. I guess they would have to be totally independent – but I have to think about that more.

In this case, you would need to prove which better/worse you were using before you could use Aquinas’ 4th way, that is if the two better/worse are independent and one couldn’t get to the objective through the subjective route.

I think I’ve stretched Aquinas’ 4th way in a manner that wasn’t approved by him, or perhaps he didn’t try this approach. I was just tossing out some ideas that might work with the original question but I think there were some short-cuts in what I said and they don’t hold up under inspection. I’m not sure.

But just maybe… perhaps by “totally subjective” you mean that the only better/worse that exists is the subjective one. In that case I could agree that it “does not really exist”… ie. that it is not objective better/worse.

Yes, that’s what I originally meant but I’m more confused about that now.

I would like to see more examples about how a subjective better/worse really works and why that wouldn’t lead us up the chain of values.

I think I’m lost.

I am also, but maybe we’ll discover something along the way.

 

[tonyrey]

Christians believe God is Love but to love oneself is not the highest form of love. The most perfect love is to identify oneself with another person and to dedicate oneself to that person. For God to love only Himself as a solitary Person would amount to egolatry, i.e. supreme selfishness!

It is more in keeping with our experience of love that it is not confined to oneself but extended to others. Even the love of two Persons would be inadequate because Their love would be inferior to the love of a man and a woman. Divine love would be sterile whereas human love is fertile: the parents are reflected in their child.

So an adequate concept of God entails at least three Persons. Why not more? Why not an infinite number of Persons? This is where Occam’s Razor is relevant: entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. Three Persons are sufficient to explain the origin of human love but divine love has created countless other persons in heaven and on earth.

Philosophical analysis alone could not have yielded an adequate concept of God. It is extremely unlikely that the concept of the Blessed Trinity would have occurred to anyone without the Incarnation. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God yet He also distinguished the Paraclete from the Father. It was only reflection on His teaching, life, death and resurrection that made His followers realize there can be no other solution. We can now understand why His love is greater than that of anyone else who has lived on this earth.

 

[Shike]

But another way to look at “subjective better/worse” is not with regards to the object, but with regards to the human judgement. It doesn’t matter if ice cream is objectively better than chocolate because better/worse must always relate to some kind of purpose or reason. It is better/worse *because *… or it is better/worse *for *… whatever reason. Ice cream is better because … it tastes better. That is subjective, but the term “better” still has objective meaning. The person uses the term to mean that one thing is better than the other – for a specific reason. A person cannot say that something is better than the other for no reason. This denies the meaning of the word “better”. This preserves the hierarchy of value. A person may say that grass is better than ashphalt. But that statement cannot stand alone. We have to know why one is better – what is grass better *for *than ashphalt? We could say something like playing football or soccer and then have logical reasons why grass is better. The same argument can be reversed. Ashphalt is better than grass. In this case, for playing basketball.

Making these types of distinctions helps clarify things a lot.

I would like to see more examples about how a subjective better/worse really works and why that wouldn’t lead us up the chain of values.

So would I. It’s got to have something to do with the distinctions you made about relations between objects versus purposes of an object.

OOoooOOOo… but then we could possible get to close to the “thorny” issue of teology, that for some reason some people have a problem with. I’ve heard the objection to Aquinas’ arguments that they presuppose teology (and apparently that’s outdated nowadays or wrong or something). I never really understood why, but I guess this is all off-topic.

 

[Cecilianus]

My understanding is that the Church has condemned the idea that the Trinity can be known through human reason - I don’t know where, though. It seems that we ought to try to prove as much as we can through reason alone, and just see if it is possible.

The best attempt I’ve seen at arguing for the Trinity was by the Catholic philosopher and convert Vladimir Soloviev in his book “Russia and the Universal Church”, in the chapter entitled “The Trinity Rationally Deduced From the Idea of Being”. Some of you may take issue with Soloviev’s Hegelian background, however.

 

[jhalpin100]

My understanding is that the Church has condemned the idea that the Trinity can be known through human reason - I don’t know where, though. It seems that we ought to try to prove as much as we can through reason alone, and just see if it is possible.

The best attempt I’ve seen at arguing for the Trinity was by the Catholic philosopher and convert Vladimir Soloviev in his book “Russia and the Universal Church”, in the chapter entitled “The Trinity Rationally Deduced From the Idea of Being”. Some of you may take issue with Soloviev’s Hegelian background, however.

I’m trying to recall a sermon by St Augustine where he talks about our inability to understand this sort of thing. I can’t come up with it at the moment, so I’ll offer the Athanasian Creed, which states in part

"So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity. "
- newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

I would argue that this is complete nonsense logically because words like Father, Son, Lord, et al are nouns, which describe categories. The creed doesn’t allow categorical distinctions in these cases.

I also think we should consider the obvious. Since we’re talking about an infinite being. What would make anyone think that the infinite should fit inside the finite?

I don’t think we’re meant to know what the creed means. We’re only meant to know what it rules out. Or maybe it would be better to say that its meaning is, in fact, what it rules out.

There is only one God. The church says that He exists in three persons, but what a “person” is in this sense isn’t within our grasp. It’s something that we affirm as part of the church which declares it, not something we can explain.

I think we do ourselves great harm at times trying to make logic do what it can’t. St Paul said we walk by faith not by sight. I think he’s right.

Just my $.02

Joe

 

[VanDoodah]

There is a gradation of goodness to be found in beings. Some things are partially good, some are better. The hierarchy of values require reference to the uttermost case of goodness. The maximum goodness is the cause of all other goodness.

In the hierarchy of human values, love is the greatest virtue and highest expression of goodness.

Since God is the perfection of goodness, God must possess perfect love.

It’s a terrible argument. The term “good”, at least in the moral sense, is subjective - it does not exist outside of the human mind. Even if it did, all one would require to have a standard of goodness if a knowledge of what goodness is - you don’t need an actual entity to act as a standard. Also, you assume that the term “good” means the same thing in every situation. Christians can only define “good” by appealing to theology, which means that the argument from degree would become fallacious on account of its conclusion being assumed in its premises.

 

[VanDoodah]

That’s an interesting question, MindOverMatter. Ok, I think the response that was given is self-refuting.

The claim is that values such as better and worse do not really exist for the reason you gave.
In other words, there is a better argument than the one based on objective values. One is better, more true, than the other.

Wrong. This is not a “good” or “bad” argument, it is an illogical one. If you wish to assign the term “bad” to poor logic, then feel free to attack your own straw man.

So, this refutes itself. If there was no better and worse, there could be no arguments to use against the existence of God or of anything else. The notion that there is no better and worse is refuted by the argument that says, for example, “relativism is better than belief in objective truth”. This means that one position is better. But it is not a perfect argument if any flaws can be found in it.

Again, you are attacking a straw man. The argument from degree is not a “good” or “bad” argument, it is an ILLOGICAL one. Arguments against it can be put forward without using emotional terms like “good” or “bad”.

The fact that human beings criticize anything at all points to a standard of “better”. One argument is claimed to be “worse” and the other “better”. The standard of measure is an absolute truth – a best and perfect argument that has absolutely no flaws and cannot be refuted in any way.

The bit in bold is nonsense. A Wahhabi Muslim may well say that suicide bombing is good and that non-halal meat is bad, [edited] Catholics would disagree with these. We all create our own standards of “goodness” - there is no objective standard.

As far as I am concerned, ethics is simply trying to deduce how we should live our lives based on the ocieties we live in. Obviously society changes from age to age, and with it goes morality, but I would argue that certain general principles can be deduced to give us guidelines on how best to live our lives.

 

[Shike]

As far as I am concerned, ethics is simply trying to deduce how we should live our lives based on the ocieties we live in. Obviously society changes from age to age, and with it goes morality, but I would argue that certain general principles can be deduced to give us guidelines on how best to live our lives.

Okay, I’ll bite.

So these general principles that can be deduced to give us guidelines on how best to live our lives… they sound a lot like moral principles. Do these general priciples that can be deduced constantly change?

peace,
Michael

 

[VanDoodah]

Okay, I’ll bite.

So these general principles that can be deduced to give us guidelines on how best to live our lives… they sound a lot like moral principles. Do these general priciples that can be deduced constantly change?

peace,
Michael

Well, yes, they are, because that’s how I view ethics.

If you want to know my moral beliefs then we should probably continue this via PMs.

 

[Shike]

Again, you are attacking a straw man. The argument from degree is not a “good” or “bad” argument, it is an ILLOGICAL one. Arguments against it can be put forward without using emotional terms like “good” or “bad”.

Are you using illogical in the sense of a contradiction? If so, please help us out by pointing to one.

And it’s important to note that in Aquinas’ 4th way the “good” that he is using is not an emotional term.

We are however talking about the distinctions between a subjective better/worse versus an objective better/worse, if you care to jump in and comment on the topic at hand.