Aquinas's Five definitions of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marc_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sair:

Why? You are one in the same Sair, whether you are exhibiting kindness, meanness or indifference - or all three.

I could refer you to a couple of books that are full and sufficient explanations of each. This is a quick questions and quick answers forum and is not for the purpose of lengthy explanations. (In fact, my Admin scolded me for inserting 4 paragraphs taken directly from a book. If I had attempted to codify it into my own writing, it might have consumed the space of 8 or more paragraphs! Of course, I understand the Admin’s intent and am OK with it.) Your complaint is better suited against the program the forum uses than against God or any of His believers. The answers you want are not a short story or easy to codify. For example, near me is a Physics book by Harnwell and Legge. It consists of 535 pages. Each page builds upon the previous. I don’t think the authors could have made it much shorter.

But, we can certainly start new threads on those two subjects.

God bless,
jd
And one of the real problems is those typically objecting to Thomas and the Scholastics have never and will never read a book on Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Human Psychology, Cosmology, Ethics by a reliable Thomist, they won’t even read Edward Feser ( who is rather easy to read ) and has a certain popular appeal among Thomists. What they do read is anyone’s guess. 👍👍
 
And one of the real problems is those typically objecting to Thomas and the Scholastics have never and will never read a book on Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Human Psychology, Cosmology, Ethics by a reliable Thomist, they won’t even read Edward Feser ( who is rather easy to read ) and has a certain popular appeal among Thomists. What they do read is anyone’s guess. 👍👍
Linus:

I’m forced into the same conclusion, having seen, for myself, not a single cogent anti-Thomist. (Also, I guess I’m going to have to start reading Feser. :o )

God bless,
jd
 
Linus:

I’m forced into the same conclusion, having seen, for myself, not a single cogent anti-Thomist. (Also, I guess I’m going to have to start reading Feser. :o )

God bless,
jd
Ok, but can you actually offer any progress in answering the gaps identified in this thread? As far as I can see this far Marks OP query (which came originally from me) stands unanswered.
 
I see, however, there exists two problems:

First, why would God want to do that?
How would I know? I do not pretend to be divinely inspired with the core truths of the universe.

I’ve never heard or read a competent motivation for God’s creation of the universe (except my own, of course). Until that fundamental question gets an intelligent answer, how can we expect to guess at what might prompt God to destroy the universe?

However, my point was simply that since omnipotence cannot be used without destroying the universe, it was not used in its creation either. That makes it an unnecessary property.
Second, one can reject that definition, and just define omnipotence as that which creates and governs everything, which is how I see “omnipotence”. In a sense, nothing could be greater, without requiring infinite power.
You can reject all the definitions you want, so long as you only argue with yourself and arrange your definitions such that you are always right. Suit yourself. I’ve found that it is an utter waste of time to attempt a rational discussion with those who play semantic games.
 
One other thing. Potency I think does not need to be measured as a force, or power. If so, where did this power come from? Violates thermodynamics, if you believe in that stuff.

On the other hand, what if there was an anti-force that neutralizes all power? Then such a postulated entity would render your omnipotent entity impotent!

Actually, there is such an entity. I’ll let you guess what it is.
Despite an apparent tendency to read action comic books or play violent video games, you have gotten a handle on a good idea.

However, you need to distinguish between “force” and “power.” Both are physics terms, and you can study up on them in Wikepedia, I’m sure.

Consider force. That’s a word with a common understanding, because we can exert forces, such as those required to lift a weight or go for a walk.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics represents a force. It can be termed “entropic” force, and determines the outcome of all (inelastic) material interactions. I regard it as the only real force in physics, but this is a lonely opinion.

James Maxwell proposed the necessity of a counterforce. IMO his notion of the “Maxwellian Daemon” is an extremely powerful concept. My theories (Beon Theory in particular) propose that the Creator of the universe possesses such a counterforce, the ability to freely and easily reverse the 2nd Law, and that this is the only force necessary to create the universe. Human souls (beons) also possess this property, but to a significantly lesser degree.
 
Greylorn,

I was thinking physical laws themselves. They grant force the power to collapse universes. They can take it away too.

They can neutralize thermodynamics as well. 🙂
 
Ok, but can you actually offer any progress in answering the gaps identified in this thread? As far as I can see this far Marks OP query (which came originally from me) stands unanswered.
Candide:

Have you bothered to read any of the thread? Or, do you just jump in when the mood strikes to throw a plastic wrench into the spokes?

God bless,
jd
 
I have some questions on divine simplicity and how it relates to this that I’ll post later, when I marshal my thoughts a bit.
 
Candide:

Have you bothered to read any of the thread? Or, do you just jump in when the mood strikes to throw a plastic wrench into the spokes?

God bless,
jd
Yes, I’m not sure but I believe I’ve read all of it. I’m just trying not to interfere too much as I don’t have a huge amount of time right now (my limited CAF time is mostly being exhausted in another discussion). But I am of course very interested in discovering an answered to the original question. So I’m keeping in touch with progress on this thread as it develops.

So, any views on answering the OP question?
 
Yes, I’m not sure but I believe I’ve read all of it. I’m just trying not to interfere too much as I don’t have a huge amount of time right now (my limited CAF time is mostly being exhausted in another discussion). But I am of course very interested in discovering an answered to the original question. So I’m keeping in touch with progress on this thread as it develops.

So, any views on answering the OP question?
Candide:

Oh! So we’re chopped liver? Hmmm? 😃

God bless,
jd
 
Greylorn,

I was thinking physical laws themselves. They grant force the power to collapse universes. They can take it away too.

They can neutralize thermodynamics as well. 🙂
I’m sorry to need to state this, but IMO you do not know what you are writing about. You seem to lack any understanding of what a physical “law” actually is, and might want to obtain such understanding before making more such comments. What is the extent of your physics studies, beyond high school?
 
I’m sorry to need to state this, but IMO you do not know what you are writing about. You seem to lack any understanding of what a physical “law” actually is, and might want to obtain such understanding before making more such comments. What is the extent of your physics studies, beyond high school?
Wow! You have a physics degree?? I would never have guessed…

I think I learned about physical laws from early high school. Certainly don’t recall having to go to college for that.
 
Wow! You have a physics degree?? I would never have guessed…

I think I learned about physical laws from early high school. Certainly don’t recall having to go to college for that.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but a physical law is no force or anything like it and of itself does not cause things. It is instead merely a description of the world and how it works, not an actual part of it.
 
Correct me if I’m wrong, but a physical law is no force or anything like it and of itself does not cause things. It is instead merely a description of the world and how it works, not an actual part of it.
Interesting how you phrased it that way. I think along the lines of Platonism, that ideas exist independent of that which manifests them.

So laws exist not merely as a description of the world and how the world works, but that the world works and exists the way it does precisely due to those laws.

For instance, the idea called relativity existed before the big bang, before there was time itself, and everything only a manifestation of it.

As to which came first, the law or that which follows the law, not sure if we can possibly resolve. It just makes more sense to me that the law, having no form, has no bounds. All matter, on the other hand, has a beginning.

I believe most mathematicians subscribe to that thinking.
 
Wow! You have a physics degree?? I would never have guessed…

I think I learned about physical laws from early high school. Certainly don’t recall having to go to college for that.
If you don’t recall going to college, you probably did not.

Upon completing HS physics I knew everything that there was to know about physics, and had already identified several flaws that the degreed physicists seemed to have missed. I entered college with the intention of fixing those problems.

However, I soon found that the real problem was that my HS physics course was an attenuated version of the real thing, taught without the requisite math form (calculus), and designed to be an introduction to the general sense of physics for teenagers who would never in their lives actually use the material.

So you are probably about where I was then, unqualified to make statements relating to physical laws and principles. Best get the knowledge or stick to what you actually do know.
 
If you don’t recall going to college, you probably did not.
If you don’t immediately recognize the difference between

“don’t recall having to go to college for that”

and

“don’t recall going to college”

then you have some serious language issues, dude. That probably goes as far back as second grade, I reckon.
 
Correct me if I’m wrong, but a physical law is no force or anything like it and of itself does not cause things. It is instead merely a description of the world and how it works, not an actual part of it.
IMO your statement is neither right nor wrong— more like superficial. Of course different students of physics have different opinions about these things. Here are a few of mine:

To begin with, “law” is a poorly chosen word. Human laws are rules of behavior that are entirely arbitrary, as evidenced by the various laws of different states and cultures. And there are various levels of human laws. For example, most cultures have laws prohibiting murder and theft, but many do not have laws against jaywalking.

Moreover, human laws can be freely violated. Sometimes there are penalties for this, if one is unlucky or dumb enough to get caught, but the penalties do not prevent violations.

Physical laws are quite different. There is no penalty for violating them because they cannot be violated. They describe how things work and how things will work when tested. A jaywalker who steps in front of an oncoming bus will be injured or killed.

Physical laws have various levels. Some are profoundly fundamental, such as the Three Laws of Thermodynamics, which also have the distinction of being time-independent. And each of these laws describes something different. The first is a statement of existence, the second represents a force, and the third is a boundary condition.

Beon theory holds that the First and Third laws cannot be violated, not even by God. However, you and I and God can violate the 2nd Law (describing entropic force), and we do so whenever we have a thought or perform a conscious act of will.

My theory also proposes that there are only two fundamental forces in the universe, that represented by the 2nd Law, plus the counterforce exerted by God and beon (a.k.a. soul).

The remaining physical laws, such as Newton’s laws of mechanics, Maxwell’s equations, and those describing nuclear forces, are different dynamic geometries constructed by binding entropic force (the 2nd law). The principle is analogous to building a wooden house, which requires that trees be cut and carved up into different structural pieces, 2x4’s, siding, plywood, etc.

The “laws” of physics are expressed in various mathematical forms. Some of these are merely mathematical models that approximate our observations. Others are quite precise and may describe how things actually work. Some are precise only under limited circumstances. Newton’s laws needed correction for observations made from moving reference points (Special Relativity) and for gravitational effects (General Relativity).

At the top of the hierarchy of physics principles are the Laws of Thermodynamics, the 1st and 3rd of which cannot be contravened, no matter how hard physicists have tried. The 2nd Law continues to apply to all energy forms, It was violated by the Creator to construct matter by carving up raw energy into the tiny structural components we know as atoms.

I hope that this helps. Of course my book explains these things more simply, as well as the logic behind my conclusions.
 
If you don’t immediately recognize the difference between

“don’t recall having to go to college for that”

and

“don’t recall going to college”

then you have some serious language issues, dude. That probably goes as far back as second grade, I reckon.
I could not resist the straight line you gave me. I should have, and did not mean to give offense. I lacked the will to pass it up. Like Hank Aaron had a hard time holding off his swing when he saw a fastball coming down the middle of the plate. I’ll probably do it again and apologize later. Let’s stay friendly. 🙂
 
I could not resist the straight line you gave me. I should have, and did not mean to give offense. I lacked the will to pass it up. Like Hank Aaron had a hard time holding off his swing when he saw a fastball coming down the middle of the plate. I’ll probably do it again and apologize later. Let’s stay friendly. 🙂
Fine. Monday is bad enough. Let’s not add to it. I hope you don’t do this again, to me or anyone here.

If you want anyone to believe you, let your words speak for themselves. Having a condescending attitude sends you into outer space with nobody to talk to. It gets lonely quickly.

I’m a doctor, BTW, so that’s at least one thing you got wrong. When one postulate is wrong, all hell breaks loose…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top