Aquinas & The Trinitarian God

[Shike]

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.

Oh no, I don’t really want to know your moral beliefs. In fact, in what way would they benefit me, being that they’re subjective and pertain only to you… I just wanted to point out the absurdity of deducing principles that aren’t principles.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Theology isn’t the only place where baffling mysteries exist. In physics, light can behave simultaneously as a particle and a wave. Had Isaac Newton known this in his day, he might have been less repelled by Trinitarian theology.

 

[reggieM]

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.

You found my argument to be “terrible” and apparently yours is “better”. You’re referring to objective concepts. You have reasons for thinking that my argument was not as good as yours is – thus, you refer to a reference point of “goodness”. This is not subjective at all – clearly, you’re trying to convince me of something by using this very concept.

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.

The standard is the reference point against which you measure the entities. This corresponds perfectly with human reason.

Also, you assume that the term “good” means the same thing in every situation.

I don’t see the relevance or sense of that comment.

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.

Even moreso, this seems wildly out of synch with what I argued.

 

[reggieM]

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.

You’re using the term illogical (with your emotional fervor here) to argue against my argument. You’re against my argument because you see it as flawed (call it illogical, bad or whatever) and you believe you have a better one.

You’re using the very concepts that you are trying to claim do not exist.

If you’d like to argue against me without using the universal concepts of better/worse, then I would like to see that in action.

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”.

Again, you’re claiming that my argument is flawed and you have a “better” one. You’re referring to a standard – you observe flaws and offer something better.

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.

You might do well to read the later explanations offered on this topic. Your view is too superficial since the terms better/worse refer to an object and a purpose.

[edited]

 

[reggieM]

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.

That just caught my attention. You actually used the term “poor logic” while saying that it’s not good or bad. But the word “poor” is obviously a negative term.

Also, we weren’t talking only about the single value of good or bad – but the gradation of values that St. Thomas talked about. We can only see “better” or “worse” because we’re in an imperfect condition ourselves. Pure good is “supreme being” – that’s where the ladder of “better” goes up to. That’s where the reference point for good things ends – total good, or perfection in every possible thing. That’s God.

 

[Cecilianus]

Here is my problem with the fourth way.

We see things that are “better” and “worse”, and it is usually argued that therefore we need a standard - an ultimate good, and (if we would be consistent) an ultimate bad (unless we say that bad is simply the absence of good - which certainly isn’t linguistically correct, at any rate). Yet all we have actually shown is that we are in fact using a concept of “good” and a concept of “bad” univocally to apply to different degrees of perfection. This concept of “good” necessitates neither an infinite perfection which we simply see “less” of in the created world, nor a separate personal being called God. God is something very different from the meaning of the word “good” we find in the dictionary. “Good” is an adjective referring to finite things, while God is the Trinitarian deity who created heaven and earth.

So the Fourth Way proves only a univocal meaning for the term “goodness”. What I have yet to see is an argument that goes from this to God.

To take an analogy, we see more or less mass in objects and particles, but this by no means indicates that there is an infinite mass somewhere in the universe.

Likewise, seeing degrees of temperature does not mean there is a reservoir of infinite heat somewhere (in fact, the amount of energy in the universe is finite).

 

[reggieM]

Here is my problem with the fourth way.

We see things that are “better” and “worse”, and it is usually argued that therefore we need a standard - an ultimate good, and (if we would be consistent) an ultimate bad (unless we say that bad is simply the absence of good - which certainly isn’t linguistically correct, at any rate). Yet all we have actually shown is that we are in fact using a concept of “good” and a concept of “bad” univocally to apply to different degrees of perfection. This concept of “good” necessitates neither an infinite perfection which we simply see “less” of in the created world, nor a separate personal being called God. God is something very different from the meaning of the word “good” we find in the dictionary. “Good” is an adjective referring to finite things, while God is the Trinitarian deity who created heaven and earth.

So the Fourth Way proves only a univocal meaning for the term “goodness”. What I have yet to see is an argument that goes from this to God.

To take an analogy, we see more or less mass in objects and particles, but this by no means indicates that there is an infinite mass somewhere in the universe.

Likewise, seeing degrees of temperature does not mean there is a reservoir of infinite heat somewhere (in fact, the amount of energy in the universe is finite).

I think there are a couple of arguments that move from the degrees of goodness or perfection to the existence of an ultimate good. First, the ideas of better/worse are universal in human experience. This places the hierarchy of those values as part of human nature. The concept of better/worse is found everywhere and always has been among all classes and ranks and eras of humanity.

Along with that, the nature of better/worse judgement is a reference point. One does not need to compare the mass of particles with each other since particles themselves (and anything in the universe including intellectual concepts) can be compared with the concept of uttermost-good or perfection. We compare anything and can see how it could be better. Again, better/worse is judged in relation to an object and a purpose. A large particle is better than a small one for some reason. But in comparison to perfection itself, particles of any mass are limited. They cannot do every possible good thing, they do not possses every power and they do not possess the fullness of being. So those limits are flaws and defects versus the perfection of everything.

So, there is a universal reference point that all human beings understand (since everything can be judged against that reference). By inference, we notice that no human being has ever seen the perfect/ultimate good, and yet, every human being possesses the concept of the final end of the hierarchy of good since we can compare against it.

If there wasn’t truly a perfect or supreme being at the end of the gradation, we would never know that there were degrees of perfection – some closer to the end and some farther. This is very similar to the argument of being – we know that being exists since we all possess it. A supreme being must exist in order to give existence to all contingent beings. In the same way, perfection must exist to be the fixed standard by which we measure good (or to know that there is a measure).

This is similar to the arguments against an infinite regress also. In an infinite string, one cannot measure the distance to the end or the beginning because there is no end or beginning. There can be no scale of gradation of progress towards the end because in order to measure distance to the end, there needs to be an end.

The same is true of perfection. In order to measure distance towards the fullness of perfection it has to exist - otherwise we would not be able to measure if something was better/worse in comparison with perfection. There would be no possible end-point and thus no scale of degrees towards the end.

We know that better/worse exist. There must be an ultimate, highest point on the scale to allow for the existence of the concepts of better/worse themselves. Without the existence of a perfect, supreme good, the concepts of better/worse themselves could not exist (since better/worse are always pointing to a scale of perfection and the scale can only exist if an endpoint exists).

 

[reggieM]

To take an analogy, we see more or less mass in objects and particles, but this by no means indicates that there is an infinite mass somewhere in the universe.

Likewise, seeing degrees of temperature does not mean there is a reservoir of infinite heat somewhere (in fact, the amount of energy in the universe is finite).

Here’s a bit more on these analogies. First of all, just because there is a scale of values of some kind does not mean that the scale ends in an ultimate or infinite amount.

The values we’re looking at are better/worse. When applied to things that generate heat or cold, then we could say one is better because it is hotter or colder – in relation to some object or purpose. Heat itself, is better/worse depending on the situation, object it affects and the purpose it is serving. In every case, heat is never the ultimate perfection because it has flaws as a “substance” – it requires energy, is unstable, has limits to its power and potential, is transient and can lose existence (among many of the imperfections). A more perfect heat would be one that didn’t need any fuel, for example. Eventually, we realize that heat – part of the natural world, in itself is imperfect.

This is like the ontological argument again. We look at things and can judge better/worse by the nature of their being. In every case that there is a contingent being, we can see the thing being less perfect than a self-existing being (at the uttermost end of good).

In other way, going down to the bottom of the scale, the “ultimate bad” we would think would be the ultimate evil (like Satan, perhaps). But that’s not true because merely by having existence/being, Satan is “better” than something (that is consistent with Catholic theology – Satan is a creature of God and therefore cannot be totally evil).

The ultimate end of the scale of “badness” is non-existence. That is the opposite end of supreme/fullness of being which is God. The things that do not exist are those that cannot possess any good at all.

So, anything that can cease to exist is already something flawed because it has the potential for nothingness which is the “baddest” end of the hierarchy of values.

 

[Cecilianus]

Along with that, the nature of better/worse judgement is a reference point. One does not need to compare the mass of particles with each other since particles themselves (and anything in the universe including intellectual concepts) can be compared with the concept of uttermost-good or perfection. We compare anything and can see how it could be better.

No, it isn’t a reference to an uttermost good or perfection. When I say that something is better than something else, I am making a reference to that “something else”, not to God. I have no idea of an uttermost good, since all of the goods I can experience are only partial goods (which are often in conflict with each other). The reference point is contained within the objects we are comparing.

Secondly, we don’t compare particles with the uttermost good, because it makes no sense to make comparisons outside of the same genus. I might as well ask whether my mother is more blonde than my taxes are overdue or vice versa. Such a comparison wouldn’t make any sense. Likewise I would be bewildered if you tried comparing particles with God.

 

[reggieM]

No, it isn’t a reference to an uttermost good or perfection. When I say that something is better than something else, I am making a reference to that “something else”, not to God. I have no idea of an uttermost good, since all of the goods I can experience are only partial goods (which are often in conflict with each other). The reference point is contained within the objects we are comparing.

Secondly, we don’t compare particles with the uttermost good, because it makes no sense to make comparisons outside of the same genus. I might as well ask whether my mother is more blonde than my taxes are overdue or vice versa. Such a comparison wouldn’t make any sense. Likewise I would be bewildered if you tried comparing particles with God.

You’re using a different argument here, I think. The argument about a gradation of goodness does not say that when you compare two things, one is always “better” in an absolute sense. That is not the point.

You’re using the concept of better/worse. How to you apply that to two particles? If you can’t apply it, then you’re arguing something different.

The hierarchy of values extends to the uttermost good. You can choose to stop somewhere on the scale of values, but that doesn’t mean that there is no “better”.

As I said, if there was no endpoint on the scale, the concepts of better/worse would not exist. In fact, the concept of “better” is understood in relation to some object or purpose.

If atheistic-determinism was true, the term “better” would be meaningless in a philosophical sense.

 

[reggieM]

I have no idea of an uttermost good, since all of the goods I can experience are only partial goods (which are often in conflict with each other).

Actually, that is some good evidence of the point right there. You know that all of the goods you can experience are partial goods. That is the key to this argument. You know those are partial goods because you are comparing them to a reference point. This is the universal experience for all of humanity. We experience some goods, but they are always partial and imperfect. In order to judge something as partial and imperfect, we have some idea of what is needed to make them more perfect.

I will agree that we do not fully understand the uttermost good because that is something which is perfect and our imperfect minds cannot capture that (in some ways, if we could capture perfection in our natural mind, it wouldn’t be perfect). Since our souls can be perfected and can possess the supernatural perfection of God (and will be united to God in heaven), then we have the capability of fully understanding perfection.

But here on earth, we just have partial goods and our brains can only process the good in an imperfect way.

We do, however, still measure our partial goods against a reference point of total good. In the first place this has to be “being” or “existence”. If that good is not present, then the thing doesn’t exist.

 

[Cecilianus]

You know those are partial goods because you are comparing them to a reference point. This is the universal experience for all of humanity. We experience some goods, but they are always partial and imperfect. In order to judge something as partial and imperfect, we have some idea of what is needed to make them more perfect.

My point is that the reference point is not God, but generic “goodness”. I don’t judge something as partially good because of a reference to the “total good” - which I have no idea of - but rather in reference to the generic dictionary definition of goodness. If something can be more good, it is because it has more of this goodness, rather than because it is closer to an “ideal good” or “total good” or some sort of Platonic form.

 

[reggieM]

My point is that the reference point is not God, but generic “goodness”. I don’t judge something as partially good because of a reference to the “total good” - which I have no idea of - but rather in reference to the generic dictionary definition of goodness. If something can be more good, it is because it has more of this goodness, rather than because it is closer to an “ideal good” or “total good” or some sort of Platonic form.

That sounds fine with me. I don’t think you have to refer the goodness of the thing to God. When we recognize a partial goodness, implied in that is a reference point to a complete goodness.

The counter-point is that even though we refer to a uttermost goodness when we talk about partial good, that uttermost good might not exist.

I agree that we cannot experience the uttermost goodness of anything - -because that eventually takes us to God.

But one bit of evidence that that ultimate good exists is that every human being references it whenever we say “better” – and every human being uses that concept. Additionally, there is nothing that we can experience on earth is not a partial good. We can all see a flaw in it and therefore there could be something better. So, we can notice that 100% of human beings understand and use the concept of “better” and that concept always has a reference point of the ultimate good.

One argument we mentioned already – for example, one particle has more mass than another. Therefore, would there be an “ultimate” particle? Or the same with heat – would there be a “hottest” value?

The reasons those concepts do not apply to this argument is that “massiveness” and “heat” are imperfect values in themselves. There cannot be a perfection with heat because heat itself is limited - no matter how hot, heat is only a partial value. Heat cannot do some things. The same with mass. It is limited no matter how massive.

But the quality of “goodness” does not have those limitations. That’s why there can be an ultimate good. There can’t be an ultimate ice cream cone or particle or things like that because in itself, the object lacks perfection for what it is and what it does.

Eventually, when you look at a partial good, you judge it as partial because it is lacking something. You’re not judging it against God, but you are judging it against an ultimate good.

This is where the ontological argument comes in. The greatest good thing is existence itself. Existence confers being on all things (particles, ice cream cones, etc). Things do not give themselves being or existence – it must come from a non-created being.

 

[Cecilianus]

But one bit of evidence that that ultimate good exists is that every human being references it whenever we say “better” – and every human being uses that concept. Additionally, there is nothing that we can experience on earth is not a partial good. We can all see a flaw in it and therefore there could be something better. So, we can notice that 100% of human beings understand and use the concept of “better” and that concept always has a reference point of the ultimate good.

…]

But the quality of “goodness” does not have those limitations. That’s why there can be an ultimate good. There can’t be an ultimate ice cream cone or particle or things like that because in itself, the object lacks perfection for what it is and what it does.

Eventually, when you look at a partial good, you judge it as partial because it is lacking something. You’re not judging it against God, but you are judging it against an ultimate good.

This is where the ontological argument comes in. The greatest good thing is existence itself. Existence confers being on all things (particles, ice cream cones, etc). Things do not give themselves being or existence – it must come from a non-created being.

Okay, thanks. That made a lot more sense than what I was taught in school.

 

[Sunflower15]

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.

Excuse me, I haven’t read philosophy in a couple of decades and I am rusty in arguing as well…
However, if I recall correctly, Aquinas [1st] proof of the ‘prime mover’ also ‘sustains in existence’, no? Well, why else but because of LOVE would the prime mover sustain all in existence?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Excuse me, I haven’t read philosophy in a couple of decades and I am rusty in arguing as well…
However, if I recall correctly, Aquinas [1st] proof of the ‘prime mover’ also ‘sustains in existence’, no? Well, why else but because of LOVE would the prime mover sustain all in existence?

True. Once we understand what it means for a first mover to cause something, then the concept of sustenance is needed. But we also have to show through deduction from the first cause, why God doesn’t need to cause anything. Once we do that, then i would say there is a very strong reason to think that God is an act of pure love.

Thats your homework for today.

 

[Cecilianus]

True. Once we understand what it means for a first mover to cause something, then the concept of sustenance is needed.

What does it mean for a first mover to cause something?

 

[MindOverMatter]

What does it mean for a first mover to cause something?

I will give you a clue.

A first mover is a necessary being. Try and work it out.

 

[Sunflower15]

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.

The problem is that your ethics [in small cap] and Ethics [in caps] are not one and the same…any more than my ethics and Ethics are!

There is an absolute Ethics…to which we all measure our ethics against…or none of our ethics can possibly make any sense!

This, btw, does not necessarily have to follow Christianity or religion at all, since Socrates, Aristotle & Plato all did conform to absolute principles without revelation!

 

[Sunflower15]

True. Once we understand what it means for a first mover to cause something, then the concept of sustenance is needed. But we also have to show through deduction from the first cause, why God doesn’t need to cause anything. Once we do that, then i would say there is a very strong reason to think that God is an act of pure love.

Thats your homework for today.

Well…it stands to reason that IF something/someone Who does NOT need anything else to come into existence [Prime Mover] NOR to sustain Itself in existence…that Prime Mover needs NOT to bring anything into existence NOR to sustain anything in existence because any of these additional things will not ‘add’ to it since ‘IT’ exists IN and OF itself…

Warm?