I'm leaving Catholicism

[Dolphin]

Seems your entire logic is based on God being “simple”. What does this even mean? What evidence is there for this?

All the evidence I need is the fact that thousands of Saints of the Catholic Church have had miracles done as evidence of them being in Heaven with Jesus.

Doubting Thomas needed proof to believe in Jesus and yet Jesus says “blessed are those who believe without seeing.”

If you are going to throw away all of Catholicism and Christianity because some philosopher convinced you that Christianity is not logical and rational… then at least speak with a Priest first so that you are making an informed decision from all perspectives (which would be a logical and rational decision)

 

[TheDefaultMan]

So, you’re saying that the human mind makes a distinction between the divine attributes (love, justice, goodness, omnipotence, omniscience, etc.) but that this distinction is not “real” - meaning it doesn’t align with reality.

Well, yes. There really isn’t a distinction between God’s goodness, his Existence, his Omnipresence, etc.

That doesn’t mean that the different Divine Attributes are pointless, however. The logical distinction between water and H2O is an example. When we talk about water as H2O, we view it in light of the hydrogen and oxygen that make up the water, while when we talk about water itself we usually view it in light of itself.

At the end of the day, there is no real distinction between water and H2O, but the logical distinction is useful to emphasize certain aspects.

Likewise, there is no real distinction between God’s Existence, his Omnipotence, etc. but we still use the concept of separate divine attributes to understand God in light of different concepts in created reality, like power or goodness.

God has those things but in a way that’s different from our goodness or our power, which is why predicates of God are analogical rather than univocal.

That love and justice and goodness and omnipotence and omniscience are all the same?

In the way that humans understand them, no. Which is why we don’t say that God is strictly Love in the exact same way humans mean love, but rather he has something similar to it. Same with all other attributes.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

The distinction between God as Creator and God as Sustainer would (I think) fall under logical distinctions.

I guess I still don’t follow how a distinction between the Three Divine Persons implies a division in God.

I think it can only be fully understood with an understanding of th radicality of Divine Simplicity.

But to be honest, I think I’ve said all I could. I hope you’ll reconsider my arguments

 

[Mountie]

The distinction between God as Creator and God as Sustainer would (I think) fall under logical distinctions.

They aren’t describing the same thing in different ways. The act of creating and the act of sustaining are real and different metaphysical actions.

I think it can only be fully understood with an understanding of th radicality of Divine Simplicity.

Your statement implies that an understanding of divine simplicity entails one to reject the Trinity. I don’t think that is true at all. I think in your own current perspective, that may be the case. But myself and many philosophers greater than I understand that concept and still hold belief in a Triune God. Maybe the problem isn’t an intellectual one per say but a misunderstanding of terms and perspective.

But to be honest, I think I’ve said all I could. I hope you’ll reconsider my arguments

I found it to be a decent discussion. We may disagree, but I think that you definitely have thought about the topic. I’ll certainly do my part to continue thinking about these topics and I hope you’ll do the same.

 

[rdj69]

The logical distinction between water and H2O is an example. When we talk about water as H2O, we view it in light of the hydrogen and oxygen that make up the water, while when we talk about water itself we usually view it in light of itself.

At the end of the day, there is no real distinction between water and H2O, but the logical distinction is useful to emphasize certain aspects.

What do you mean by “aspects”? How can two distinct aspects be, in reality, indistinct? Why isn’t the distinction between aspects “real”? And if it’s not, then to describe it as such would, indeed, be useless, because it would be false, it would be a lie.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

They aren’t describing the same thing in different ways. The act of creating and the act of sustaining are real and different metaphysical actions.

Actually, many Thomists would disagree. Most take the position that God’s act of creation is synonymous with his act of sustaining.

Your statement implies that an understanding of divine simplicity entails one to reject the Trinity. I don’t think that is true at all. I think in your own current perspective, that may be the case. But myself and many philosophers greater than I understand that concept and still hold belief in a Triune God. Maybe the problem isn’t an intellectual one per say but a misunderstanding of terms and perspective.

Well, I would just point back to what I’ve already said about ontological distinctions and God’s personhood being identical with his other attributes.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

What do you mean by “aspects”? How can two distinct aspects be, in reality, indistinct? Why isn’t the distinction between aspects “real”? And if it’s not, then to describe it as such would, indeed, be useless, because it would be false, it would be a lie.

When I said “aspects” I mean different ways of viewing the same thing. Yes, the different ways of viewing the same thing are in fact distinct, which is why it’s called a logical distinction, but the analysandum is the same.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

I found it to be a decent discussion. We may disagree, but I think that you definitely have thought about the topic. I’ll certainly do my part to continue thinking about these topics and I hope you’ll do the same.

I agree! I’m sure both of us have a lot more to learn. Anyways, have a good day.

 

[rdj69]

When I said “aspects” I mean different ways of viewing the same thing. Yes, the different ways of viewing the same thing are in fact distinct, which is why it’s called a logical distinction, but the analysandum is the same

So, the logical distinction really exists, but it does not directly correlate with something “out there” in the world - something outside of the mind. And because of this, you say it is not a “real” distinction.

Back to God.

The distinction between the persons of the Trinity is, as you claim, a merely logical distinction. That is to say, the distinction really exists, but because the distinction does not directly correlate to something “out there” in the world, you say it is not a “real” distinction.

But God does not exist “out there” in the world, so it follows that nothing we say about God can be a “real” distinction.

You’re trying to apply reasoning to God as though he were some object in nature, and that’s causing you problems. Your understanding of “real” vs. “logical” distinctions isn’t accurate; specifically, your understanding of what constitutes “real” distinction is too narrow, and because of this it excludes God. By your understanding of “real” distinctions, nothing we say about God could possibly be “real”.

To put it differently, there’s an implicit false dichotomy in your reasoning: that only two “kinds” of things exist, those which are conceptual and exist only in our minds, and those which are real and exist in nature. God is neither of these, and so trying to make God fit into either of these categories is always going to fail.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

The intrinsic processions and relations are essential, not accidental. The essence is paternity and filiation, it does not have the accidents of being paternity and filiation.

Just by virtue of them sharing the exact same Divine Essence means that they have to be the same thing, as essence or quiddity answers the question of what the thing is, and given the Principle of Identity, it seems as though paternity and filiation would have to be identical.

Your phrasing itself presupposes that they are parts which are supposed to be identical. They’re not. There’s only one “thing” in which subsists multiple relations. The what of what each relation is is the same subject.

Wesrock:

I already wrote that the beginning and end should not be conceived as places in regards to a line, but intelligible activity that has God as both its source and terms, where the source and term are the same thing, where God exists relationally to himself as both source and term.

I understand that, but what I’m arguing is that the source/term distinction is, and must, be a logical distinction.

A logical relation is like “man is to animal as species is to genus.” The relations in God are not like this; they proceed from a real principle of the same nature, both the source of the procession and that which proceeds, and are therefore real relations. They are not simply mental connections, they really exist in God. But what we are calling relations are not distinct parts.

Wesrock:

As St. Thomas wrote, “[A]lthough paternity, just as filiation, is really the same as the divine essence; nevertheless these two in their own proper idea and definitions import opposite respects.” And also, "Power and goodness do not import any opposition in their respective natures; and hence there is no parallel argument. "

I’m not sure if I agree with Aquinas on filiation and paternity being opposite and thus competing since we can only talk about God using analogical terms. It’s possible to say that God has something analogous to paternity and filiation without the need for a real distinction since the terms are used analogically and not univocally.

Somewhat of a tangent, but St. Thomas does write that we do not predicate “relations” in God in the same way we’d predicate relations in humans. It is analogous. Still, the generation of the Word is analogous to the generation of thought in rational animals, and just because we do predicate things in an analogous way does not mean we lose all ability to understand them. It seems to me you’re pushing more for equivocal language.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

When relation is an accident there is a relation because there is a distinction between two subjects, such as Socrates being shorter than Plato. When a relation is subsistent it is the reason for the distinction.

I’m not sure if I understood what you meant by this. Could you clarify?

I suppose I was a little vague. I take it you’re familiar with “relation” being categorized by Aristotle and St. Thomas as a type of accident, but that’s not without qualification. An accidental relation is something that only exists when there are two substances to relate. Socrates does not have the relation of being shorter than Plato unless Socrates and Plato both exist (and it is true that he is shorter than him). “Socrates is shorter than Plato” is an accident of Socrates if and only if both substances exist. Socrates is in Athens is also a type of relational accident for the same reason. There is the distinction first, and so there is the accident of relationship. That’s not the case in God in which there is just the one substance. We don’t have two distinct substances or parts and therefore an accident of relation between them. The relation is essential to and subsists in the Godhead, it is not accidental, and since it subsists it is the only reason we make a distinction. There is no other basis for a distinction.

It’s possible for God to truly know himself and be the object of his self-knowledge while recognizing that they aren’t really distinct from one another.

We are not saying that the knower and the known are distinct from each other. We’re saying that that this one essence has multiple relations subsisting in it because it is both knower and known.

---

Our character limit is too short.

 

[christismylord]

If our faith in God was to be based on our complete understanding of Him, only God would believe in God.

1. Do you believe the God of the Old Testament?
2. Do you consent to the fact that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophesies?
3. Do you believe Jesus is who He says He is?
4. Do you believe in all of what Jesus promised us (including the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) or do you think He lied?

I think the real questions are the above, they clearly lead to a belief in the Trinity. If you truly believe the above then you simply have to accept that God is above our complete comprehension. Otherwise there would be no such thing as justifying faith (and therefore sanctifying obedience from that faith) if we could completely understand Him. Faith is a gift, not of ourselves but of God. Because we can not comprehend Him on our own.

 

[adamhovey1988]

religion

Yes, actually it is, Christianity is a religion, if you know the etymology of the word, that does not mean that we do not have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

But God does not exist “out there” in the world, so it follows that nothing we say about God can be a “real” distinction.

Yes he does in the sense that if all human minds disappeared today, he would still exist.

 

[Writer_for_God]

I just want to recommend reading the book “Theology for Beginners” by Frank Sheed. He gives the best explanation of the Trinity I have ever read. It might help out. Regardless it is one of my favorite books. But the book is worth it for its chapters on the Trinity.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

Your phrasing itself presupposes that they are parts which are supposed to be identical. They’re not. There’s only one “thing” in which subsists multiple relations. The what of what each relation is is the same subject.

No it did not. In fact, my phrasing was careful to strictly adhere to what Catholics would say about the Trinity.

If there is a real distinction between the multiple relations, there is no way of getting around the fact that it is an ontological distinction, which

A logical relation is like “man is to animal as species is to genus.” The relations in God are not like this; they proceed from a real principle of the same nature, both the source of the procession and that which proceeds, and are therefore real relations. They are not simply mental connections, they really exist in God. But what we are calling relations are not distinct parts.

Again, given that all we say of God is via analogy, there doesn’t seem to be a contradiction in saying that in God there is something that is analogous to being the source of the procession and that which proceeds.

Still, the generation of the Word is analogous to the generation of thought in rational animals, and just because we do predicate things in an analogous way does not mean we lose all ability to understand them. It seems to me you’re pushing more for equivocal language.

I’m not pushing for equivocal language. What I’m saying is that since it’s analogous, we cannot say that it (the procession and what proceeds) couldn’t be one in God, the same way that our feeble understanding could not possibly comprehend how God’s omnipresence is the same as his Existence in God.

An accidental relation is something that only exists when there are two substances to relate. Socrates does not have the relation of being shorter than Plato unless Socrates and Plato both exist (and it is true that he is shorter than him). “Socrates is shorter than Plato” is an accident of Socrates if and only if both substances exist. Socrates is in Athens is also a type of relational accident for the same reason. There is the distinction first, and so there is the accident of relationship.

Is this the same as Cambridge properties?

 

[TheDefaultMan]

That’s not the case in God in which there is just the one substance. We don’t have two distinct substances or parts and therefore an accident of relation between them. The relation is essential to and subsists in the Godhead, it is not accidental, and since it subsists it is the only reason we make a distinction. There is no other basis for a distinction.

How could you say that it subsists in the Godhead without either stating that it is identical to the Godhead or that it is an accident of the Godhead? There doesn’t seem to be a way out of that dichotomy.

We are not saying that the knower and the known are distinct from each other.

But this contradicts Catholic teachings, which claims that they really are distinct. (As the Catechism says)

 

[rdj69]

If there is a real distinction between the multiple relations, there is no way of getting around the fact that it is an ontological distinction

Why do you think that?

 

[TheDefaultMan]

A real distinction is a distinction that exists outside our minds. If all minds disappeared today, those real distinctions would still exist.

Given this, it must be some distinction in being, otherwise it wouldn’t be mind independent

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

To everyone doubting Divine Simplicity (non-composition of God, simplicity of God) or doubting differences between real and unreal distinction… they are dogma of the Church. According to the Church and as implied by the Bible, God’s attributes all equal each other and all equal him and all equal His actions. Transitively at that.

By the way OP I think I realized that what Church means by “real distinctions” between Persons of Trinity might not need to conform to “real distinction” as defined by Divine Simplicity because it is used in different context. Hence speaking in terms of Divine Simplicity, distinction between Persons is not real and ontological, but relational and explanatory. It describes how God works and not composition. Opposite would result in Christ being 1/3 God.