If we cannot fully understand God, why do we give Him human qualities?

[GaryTaylor]

Reflection of Gods perfection mirrors the imperfection of the soul. The soul then discerns that which is not of God -the conscious. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice…CCC-1781

 

[tonyrey]

O.K. Tony, a specific reference would be helpful . The SCG is quite long!

Linus2nd

My apologies! In my enthusiasm I overlooked those vital details:

CHAPTER XVI–That in God there is no Passive Potentiality

[37] Potentia passiva, the Aristotelian potentiality’ in its opposition
to act.’ Taken actively, the word potentia is to be rendered Power,’
not potentiality.’ As God possesses the power to create whatever can be
made at all, there is in Him the promise and potency of all possible
being. In Him all things that are or ever can be exist eminently and
virtually.’ He is all that they are, but in a better and more excellent
way, – in some such way as a seal is in regard of all the impressions
that ever can be taken of it, or as a king in regard of a viceroy or
lord-lieutenant: so much so that actual creation makes no addition to
God or to the sum total of Being absolutely speaking. – Cf. Isa. xl.

CHAPTER XXVIII–That God is Universal Perfection

1. AS all perfection and nobility is in a thing inasmuch as the thing is,
   so every defect is in a thing inasmuch as the thing in some manner is
   not. As then God has being in its totality, so not-being is totally
   removed from Him, because the measure in which a thing has being is the
   measure of its removal from not-being. Therefore all defect is absent
   from God: He is therefore universal perfection.

1. Everything imperfect must proceed from something perfect: therefore
   the First Being must be most perfect.

1. Everything is perfect inasmuch as it is in actuality; imperfect,
   inasmuch as it is in potentiality, with privation of actuality. That
   then which is nowise in potentiality, but is pure actuality, must be
   most perfect; and such is God. [62]

1. Nothing acts except inasmuch as it is in actuality: action therefore
   follows the measure of actuality in the agent. It is impossible
   therefore for any effect that is brought into being by action to be of
   a nobler actuality than is the actuality of the agent. It is possible
   though for the actuality of the effect to be less perfect than the
   actuality of the acting cause, inasmuch as action may be weakened on
   the part of the object to which it is terminated, or upon which it is
   spent. Now in the category of efficient causation everything is
   reducible ultimately to one cause, which is God, of whom are all
   things. Everything therefore that actually is in any other thing must
   be found in God much more** eminently** than in the thing itself; God then
   is most perfect.

Hence the answer given to Moses by the Lord, when he sought to see the
divine face or glory: I will show thee all good (Exod. xxxiii, 19).

CHAPTER XXX–What Names can be predicated of God…

[65] And thus in very name that we utter, if we consider the mode of signification, there is found an imperfection that does not attach to God, although the thing signified may attach to God in some eminent way, as appears in the name goodness’ and good.’ Goodness’ denotes something as not subsisting by itself: good,’ something as concrete and composite. In this respect, then, no name befits God suitably except in respect of that which the name is imposed to signify. Such names therefore may be both affirmed and denied of God, affirmed on account of the meaning of the name, denied on account of the mode of signification. But the mode of supereminence, whereby the said perfections are found in God, cannot be signified by the names imposed by us, except either by negation, as when we call God eternal’ or infinite,’ or by reference or comparison of Him to other things, as when He is called the First Cause’ or the Sovereign Good.’ For we cannot take in (capere) [66] of God what He is, but what He is not, and how other beings stand related to Him…

CHAPTER XLIX

3… Nevertheless a pure spirit by knowing its own substance knows the existence of God, and that God is the cause of all, and eminent above all, and removed (remotus) from all, not only from all things that are, but from all that the created mind can conceive. To this knowledge of God we also may attain in some sort: for from the effects of His creation we know of God that He is, and that He is the cause (sustaining principle) of other beings, super-eminent above other beings, and removed from all. And this is the highest perfection of our knowledge in this life: hence Dionysius says (De mystica theologia c. 2) that “we are united with God as with the unknown”; which comes about in this way, that we know of God what He is not, but what He is remains absolutely unknown. And to show the ignorance of this most sublime knowledge it is said of Moses that he drew nigh to the darkness in which God was (Exod. xx, 21). [601]…

ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/gentiles.txt

 

[tonyrey]

Okay here is the quote by Saint Thomas being referred to,

As God possesses the power to create whatever can be made at all, there is in Him the promise and potency of all possible being. In Him all things that are or ever can be exist eminently and virtually.’ He is all that they are, but in a better and more excellent way, – in some such way as a seal is in regard of all the impressions that ever can be taken of it, or as a king in regard of a viceroy or lord-lieutenant: so much so that actual creation makes no addition to God or to the sum total of Being absolutely speaking. – Cf. Isa. xl…

Now in the category of efficient causation everything is reducible ultimately to one cause, which is God, of whom are all things. Everything therefore that actually is in any other thing must be found in God much more eminently than in the thing itself; God then is most perfect. Hence the answer given to Moses by the Lord, when he sought to see the divine face or glory: I will show thee all good (Exod. xxxiii, 19)…

And thus in very name that we utter, if we consider the mode of signification, there is found an imperfection that does not attach to God, although the thing signified may attach to God in some eminent way, as appears in the name goodness’ and good.’ Goodness’ denotes something as not subsisting by itself: good,’ something as concrete and composite. In this respect, then, no name befits God suitably except in respect of that which the name is imposed to signify. Such names therefore may be both affirmed and denied of God, affirmed on account of the meaning of the name, denied on account of the mode of signification. But the mode of supereminence, whereby the said perfections are found in God, cannot be signified by the names imposed by us, except either by negation, as when we call God eternal’ or infinite,’ or by reference or comparison of Him to other things, as when He is called the First Cause’ or the Sovereign Good.’ For we cannot take in (capere) [66] of God what He is, but what He is not, and how other beings stand related to Him…

Nevertheless a pure spirit by knowing its own substance knows the existence of God, and that God is the cause of all, and eminent above all, and removed (remotus) from all, not only from all things that are, but from all that the created mind can conceive. To this knowledge of God we also may attain in some sort: for from the effects of His creation we know of God that He is, and that He is the cause (sustaining principle) of other beings, super-eminent above other beings, and removed from all. And this is the highest perfection of our knowledge in this life: hence Dionysius says (De mystica theologia c. 2) that “we are united with God as with the unknown”; which comes about in this way, that we know of God what He is not, but what He is remains absolutely unknown. And to show the ignorance of this most sublime knowledge it is said of Moses that he drew nigh to the darkness in which God was (Exod. xx, 21). [601]…

Continuing : I will analyze :

In the first three paragraphs God is defined and the thought s introduced.

Next in the fourth paragraph it is stated,

“And thus in very name that we utter, if we consider the mode of signification, there is found an imperfection that does not attach to God, although the thing signified may attach to God in some eminent way, as appears in the name goodness’ and good.”

Continuing,

here we see a foundation is being built for the balance of thought and developing conclusions and observations.

It is assumed in the above analysis that imperfection is not good.

where is the back-up to make this conviction and continue using as the full foundation to make a point in the subject ? How is it not a manipulation on words and meaning to get at bridging to value good. taking the subject without moderation into the intellectual labratory. Don’t get me wrong I like many of the quotes by Saint Thomas I see but there seems to be a missing moderation.

The key words are “And thus in very name that we utter, if we consider the mode of signification, there is found an imperfection that does not attach to God”. Our language is necessarily defective yet God is perfect because otherwise He would be an** inadequate **explanation:

He is the cause (sustaining principle) of other beings, super-eminent above other beings, and removed from all.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“And thus in very name that we utter, if we consider the mode of signification, there is found an imperfection that does not attach to God, although the thing signified may attach to God in some eminent way, as appears in the name goodness’ and good.”

.

It is assumed in the above analysis that imperfection is not good.

Further, The distinction would be, its not God. What it is of itself, can be of itself or predicated on something else? So then we can know negations of God by means of affirmation, thus denial is merely wishing to do away with that which we already affirmed, thus illusion of ego confirmation.

So too then its naturally possible to not only have a concept of as a known, but also one in which He is conceived though Himself through univocal knowledge thus quantitative distinction.

 

[orang]

I wanted to say thanks for reading, I’m going to have a look at the replies now.

 

[orang]

Ok thanks for replying , I have a collection of books by the Saints which I read bits at a time letting it soak in and reflecting over the years.

Saint Catherine a doctor of the church teaches that virtue , opposed to vanity is good and God would be all virtue, charity and so on. Now this agree’s with Saint Thomas writings however, the idea about subsistent does not go along with the finding in good regarding virtue by Saint Catherine. ( virtue-good in of itself)

For example, In the reading I quoted, the explaining is from the notion of " God relative to the human" it is a comparing. For myself this is a given by the subject , definition and looking around at what the world is.

The inference although because it is not included in the writing, where Saint Thomas is comparing the creature to the God, is a suggestion -relative to God, or an ultimate reality, the imperfect human is not good , away from virtue hope. I think it can be shown man is fundamentally good. Or it could of been explained God has his God good and God potential and God process and then the individual has his human good and potential and time and all that.

 

[orang]

Okay so Im not disagreeing with the new passage above by Saint Thomas, and also came from reading it with the following points,

a) God is perfection and good , yet man’s imperfect uttering of the understanding could never adequately be appropriate.

( okay, I understand and don’t disagree,

b) then he says all we know about God is what he is not and its an absolute mystery.

well how could it be an absolute mystery when it is figured out the closest words would be perfection and divine goodness etc etc.

that’s more then what is being said, all we know is what God is not. . And as mentioned before I like many of the quotes , it just seems to go on forever trying to figure out as much as possible from an analytical perspective.

 

[GaryTaylor]

b) then he says all we know about God is what he is not and its an absolute mystery.

well how could it be an absolute mystery when it is figured out the closest words would be perfection and divine goodness etc etc.

that’s more then what is being said, all we know is what God is not. maybe its just a difference in personality no big deal. I have many brothers and understand these things about life. And as mentioned before I like many of the quotes , it just seems to go on forever and winds up right back at the starting point,

Basically he is talking about proving a negative as opposed to defining the good/perfection. The good, the perfection, its contemplation of Gods mystery. Every step in understanding and knowing, there comes the immediate reality of the distance between finite and infinite. We conceive what we need in order to become what we should be. We realize what is always and everywhere good. Further we see that this must be the unlimited reality, a supreme being wherein unlimited good is completely realized. The source of all interconnected. The mind sees things which begin and end, often corruptible things. Hence they must derive existence from something that is self-existent and able to give existence to other things. Otherwise the more would arise from less: effect without cause we would then be talking.

 

[orang]

Basically he is talking about proving a negative as opposed to defining the good/perfection. The good, the perfection, its contemplation of Gods mystery. Every step in understanding and knowing, there comes the immediate reality of the distance between finite and infinite. We conceive what we need in order to become what we should be. We realize what is always and everywhere good. Further we see that this must be the unlimited reality, a supreme being wherein unlimited good is completely realized. The source of all interconnected. The mind sees things which begin and end, often corruptible things. Hence they must derive existence from something that is self-existent and able to give existence to other things. Otherwise the more would arise from less: effect without cause we would then be talking.

I was just about to make an entry disclosing a good interest in getting one of Saint Thomas books to leaf through bits at a time and reflect with the others.

The communion of Saints is a very important thing in my understandings, the Saints are our friends and now that I have been introduced to these writing’s they will be included in the collection and in mind , as the approach has it.

Although and I was just thinking, I would never read something from a saint through the pen of another, such as being promoted. this could be working on my mind.

also with how you are explaining how people think, count many people out , I do not think and relate in that way at all. We …see , the mind see’s, what it needs and so on…Im sorry but that would be full materialism. So this is not a negative entry. Its not arguing, its positive.

I just was not brought up to be told how my mind thinks. Esp if it is a depraving suggestion. I’m simply standing for myself in a positive, not arguing… and will if possible.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“I have many brothers and understand these things about life.”

St. Gregory the Great, quoted by St. Thomas writes: "Temporal goods appear desirable when we do not have them; but when we do have them, we see their poverty, which cannot meet our desire and which therefore produces disillusion, lassitude, and often repugnance. In spiritual goods the inverse is true. They do not seem desirable to those who do not have them and who desire especially sensible good. But the more we possess them the more we know their value and the more we love them. For the same reason, material goods, the same house, the same field, cannot belong simultaneously and integrally to many persons. Spiritual goods, on the contrary, one and the same truth, one and the same virtue, can belong simultaneously and completely to all. And the more perfectly we possess these goods, the better we can communicate them to others. This is especially true of the sovereign good.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well written,

I was just about to make an entry disclosing a good interest in getting one of Saint Thomas books to leaf through bits at a time and reflect with the others.

The communion of Saints is a very important thing in my understandings, the Saints are our friends and now that I have been introduced to these writing they will be included in the collection and in mind , as the approach has it.

Although and I was just thinking, I would never read something from a saint through the pen of another, such as being promoted. this could be working on my mind.

also with how you are explaining how people think, count many people out , I do not think and relate in that way at all. We …see , the mind see’s, what it needs and so on…Im sorry but that would be ultimate materialism. So this is not a negative entry. Its not arguing, its positive.

I just was not brought up to be told how my mind thinks. Esp if it is a depraving suggestion. I’m simply standing for myself in a positive and always will.

Hey we all live and learn, the trick is keeping an open mind.

God Bless!

 

[orang]

Hey we all live and learn, the trick is keeping an open mind.

God Bless!

Thanks , and its a good day .

 

[Linusthe2nd]

My apologies! In my enthusiasm I overlooked those vital details:

ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/gentiles.txt

Thank you. I have stayed away from S.C.G. because it is so complex, almost as hard as reading T’s Commentaries on Physics and Metaphysics.

Linus2nd.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

My apologies! In my enthusiasm I overlooked those vital details:

ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/gentiles.txt

A criticism of this translation. When Rickaby translates potentia as " power " I think is improper. He goes on and substitutes " energy " for power, which I think is more improper. Prime matter is much more than " power " or " energy." It represents a real potential to educe innumeriable " forms, " under external causation. Now " form " is not energy. Prime matter may indeed consist of some ultimate kind of " energy, " but it is much more. Just reflecting, not prepared to defend, just commenting.

Linus2nd

 

[Thorns]

God does have human qualities. His name is Jesus.

 

[tonyrey]

A criticism of this translation. When Rickaby translates potentia as " power " I think is improper. He goes on and substitutes " energy " for power, which I think is more improper. Prime matter is much more than " power " or " energy." It represents a real potential to educe innumeriable " forms, " under external causation. Now " form " is not energy. Prime matter may indeed consist of some ultimate kind of " energy, " but it is much more. Just reflecting, not prepared to defend, just commenting.

I agree with you but it doesn’t invalidate St Thomas’s argument because all our terms are analogical anyway and the issue is why we attribute human qualities to God. The usual objection is that we are naively creating God in our own image. Why should the Creator of the universe resemble minute beings on an insignificant planet?

For the simple reason that we are made in God’s image! As Pascal pointed out, our greatness consists in our power of thought. It is not a case of being anthropomorphic but ratiocentric. The universe is not chaotic and incoherent but orderly and predictable. It is an intelligible, rational system which does not exist by chance. It fulfils the purpose of supporting life with intelligent beings capable of controlling themselves and their environment. Intelligibility presupposes the existence of intelligence - and without intelligence truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love would be illusions…

 

[oldcelt]

I agree with you but it doesn’t invalidate St Thomas’s argument because all our terms are analogical anyway and the issue is why we attribute human qualities to God. The usual objection is that we are naively creating God in our own image. Why should the Creator of the universe resemble minute beings on an insignificant planet?

For the simple reason that we are made in God’s image! As Pascal pointed out, our greatness consists in our power of thought. It is not a case of being anthropomorphic but ratiocentric. The universe is not chaotic and incoherent but orderly and predictable. It is an intelligible, rational system which does not exist by chance. It fulfils the purpose of supporting life with intelligent beings capable of controlling themselves and their environment. Intelligibility presupposes the existence of intelligence - and without intelligence truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love would be illusions…

There are a great many students of the universe who would disagree with your appraisal, based om simple observation. Colliding galaxies, exploding stars, menacing comets and so on are not indicative of an orderly and predictable system. Can we predict from the supposed coherence and order when the nextmassive collision with Earth will occur?

What you see as being guided by an external intelligence is just as easily and scientifically explained…as can some of the chaos that is also observable.

 

[tonyrey]

I agree with you but it doesn’t invalidate St Thomas’s argument because all our terms are analogical anyway and the issue is why we attribute human qualities to God. The usual objection is that we are naively creating God in our own image. Why should the Creator of the universe resemble minute beings on an insignificant planet?

Yes!

The following table lists potential future Earth impact events that the JPL Sentry System has detected based on currently available observations. Click on the object designation to go to a page with full details on that object. Sentry is a highly automated collision monitoring system that continually scans the most current asteroid catalog for possibilities of future impact with Earth over the next 100 years. Whenever a potential impact is detected it will be analyzed and the results immediately published here, except in unusual cases where an IAU Technical Review is underway.

neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risks/

What you see as being guided by an external intelligence is just as easily and scientifically explained…as can some of the chaos that is also observable.

Science cannot explain how the universe originated, why there should be something rather than nothing, why there are laws of nature, why the universe is intelligible, why there has been development, why there has been a constant increase in complexity, why purposeful life has emerged or why there are rational beings who can understand and control themselves and their environment

 

[StrawberryJam]

Tonyrey,
You said:
Science cannot explain how the universe originated, why there should be something rather than nothing, why there are laws of nature, why the universe is intelligible, why there has been development, why there has been a constant increase in complexity, why purposeful life has emerged or why there are rational beings who can understand and control themselves and their environment

I have to ask you if we have different ways of knowing.
You seem to have some expectations of Science that would not be logical.

 

[grannymh]

Tonyrey,
You said:
Science cannot explain how the universe originated, why there should be something rather than nothing, why there are laws of nature, why the universe is intelligible, why there has been development, why there has been a constant increase in complexity, why purposeful life has emerged or why there are rational beings who can understand and control themselves and their environment

I have to ask you if we have different ways of knowing.
You seem to have some expectations of Science that would not be logical.

Being individuals, humans have many different ways of knowing. What should amaze us is that we can recognize the non-material or spiritual being Who is God. It is not really important that we fully understand God. To me, what is really important is that we know God as loving, merciful and just. These qualities, even if only understood a tiny bit, tell us that our Creator wants a relationship with us, His very own creatures.