Deus et Nihil

[Qoeleth]

Consideremus hanc sequens sententia:
“Nihil est major quam Deo.”

Sive est vera, aut falsa.

An falsa, sequetur ut- “Aliquid est major quam Deo”- videlicet quod est absurdum, nam Deus, procul dubio, est maximus totius.

Sed an vera, sequetur inde ut-“Nihil (id est conditio aut ‘res’ sine ‘esse’) est major quam Deo”- quod quoque nihilominus est absurdum, nam nihil est minor quam aliquid, etiam, est minimum totius, et ergo ‘Nihil’ non potest esse major quam Deo.

Quomodo haec questio solvebitur? Nemone dabit modicum lucem rationis isti tenebrae confusionis cum gladio sapientia?

Decet dicere, non, inquam, est simpliciter fallacia equivocationis, si consideratus sufficienter caute.

Hortor tu, benevole lector, scibere in lingua Ecclesiae, si possis, ut major gloria detamus Deo et Ecclesia ejus a nostra sapientia, quae, quamvis sicut nihil, est tamen speculum Sapientiae Dei ipsius, Christi, quo sit laus per secula seculorum.

TRANSLATION:

Let us consider the following sentence:
“Nothing is greater than God”.

Either it is true, or false.

If false, it follows that- “Something is greater than God”- which clearly is absurd, for God, without doubt, is the greatest of all.

But if true, it follows hence that- “Nothing (that is a condition or ‘thing’ without ‘being’) is greater than God”, which also no less is absurd, for nothing is less than anything, indeed, is the least of all, and therefore ‘Nothing’ is not able to be greater than God.

In what way may this question be solved? Will no-one give a little light of reason to this darkness of confusion?

It is appropriate to say that it is not simply, I suggest, a fallacy of equivocation, if considered sufficiently carefully.

I encourage you, kind reader, to write in the language of the Church, if you are able, that we may give great glory unto God and His Church, by our wisdom, which though almost nothing, is nevertheless a mirror of Wisdom of God Himself, Christ, to whom be praise through endless ages.

 

[beehumble]

Consideremus hanc sequens sententia:
“Nihil est major quam Deo.”

Sive est vera, aut falsa.

An falsa, sequetur ut- “Aliquid est major quam Deo”- videlicet quod est absurdum, nam Deus, procul dubio, est maximus totius.

Sed an vera, sequetur inde ut-“Nihil (id est conditio aut ‘res’ sine ‘esse’) est major quam Deo”- quod quoque nihilominus est absurdum, nam nihil est minor quam aliquid, etiam, est minimum totius, et ergo ‘Nihil’ non potest esse major quam Deo.

Quomodo haec questio solvebitur? Nemone dabit modicum lucem rationis isti tenebrae confusionis cum gladio sapientia?

Decet dicere, non, inquam, est simpliciter fallacia equivocationis, si consideratus sufficienter caute.

Hortor tu, benevole lector, scibere in lingua Ecclesiae, si possis, ut major gloria detamus Deo et Ecclesia ejus a nostra sapientia, quae, quamvis sicut nihil, est tamen speculum Sapientiae Dei ipsius, Christi, quo sit laus per secula seculorum.

TRANSLATION:

Let us consider the following sentence:
“Nothing is greater than God”.

Either it is true, or false.

If false, it follows that- “Something is greater than God”- which clearly is absurd, for God, without doubt, is the greatest of all.

But if true, it follows hence that- “Nothing (that is a condition or ‘thing’ without ‘being’) is greater than God”, which also no less is absurd, for nothing is less than anything, indeed, is the least of all, and therefore ‘Nothing’ is not able to be greater than God.

In what way may this question be solved? Will no-one give a little light of reason to this darkness of confusion?

It is appropriate to say that it is not simply, I suggest, a fallacy of equivocation, if considered sufficiently carefully.

I encourage you, kind reader, to write in the language of the Church, if you are able, that we may give great glory unto God and His Church, by our wisdom, which though almost nothing, is nevertheless a mirror of Wisdom of God Himself, Christ, to whom be praise through endless ages.

You have trapped yourself with semantics.
To declare, “There are no absolutes” is to utter an absurdity because it is sefl-contradictory, and thus defeated. The declaration states as true something that is proven false in its own words- it contains contradictory elements. It is declaring as absolute that there are no absolutes.

Your arugment is playing sematics with the word ‘nothing’. The word ‘nothing’ is understood from its specific context to mean ‘no creature, no emotion, no thought, no anything’ and you indeed use this contextual meaning when you declare the statement to be true. But then you change the meaning of ‘nothing’ to be ‘null’ while keeping the ‘true’ reached via the first meaning. So you have played semantics, have changed your meaning of the word ‘nothing’ for each argument, while not changing the outcome from the first argument (‘true’) when changing the meaning of the word ‘nothing’.

Your are doing this:
“no [creature, emotion, thought, anything] is greater than God” → true
"null is greater then God ->true

Mathematically, you are holding the right side of the equation fixed, while altering the left side (which is forbidden - both sides of an equation must be changed the same way for the equation to remain true) - you are keeping the ‘4’ fixed in A and B while changing the left side of A to get B:
(A) 2x = 4
(B) 2x= 4
But you are changing x from 2 in A to 3 in B and wondering how both A and B can be true.
Your left side is the word ‘nothing’ meaning ‘no creature, no emotion, no thought , no anything’. But in (B) you change ‘nothing’ to mean the null set, and wondering how it can still be true.

Semantics - changing the understood value of ‘x’ between your A and B statements.

God bless you.

 

[Qoeleth]

You have trapped yourself with semantics.
To declare, “There are no absolutes” is to utter an absurdity because it is sefl-contradictory, and thus defeated. The declaration states as true something that is proven false in its own words- it contains contradictory elements. It is declaring as absolute that there are no absolutes.

Your arugment is playing sematics with the word ‘nothing’. The word ‘nothing’ is understood from its specific context to mean ‘no creature, no emotion, no thought, no anything’ and you indeed use this contextual meaning when you declare the statement to be true. But then you change the meaning of ‘nothing’ to be ‘null’ while keeping the ‘true’ reached via the first meaning. So you have played semantics, have changed your meaning of the word ‘nothing’ for each argument, while not changing the outcome from the first argument (‘true’) when changing the meaning of the word ‘nothing’.

Your are doing this:
“no [creature, emotion, thought, anything] is greater than God” → true
"null is greater then God ->true

Semantics - changing the understood value of ‘x’ between your A and B statements.

Dices, nisi fallor, ut prima sententia est vera, dum secundu est falsa, propter equivocatio verbi ‘nilih’?
Ergo, secundum hoc:
“no [creature, emotion, thought, anything] is greater than God” → est vera, sed:
"null is greater then God → est, e contra, falsa.

Si autem sit sicut dixisti-
(No thing) est major quam Deo, sed
(Null) est non major quam Deo,
id sequet ut-
(No thing [quod est major quam Deo]) debet esse major quam (Null[quod non est major quam Deo]).

Si autem sit sicut, (Null) debeo maximus omnium, nam (no thing) est major quam eo.

You say, unless I err, that the first sentence is true, while the second is false, on account of equivocation of the word ‘Nihil’?
THerefore, according to this:
“no [creature, emotion, thought, anything] is greater than God” → is true, but:
"null is greater then God → is, on the contrary, false.

Quomodo fugemus hoc torcum?

But if it is as you say-
(No thing) is greater than God, but
(Null) is not greater than God,
it follows that-
(No thing [which is greater than God]) must be greater than (Null[which is not greater than God]).

But if it is thus, (Null) must be the greatest of all, since (no thing) is greater than it.

How do we escape this knot?

 

[Beryllos]

How do we escape this knot?

What knot? I think the problem is that your language is too loose. When we say “nothing is greater than God,” do we not mean “there is no thing greater than God”? Of course, that depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

 

[Potato_Skillet]

God is infinite and there are infinitely many numbers between one an infinity. Something to think about. Nothing is greater than infinity, yes, and infinite plus Bob the steel worker is still infinite.

 

[Potato_Skillet]

What knot? I think the problem is that your language is too loose. When we say “nothing is greater than God,” do we not mean “there is no thing greater than God”? Of course, that depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

Mellow lark
Card shark
Is it cool
If we play some pool?

Seriously man, “is” it?

 

[Qoeleth]

God is infinite and there are infinitely many numbers between one an infinity. Something to think about. Nothing is greater than infinity, yes, and infinite plus Bob the steel worker is still infinite.

Hmmm…
“Nothing is greater than infinity”- True?
But also-
“Infinity is greater than nothing”- Also true?

So, A>B, and B>A. How is this possible?

 

[Qoeleth]

What knot? I think the problem is that your language is too loose. When we say “nothing is greater than God,” do we not mean “there is no thing greater than God”? Of course, that depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

Well, if we can’t establish what ‘is’ means, I fear we are on a very slippery slope indeed, and will be drowned in a veritable flood of ontological uncertainty…

 

[Beryllos]

Well, if we can’t establish what ‘is’ means, I fear we are on a very slippery slope indeed, and will be drowned in a veritable flood of ontological uncertainty…

Roger and out, my friend.

 

[Ismael]

Consideremus hanc sequens sententia:
“Nihil est major quam Deo.”

Sive est vera, aut falsa.

An falsa, sequetur ut- “Aliquid est major quam Deo”- videlicet quod est absurdum, nam Deus, procul dubio, est maximus totius.

Sed an vera, sequetur inde ut-“Nihil (id est conditio aut ‘res’ sine ‘esse’) est major quam Deo”- quod quoque nihilominus est absurdum, nam nihil est minor quam aliquid, etiam, est minimum totius, et ergo ‘Nihil’ non potest esse major quam Deo.

Quomodo haec questio solvebitur? Nemone dabit modicum lucem rationis isti tenebrae confusionis cum gladio sapientia?

Decet dicere, non, inquam, est simpliciter fallacia equivocationis, si consideratus sufficienter caute.

Hortor tu, benevole lector, scibere in lingua Ecclesiae, si possis, ut major gloria detamus Deo et Ecclesia ejus a nostra sapientia, quae, quamvis sicut nihil, est tamen speculum Sapientiae Dei ipsius, Christi, quo sit laus per secula seculorum.

TRANSLATION:

Let us consider the following sentence:
“Nothing is greater than God”.

Either it is true, or false.

If false, it follows that- “Something is greater than God”- which clearly is absurd, for God, without doubt, is the greatest of all.

But if true, it follows hence that- “Nothing (that is a condition or ‘thing’ without ‘being’) is greater than God”, which also no less is absurd, for nothing is less than anything, indeed, is the least of all, and therefore ‘Nothing’ is not able to be greater than God.

In what way may this question be solved? Will no-one give a little light of reason to this darkness of confusion?

It is appropriate to say that it is not simply, I suggest, a fallacy of equivocation, if considered sufficiently carefully.

I encourage you, kind reader, to write in the language of the Church, if you are able, that we may give great glory unto God and His Church, by our wisdom, which though almost nothing, is nevertheless a mirror of Wisdom of God Himself, Christ, to whom be praise through endless ages.

it’s like the old joke:

Nothing is better than sex
However, playing cards is better than nothing.
Therefore playing cards is better than sex.

Here there is the same fallacy. “Nothing” is taken as an existing object, rather than a negation of existence.

So the same problem applies above:
" “Nothing (that is a condition or ‘thing’ without ‘being’) is greater than God”"

I think here you take ‘nothing’ as ‘something’.

Even saying that something is a ‘that is a condition or ‘thing’ without ‘being’’ is indeed ‘something’.

When people in these cases use ‘nothing’ they really ‘nothing’, no condition, no essence, no being, no existence.

Once could read “nothing is greater than God” as 'there is no such “thing” that exists in any way that is greater than God" and here “thing” is taken in the broadest sense possible.

---

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Consideremus hanc sequens sententia:
“Nihil est major quam Deo.”

Sive est vera, aut falsa.

An falsa, sequetur ut- “Aliquid est major quam Deo”- videlicet quod est absurdum, nam Deus, procul dubio, est maximus totius.

Sed an vera, sequetur inde ut-“Nihil (id est conditio aut ‘res’ sine ‘esse’) est major quam Deo”- quod quoque nihilominus est absurdum, nam nihil est minor quam aliquid, etiam, est minimum totius, et ergo ‘Nihil’ non potest esse major quam Deo.

Quomodo haec questio solvebitur? Nemone dabit modicum lucem rationis isti tenebrae confusionis cum gladio sapientia?

Decet dicere, non, inquam, est simpliciter fallacia equivocationis, si consideratus sufficienter caute.

Hortor tu, benevole lector, scibere in lingua Ecclesiae, si possis, ut major gloria detamus Deo et Ecclesia ejus a nostra sapientia, quae, quamvis sicut nihil, est tamen speculum Sapientiae Dei ipsius, Christi, quo sit laus per secula seculorum.

TRANSLATION:

Let us consider the following sentence:
“Nothing is greater than God”.

Either it is true, or false.

If false, it follows that- “Something is greater than God”- which clearly is absurd, for God, without doubt, is the greatest of all.

But if true, it follows hence that- “Nothing (that is a condition or ‘thing’ without ‘being’) is greater than God”, which also no less is absurd, for nothing is less than anything, indeed, is the least of all, and therefore ‘Nothing’ is not able to be greater than God.

In what way may this question be solved? Will no-one give a little light of reason to this darkness of confusion?

It is appropriate to say that it is not simply, I suggest, a fallacy of equivocation, if considered sufficiently carefully.

I encourage you, kind reader, to write in the language of the Church, if you are able, that we may give great glory unto God and His Church, by our wisdom, which though almost nothing, is nevertheless a mirror of Wisdom of God Himself, Christ, to whom be praise through endless ages.

More games. Is that what Philosophy is about? You can read the entire coupus of Thomas Aquinas and you will not find such games. Games are for children, Philosophy is for mature adults.

Linus2nd

 

[Qoeleth]

More games. Is that what Philosophy is about? You can read the entire coupus of Thomas Aquinas and you will not find such games. Games are for children, Philosophy is for mature adults.

Linus2nd

Nonne Aquinae Summa, et cetera opera et auctores Scholasticae Philosophiae, repleta, etiam scintellans, joncunditatibus? Forsitan existes ut cognosces melior quam me? Aliqui, memini, obsecro, ejus qui dixit: Nisi conversi fueretis et efficiamini sicut parvuli…

Scis reliquum…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Nonne Aquinae Summa, et cetera opera et auctores Scholasticae Philosophiae, repleta, etiam scintellans, joncunditatibus? Forsitan existes ut cognosces melior quam me? Aliqui, memini, obsecro, ejus qui dixit: Nisi conversi fueretis et efficiamini sicut parvuli…

Scis reliquum…

Ditto.

Linus2nd