I’ve seen plenty of people state that God - usually meaning specifically the Christian concept of God, or the God of Classical Theism (since those who say it identify themselves as Catholic, predominantly) - is a necessary being such that to say “God does not exist” is a logical contradiction, thus equating God, essentially, with the very quality or fact of existence. I fail to see how this amounts to more than a game with words, however. Existence simply is, or is non-existence. God, as defined by the great monotheisms, is a very specific existing being.is God a necessary being in the “tautological” sense of the word?
And if so how does this affect our understanding of God as being above logical qualities and indeed above the very category of logic?
The argument for a necessary being doesn’t presuppose a personal God, it only proves that whatever the unmoved mover (the non-physical, pure actual being) is, is a being or thing of immortality, or permanence of being, and not contingent on anything for it’s own existence but whatever is caused is contingent on it in essentially ordered series.I’ve seen plenty of people state that God - usually meaning specifically the Christian concept of God, or the God of Classical Theism (since those who say it identify themselves as Catholic, predominantly) - is a necessary being such that to say “God does not exist” is a logical contradiction, thus equating God, essentially, with the very quality or fact of existence. I fail to see how this amounts to more than a game with words, however. Existence simply is, or is non-existence. God, as defined by the great monotheisms, is a very specific existing being.
God is not above logic, if by that you mean that God stands outside the laws of logic and can do absurd things.is God a necessary being in the “tautological” sense of the word?
And if so how does this affect our understanding of God as being above logical qualities and indeed above the very category of logic?
Gods attributes necessarily amounts to the conclusion that God is the act of reality.I’ve seen plenty of people state that God - usually meaning specifically the Christian concept of God, or the God of Classical Theism (since those who say it identify themselves as Catholic, predominantly) - is a necessary being such that to say “God does not exist” is a logical contradiction, thus equating God, essentially, with the very quality or fact of existence. I fail to see how this amounts to more than a game with words, however. Existence simply is, or is non-existence. God, as defined by the great monotheisms, is a very specific existing being.
Forget about the path you are going into.is God a necessary being in the “tautological” sense of the word?
And if so how does this affect our understanding of God as being above logical qualities and indeed above the very category of logic?
It’s not so much of an analogical statement but an observation presupposing an infinite past, a potential in things is to not existence and there is a potential for all things to not exist simultaneously. Given an infinite past, this potential would be actual, but this is not the case so therefore there is something sustaining things into existence in essentially ordered series. This does not prove the theistic idea of God per se, one could easily assume this permanent being is prime matter (works either way), nor does it defeat it but is a part of a whole argument proving the personal intelligent one God. I don’t understand why atheists attack the cosmological arguments in Thomism because they can use the arguments for themselves as they work either way, only in the 4th (henological argument) and 5th (teleological argument) do we arrive at the conclusion of a personal one God, which is why most if not all atheists don’t comprehend the 4th and 5th way at all and completely reject them. What this argument also does is destroy the deistic theory.I’m just saying, God being necessary is an analogical statement because God is above our comprehension.
So I guess I should ask, what are the truth conditions defining an analogical statement?
I think an analogical statement can be described as existing if and only if, the analog is an extension of the truth conditions of the object of the analogy.
So a triangle is similar to a smaller triangle because qua triangle, one is just an extension or difference of degree b/t one and the other.
But does this definition apply to our analogical concepts of God too?
If you read and mediate upon, ponder, think about, (wait I am being tautological) on the First Commandment, then you will eventually come to understand that GOD directs man in all our ways, all of our thoughts and all of our actions to Love HIM, serve HIM and place no others above HIM.is God a necessary being in the “tautological” sense of the word?
And if so how does this affect our understanding of God as being above logical qualities and indeed above the very category of logic?
Does existence exist? It seems to be the hierarchy of itself, such that it is entirely self sufficient. Existence itself exists in all possible circumstances, and by necessity. Otherwise existence, which is the ultimatum of all principalities, has limitations. The real question is, “does everything that can exist, exist?”. And to be honest, there isn’t really an answer. The only thing that exists by necessity is existence, which is the essence of God. We know he can do all things, but whether or not he does all things is another question.is God a necessary being in the “tautological” sense of the word?
And if so how does this affect our understanding of God as being above logical qualities and indeed above the very category of logic?
And that’s exactly my point - those who equate God with the ‘act of existing’ are clearly not talking about the personal God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. They are speaking of some entity that has to be before anything else can. They might as well be talking about energy or particles.The argument for a necessary being doesn’t presuppose a personal God, it only proves that whatever the unmoved mover (the non-physical, pure actual being) is, is a being or thing of immortality, or permanence of being, and not contingent on anything for it’s own existence but whatever is caused is contingent on it in essentially ordered series.
the question is about what we mean, that is, what is the logic of the phrase “God is a necessary being” in light of the fact that we don’t know all that much about God?If you read and mediate upon, ponder, think about, (wait I am being tautological) on the First Commandment, then you will eventually come to understand that GOD directs man in all our ways, all of our thoughts and all of our actions to Love HIM, serve HIM and place no others above HIM.
Man must necessarily be tautological in worshipping GOD, and cannot be tautological enough - pray some litanys and you will get the “many and necessary points” in how man expresses his Love for his GOD in a tautological way. So, yes for man, GOD must be loved in tautological sense as prescribed by GOD in HIS First Commandment.
As to part two of your question, “this” improves our understanding, love and service toward and for GOD independent of “logic” so if your “loving” GOD, what does “logic” have to do with it? And why even attempt to measure GOD against a human quality which HE made. GOD cannot be measured by man using human precepts - to do so immediately makes HIM not GOD, but an entity capable of measurement and judgement.
Yes, you are correct. In order to be intimate with God, you must be near to him, which is to be on his level of sanctity. That is what sanctifying grace is-- a friendship with God. There is an infinite gap between creator and creature by nature. The creature does not, by nature, have the ability to bridge the infinite gap between himself and creator. Otherwise, his nature wouldn’t be natural, or even preternatural, but supernatural; and he would then not be the creature, but rather the creator. The first mover must always be God. God cannot become less than he is, which is the maximum (as per his nature). How is this solved? God must move the creature in a way that is proper both of their natures-- freely. That is, God supplies this bridge, but the creature must voluntarily cross it. For all practical purposes after the fall, this bridge is Jesus Christ. In short, there is no philisophical necessity that a creature must be intimate with his creator. The creator must be the first mover, and that is precisely what makes God good; His charity in both creating humanity in such a way that they can appreciate their existence, and then offering himself to humanity in an intimate fashion, even though he has no obligation to!And that’s exactly my point - those who equate God with the ‘act of existing’ are clearly not talking about the personal God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. They are speaking of some entity that has to be before anything else can. They might as well be talking about energy or particles.
That’s not a problem if you understand that things, whatever they might be, are a collection of applied qualities. The canvas onto which they are painted is existence; existence is the primordial quality that everything needs to have other qualities applied. You are trying to simplify this reality a bit too much. And because things do not exist by necessity, unlike existence itself, it would be proper for existence to naturally be as the creator, and things naturally be the creation.And again, I’m not clear on why the necessary precursor to all physical existence must be nonphysical, whatever that even means.
The cause of the physical can’t be physical itself since if it were, then it would be the cause of itself which is a little absurd. Also, the physical is that which is changed and matter is especially that which changes and gets modified. So the cause of matter and physics has to be spiritual since the spiritual alone is metaphysically powerful enough to resist all changes and to thus supply a constant cause of a world which is unstable.That’s not a problem if you understand that things, whatever they might be, are a collection of applied qualities. The canvas onto which they are painted is existence; existence is the primordial quality that everything needs to have other qualities applied. You are trying to simplify this reality a bit too much. And because things do not exist by necessity, unlike existence itself, it would be proper for existence to naturally be as the creator, and things naturally be the creation.
But this is surely a game with words - ‘existence’ is not a thing in itself, independent of that which exists. Things either exist or they don’t. In what respect could ‘existence’ obtain without extant entities?That’s not a problem if you understand that things, whatever they might be, are a collection of applied qualities. The canvas onto which they are painted is existence; existence is the primordial quality that everything needs to have other qualities applied. You are trying to simplify this reality a bit too much. And because things do not exist by necessity, unlike existence itself, it would be proper for existence to naturally be as the creator, and things naturally be the creation.