If you were God...

[R_Daneel]

The parameter that I deny is your assertion that action and perfection are mutually exclusive. I have demonstrated systems wherein “action”, is not only not contrary to perfection but a part of it. you gave three possible outcomes for an action by God as follows:
Theoretically any action of God’s part can have 3 results:

1. improves God’s perfection,
2. maintains God’s perfection or
3. lessens God’s perfection.
   Yet i have demonstrate that an action can be an ntegral part of something that is perfect and therefore the premise is false.

Your examples were proper in their environment, which was a “relative perfection” - which is really an imprecise usage of the word (in a philosophical environment, though acceptable in everyday vernacular). They cannot be transmitted to the “absolute perfection” of God. If you say that my usage of the word “action” could be interpreted for the “relative perfection”, then you are right. But I used “perfection” in the absolute sense, where any “action” leads to the three contradictions mentioned above.

 

[R_Daneel]

Not so, RD. You must qualify your #1 with, “a fecund God = ultimate perfection.” It is your notion that “perfection” must not include fecundity, not our notion. Indeed.

Well, I did not include it, and the reason is simple. To my best knowledge the Cathecism says nothing about God’s “fecundity” (though, of course I may be mistaken, and if I am, you will surely quote the proper parts). I am trying my best to keep with the accepted definition of God.

Now, “fecundity” means to bring forth progeny. And God cannot “create” another “God”, again, according to the Cathecism. To say that we are “God’s children” is simply a euphemism, not to be taken verbatim. We are not the same “species” at all.

Also you are tempting me beyond my ability to resist. If we would include “fecundity” among God’s attributes, someone would undoubtedly write a treatise titled: “De Fecundis Deorum”, and the little demon hiding in all the printshops would remove the space from between the first two words… with predictably hilarious (though almost blasphemous) results.

(So, I suggest you drop “fecundity”, unless you can quote the Cathecism. One cannot willy-nilly introduce new attributes for God, if and when it becomes convenient.)

 

[davidv]

Your examples were proper in their environment, which was a “relative perfection” - which is really an imprecise usage of the word (in a philosophical environment, though acceptable in everyday vernacular). They cannot be transmitted to the “absolute perfection” of God. If you say that my usage of the word “action” could be interpreted for the “relative perfection”, then you are right. But I used “perfection” in the absolute sense, where any “action” leads to the three contradictions mentioned above.

Since God is, in the obsolute sense, perfection, and also pure act. The only contracdition is your formulation of an imaginary problem.

 

[R_Daneel]

Since God is, in the obsolute sense, perfection, and also pure act.

And that is part of the contradiction. Just like that God is “infinitely merciful” and “perfectly just”. There are so many contradictions in God’s definition, that its next to impossible to enumerate them all. (God is the quintessential married bachelor.)

 

[davidv]

And that is part of the contradiction. Just like that God is “infinitely merciful” and “perfectly just”. There are so many contradictions in God’s definition, that its next to impossible to enumerate them all. (God is the quintessential married bachelor.)

Only in the figment of your imagination.

 

[JRKH]

Is there such a thing as “perfect Logic”?

Peace
James

 

[JDaniel]

Well, I did not include it, and the reason is simple. To my best knowledge the Cathecism says nothing about God’s “fecundity” (though, of course I may be mistaken, and if I am, you will surely quote the proper parts). I am trying my best to keep with the accepted definition of God.

Now, “fecundity” means to bring forth progeny. And God cannot “create” another “God”, again, according to the Cathecism. To say that we are “God’s children” is simply a euphemism, not to be taken verbatim. We are not the same “species” at all.

Also you are tempting me beyond my ability to resist. If we would include “fecundity” among God’s attributes, someone would undoubtedly write a treatise titled: “De Fecundis Deorum”, and the little demon hiding in all the printshops would remove the space from between the first two words… with predictably hilarious (though almost blasphemous) results.

(So, I suggest you drop “fecundity”, unless you can quote the Cathecism. One cannot willy-nilly introduce new attributes for God, if and when it becomes convenient.)

RD:
I was hoping you wouldn’t make me work too hard. Here is a link to the subject, that I just quickly found:

metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/7722/Default.aspx

I will scour my regular sources and report back.

By the way, fecundity is not restricted to only that which issues from the same genera or species only. It means, in general, “productive.” Another example of God’s fecundity happens to be of the same species: Christ and the Holy spirit.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

And that is part of the contradiction. Just like that God is “infinitely merciful” and “perfectly just”. There are so many contradictions in God’s definition, that its next to impossible to enumerate them all. (God is the quintessential married bachelor.)

RD:

Where has god not been perfectly merciful and just?

God bless,
jd

 

[Thyme]

This was posted by mistake. Cannot delete

 

[R_Daneel]

Where has god not been perfectly merciful and just?

To be a “just” judge means that the sentence delivered is precisely commensurate to the deed. A good deed will get a commensurate reward (not too much, nor too little), while a bad deed will get a commensurate punishment, not too excessive, nor too lenient. That is the definition of a just sentence. A merciful sentence only applies to punishment, it delivers a sentence which is less than merited. If the judge is merciful, the sentence will be more lenient than it should be. Therefore one particular sentence can either be just, or merciful, but never both. If you say that God is sometimes just, while other times merciful then you deny both justice and mercy.

 

[R_Daneel]

I will scour my regular sources and report back.

I am patient. Show me where the Cathecism talks about God’s fecundity and tells us that it is a fundamental, inalianable property of God.

By the way, fecundity is not restricted to only that which issues from the same genera or species only. It means, in general, “productive.” Another example of God’s fecundity happens to be of the same species: Christ and the Holy spirit.

As far as I understand it, God and Christ and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. They are the three “faces” or “manifestations” of God, not some different entities. (Of course the Trinity is just another example of a “married bachelor”, one, and yet three… which the believers call a “mystery” and what I call a contradiction.)

 

[R_Daneel]

Is there such a thing as “perfect Logic”?

Sorry, I have no idea what you are asking. A logical sequence is either correct or not. If it is correct, it is either sound, or not.

Example of the first one: Every human has exactly one mother. Joe is a human. Therefore Joe has exactly one mother.

Example of the second one: Every elephant can play the guitar. Jumbo is an elephant. Therefore Jumbo can play the guitar.

Both are logically true syllogisms, but the first one is also logically sound, while the second one is logically unsound. But, as I said, I don’t know what you are asking. Maybe I am way off the mark.

 

[JDaniel]

To be a “just” judge means that the sentence delivered is precisely commensurate to the deed. A good deed will get a commensurate reward (not too much, nor too little), while a bad deed will get a commensurate punishment, not too excessive, nor too lenient. That is the definition of a just sentence. A merciful sentence only applies to punishment, it delivers a sentence which is less than merited. If the judge is merciful, the sentence will be more lenient than it should be. Therefore one particular sentence can either be just, or merciful, but never both. If you say that God is sometimes just, while other times merciful then you deny both justice and mercy.

RD:

That is our apprehensions perhaps. But Catholics believe that God is both Merciful and Just. Much of what is either, has to do purely with definitions of the punishments, or lack thereof. Never forget that the Catholic believes this life while meaningful in some regards, is completely meaningless when compared to life with God, in Heaven. Existence with God is our purpose. Merely living through this one is not.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I am patient. Show me where the Catechism talks about God’s fecundity and tells us that it is a fundamental, inalienable property of God.

Power (Omniscience) is the intrinsic energy of being realized in activity. The Blessed Trinity, infinite in the immanence of its life, is the perfect self-realization of Power. In one omnipotent and eternal experience all powers of being, both absolute and relative, are completely actualized without the possibility of increase or diminution. Omnipotence suffuses all the Divine attributes, and is identical with the Godhood of God. It represent for us the dynamic aspect of the triune life of the divine essence, wherein the fecundity of the one subsistent nature expresses, manifests, and comprehends its own meaning and value, and all things within that fulness.

Omnipotence involves every possible mode of origination and production, and is thus more than the power of causation whereby things other than itself are brought into existence. - The Teachings of the Catholic Church, Vol I, Pg 94, Divine Omnipotence

As far as I understand it, God and Christ and the Holy Spirit are one and the same.

That’s correct.

They are the three “faces” or “manifestations” of God, not some different entities.

Not quite correct:

There is only one first Cause, for God is One. Deity excludes all composition of different elements or beings, yet it is the very nature of absolute unity to be triune - The Teachings of the Catholic Church, Vol I, Pg 93, Divine Unity.

(Of course the Trinity is just another example of a “married bachelor”, one, and yet three… which the believers call a “mystery” and what I call a contradiction.)

Well, I am sorry for your narrow-mindedness.

God bless,
jd

 

[TomD123]

But, be as it may, the Christian position on God is already self-contradictory. Any action on the part of a “perfect” being leads to lessening that “perfection”. One cannot “increase” perfection, one cannot “maintain” perfection (by acting), both of these lead to a logical contradiction. One can only decrease perfection by acting. God’s perfection does not have to do with the universe. God’s creating of the universe did not lesson his perfection or increase it. You seem to think that God creating the world somehow changed him, but I do not see why. The universe does not change God, God is unchangeable and outside of the universe and his perfections do not depend on us. We usually speak of God’s perfections as Justice, Mercy, Love, Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc. and I don’t see how the universe lessons these or effects them in any way, the universe just expresses them.

From the Christian idea that God “created” the world logically follows that God cannot be perfect. If he did not have a “need” to create the world (and yet he did), then he acted illogically, and so he was not perfect. If he had a “need” and so he “created” the world to fulfill this need, he could not have been perfect either. So, whether you realize it or not, you are hopelessly bogged down in a logical contradiction.

God did not have any need to create the universe, however this was not illogical at all. God did not need to create it but he did anyway NOT FOR HIMSELF and the universe does not change God in any way, but he did it FOR US. God created so that others may share in his happiness. God created out of love- love that is so great and pefect because the universe does not affect God, it does not help him in ANY WAY, therefore, God gave us a gift for no reason.

Just as a side note, the three persons of the trinity are not three manifestations of the same God, this would be considered a heresy. The persons of the trinity are distinct persons but one God. 3 persons, 1 God not 3 gods and 1 God or 3 persons and 1 person. The last two would be contradictions, the first one is not a contradiction but it is a mystery

 

[R_Daneel]

That is our apprehensions perhaps. But Catholics believe that God is both Merciful and Just.

Yes, I am aware that you believe that. But your belief does not resolve the contradiction. We are talking about two, fully secular concepts here: “justice” and “mercy”. Both have a clearcut definition, and those definitions cannot be applied simultaneously in the same case. That is a simple, obvious fact. The phrase: “justice tempered by mercy” is a linguistic oxymoron.

If you believe the opposite, then you should also believe in the existence of married bachelors. To be “married” is a secular concept. To be a “bachelor” is also a secular concept. They cannot be applied at the same time to the same person.

Much of what is either, has to do purely with definitions of the punishments, or lack thereof. Never forget that the Catholic believes this life while meaningful in some regards, is completely meaningless when compared to life with God, in Heaven. Existence with God is our purpose. Merely living through this one is not.

Very nice, but it has nothing to do with “justice” and “mercy”.

 

[R_Daneel]

Power (Omniscience) is the intrinsic energy of being realized in activity. The Blessed Trinity, infinite in the immanence of its life, is the perfect self-realization of Power. In one omnipotent and eternal experience all powers of being, both absolute and relative, are completely actualized without the possibility of increase or diminution. Omnipotence suffuses all the Divine attributes, and is identical with the Godhood of God. It represent for us the dynamic aspect of the triune life of the divine essence, wherein the fecundity of the one subsistent nature expresses, manifests, and comprehends its own meaning and value, and all things within that fulness.

Omnipotence involves every possible mode of origination and production, and is thus more than the power of causation whereby things other than itself are brought into existence. - The Teachings of the Catholic Church, Vol I, Pg 94, Divine Omnipotence

I guess, I will have to read this a few more times, since it is a complete gobbledegook to me.

Well, I am sorry for your narrow-mindedness.

If declaring a contradiction to be a contradiction is the sign of “narrow-mindedness”, then I guess, I should accept your assessment. But there is a minor consolation for me. I took several psychological tests (when we were building up a business, which dealt with psychological evaluation of people for different professions) and I scored exactly 100% on open-mindedness. In each and every test, I answered all the questions pertaining to “open-mindedness” and the result was off the scale. The scale cut off at about 95%. Mind you, the other aspects of my personality were also astonishingly correct, I was declared lazy, moderately outgoing, not very conscientious, etc… so there is no reason to doubt that I am as open-minded as they come. So, I will respectfully reject your assessment, and will not accept contradictions, even if they are declared “mysteries”.

 

[JDaniel]

I guess, I will have to read this a few more times, since it is a complete gobbledegook to me.

Yeah. I remember when I first read it. I had to re-read it several times, too.

If declaring a contradiction to be a contradiction is the sign of “narrow-mindedness”, then I guess, I should accept your assessment. But there is a minor consolation for me. I took several psychological tests (when we were building up a business, which dealt with psychological evaluation of people for different professions) and I scored exactly 100% on open-mindedness. In each and every test, I answered all the questions pertaining to “open-mindedness” and the result was off the scale. The scale cut off at about 95%. Mind you, the other aspects of my personality were also astonishingly correct, I was declared lazy, moderately outgoing, not very conscientious, etc… so there is no reason to doubt that I am as open-minded as they come. So, I will respectfully reject your assessment, and will not accept contradictions, even if they are declared “mysteries”.

RD:
You probably wrote the test! (Just kidding.) And, I was kidding about the “narrow-mindedness.” I would concur; you are fairly open-minded, from what I’ve seen.

There are some other places that speak to fecundity, as well. I will try to remember where and get them to you, if you’re still interested. It has been a while since I read those sources, so, I stuck the concept in my memory banks, and went on my way. I am glad that you are patient as I don’t have much time to look for them. I am just too busy with work and family. Well, you know. . . .

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, I am aware that you believe that. But your belief does not resolve the contradiction. We are talking about two, fully secular concepts here: “justice” and “mercy”. Both have a clearcut definition, and those definitions cannot be applied simultaneously in the same case. That is a simple, obvious fact. The phrase: “justice tempered by mercy” is a linguistic oxymoron.

RD: We have not been discussing mundane mercy and justice. What we have been discussing is Divine Mercy and Divine Justice. For the Church, the divination of these concepts by their affinity with an All-powerful God, presupposes those concepts. They were but merely usurped by secularity. And, you would have to admit, wouldn’t you, that Divine Mercy and Justice, at least, may have existed before mankind was mature enough to merge them into worldly only thought? They existed from the earliest times of the Jews.

If you believe the opposite, then you should also believe in the existence of married bachelors. To be “married” is a secular concept. To be a “bachelor” is also a secular concept. They cannot be applied at the same time to the same person.

RD. I expect something higher from you than that old, tired hack. BTW, how is “married” a secular concept? It, too, was usurped from religion.

 

[JDaniel]

RD:

I realize how adamant you are against Christian belief. However, below is an explanation, notwithstanding that it might not suit your exquisite whim, but it describes the Catholic perspective on the subject of Divine Mercy and Divine Justice. It most explicitly satisfies us:

But within the one side of the predicate pair “real” and “good” we find another antimony, namely, in the concept of goodness and of love itself. We think of God as the Just One, as the place of absolute and definitive justice. He does not remain deaf to the tears and cries of the victim shackled by injustice. “Nil inultum remanebit,” “nothing remains unavenged,” is what is said in the Dies irae. But we think of him at the same time as the place of absolute mercy and forgiveness, which transcends all human measure. The identity of justice and merciful goodness, which are included in our concept of God, eludes our power of imagination. It is only in the sacrifice of Christ that the darkness is illuminated for the believer. For this sacrifice means that God himself, in order to be able to forgive without injustice the sacrifice of the evil, made himself the sacrifice and thus enabled himself to forgive. - Rationality and Faith in God, from a lecture by Robert Spaemann

God bless,
jd