Is God "Outside" Metaphysical Categories

  • Thread starter Thread starter levinas12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

levinas12

Guest
We have had any number of discussions on other threads that point out some of the “paradoxes” and “antinomies” that crop up when we apply metaphysical categories (e.g., substance, efficient causality) to God.

The reason for this is that God is “outside” the world yet metaphysical categories seem to be “world-dependent”. What I mean is that “time” is involved in their meaning. For instance, “substance” in Aristotle is governed by “presence” which is inescapably temporal (“presence” implies “past” and “future”). Likewise “efficient causality” is temporal, I.e., involves a “before” and “after” (and a “change” in the agent).

What brings all this to a head is the assertion (by Thomas Aquinas himself) that God does not have a “real” relation to the world although the world has a “real” relation to God. This move is necessary to safeguard God’s radical transcendence (that God does not need the world to be God).

But it also leads to “difficulties”.

For example, how can God be a substance without turning God into one entity alongside others?
 
Funny, this came up in the book I’m reading this morning.

According to the Pseudo-Dionysius, God transcends Being itself. In other words: If you can name it, God ain’t it.

I’m not sure I get the bit by Aquinas. As far as the relation to the world, Christ is the link between Heaven and Earth. Was he strictly speaking of God the Father? That would make sense since the Son and Spirit are the only persons that have a direct relation to the Father, we get to the Father through the Son/Spirit.
 
levinas12 said:
We have had any number of discussions on other threads that point out some of the “paradoxes” and “antinomies” that crop up when we apply metaphysical categories (e.g., substance, efficient causality) to God.

The reason for this is that God is “outside” the world yet metaphysical categories seem to be “world-dependent”. What I mean is that “time” is involved in their meaning. For instance, “substance” in Aristotle is governed by “presence” which is inescapably temporal (“presence” implies “past” and “future”). Likewise “efficient causality” is temporal, I.e., involves a “before” and “after” (and a “change” in the agent).

What brings all this to a head is the assertion (by Thomas Aquinas himself) that God does not have a “real” relation to the world although the world has a “real” relation to God. This move is necessary to safeguard God’s radical transcendence (that God does not need the world to be God).

But it also leads to “difficulties”.

For example, how can God be a substance without turning God into one entity alongside others?
Click to expand...
If these things cause you difficulties then you probably shouldn’t involve yourself in philosophical discussions. All of us here are amatures, so don’t let anything you see in these forums bother you. All told, there are, at most, four people who appear regularly on this forum who seem to be solid philosophically.

Read Aquinas by Edward Feser and get his new book coming out in May and spend a lot of time on his blog.

But to answer your question. A substance is something that exists, right? God exists, right? So God is a substance. What does it mean " to exist? " It means one of two things. Either to have being ( to have an act of existence from another ) or to be Being ( to be a substance whose act o existence is himself, whose very substance is his act of existence. Thomas Aquinas defined God as the Pure Substant Being, He Who Is.

So when we speak of substance and existence ( being ) we are speaking analogically. God simply is being, everything else is a being. God is limiless being, a substance who simply is, everything else are limited beings or substances who exist in a limited way, who have their act of existence given to them by God.

And a warning. Satan is busy on this forum. There are probably six people on this forum you just shouldn’t pay any attention to at all.

Linus2nd
 
levinas12 said:
We have had any number of discussions on other threads that point out some of the “paradoxes” and “antinomies” that crop up when we apply metaphysical categories (e.g., substance, efficient causality) to God.

The reason for this is that God is “outside” the world yet metaphysical categories seem to be “world-dependent”. What I mean is that “time” is involved in their meaning. For instance, “substance” in Aristotle is governed by “presence” which is inescapably temporal (“presence” implies “past” and “future”). Likewise “efficient causality” is temporal, I.e., involves a “before” and “after” (and a “change” in the agent).

What brings all this to a head is the assertion (by Thomas Aquinas himself) that God does not have a “real” relation to the world although the world has a “real” relation to God. This move is necessary to safeguard God’s radical transcendence (that God does not need the world to be God).

But it also leads to “difficulties”.

For example, how can God be a substance without turning God into one entity alongside others?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t sound like you have a problem with metaphysics per se, just some problems with Aquinas’ metaphysics.
 
Counterpoint said:
It doesn’t sound like you have a problem with metaphysics per se, just some problems with Aquinas’ metaphysics.
Click to expand...
I have a problem with Aquinas’ metaphysics but only because it is really Aristotle’s metaphysics.

If Heidegger is right, i.e., that the horizon of Aristotle’s concept of “being” (esse, the ‘to be’) is time, then Aristotle’s metaphysical categories (substance, efficient causality, etc) cannot be applied to God who is “outside” of time.

But you raise an interesting point.

Is there another way of thinking that is not subject to the horizon of time?
 
Linusthe2nd said:
If these things cause you difficulties then you probably shouldn’t involve yourself in philosophical discussions.
Click to expand...
This issue is a hot philosophical topic.

It started with Heidegger’s book, Being and Time.

As elaborated in Being and Time, the fundamental question of metaphysics is, what does it mean to be?

Heidegger’s contribution was to situate the “to be” in the context of “time”. “To be” means “to be present in the world”, at least for a while.

Now, in this context, metaphysics can be defined as the quest for what is “always present”.

But why this interest in the “always present”? Because it provides consolation in the face of our own impending death ( i.e., of our no longer being present, here, in the world).
 
This thread is getting confused by ill-defined, philosophical terms that take away from what should be a simple understanding of God.

The “issues” ( ??? ) of this thread, if in Christian generosity we wish to call them that, will never be settled in this thread because they are so vague and ill-defined. Virtually anything anybody says sounds like it might be true.

The only thing this thread is accomplishing is giving the atheists around here new ideas for how to confuse the faithful. It’s like Atheistic Argumentation 101.

My advice: shut it down.
 
Gods’ nature is said to be Pure Being , ( I Am who Am), Existence. Created entities are not said to be Pure Being, because if they were, they would be all they could be at one time and not subject to time and change. Human experience verifies that we are Becoming, not being bcause we show Potency and Act, that is a real capacity to become to the actual becoming. Created entities show dependence on a "First Mover, Primal Cause that moves, to fill the potential capacity to become to the actual becoming The created entity can not cause this movement. We didn’t cause our own existence God is apart from His creation because He is infinite, we are finite, philosophers defines us as essence, existence, matter and form, and potency and act. So God is above and apart from creation in His nature, Existence We experience constant change because our nature is composed of potency and act, and not Pure Act. or Existence or Pure being. We show complete dependence which comes back to a Supreme Being who provides our existence, our first sustaining cause It’s been a long time Open to correction. We had a beginning and didn’t cause it, it had to be an entity who didn’t have a beginning. You can’t have an infinite series of cause and effect.
 
If you want to understand Heidegger’s existentialism in connection with Catholic thought, and particularly Aquinas’, you should read Karl Rahner’s Foundations of Christian Faith. He was (literally) a student of Heidegger’s and synthesized, whether successfully or not, Thomism and the existentialist approach of Heidegger in what is called transcendental Thomism.

For most people, I would say they need to read a primer first to even understand Rahner’s Foundations. But if you actually understand Heidegger’s writings, then you can probably handle Rahner. Let me know if you need help.
 
tdgesq said:
If you want to understand Heidegger’s existentialism in connection with Catholic thought, and particularly Aquinas’, you should read Karl Rahner’s Foundations of Christian Faith. He was (literally) a student of Heidegger’s and synthesized, whether successfully or not, Thomism and the existentialist approach of Heidegger in what is called transcendental Thomism.

For most people, I would say they need to read a primer first to even understand Rahner’s Foundations. But if you actually understand Heidegger’s writings, then you can probably handle Rahner. Let me know if you need help.
Click to expand...
I need all the help I can get.

What does Rahner say about metaphysics?
 
empther said:
My advice: shut it down.
Click to expand...
If I thought this thread was confusing the faithful, I would agree.

All I’m trying to say is that, when it comes to describing God, I think metaphysics is woefully inadequate.

“Impersonal metaphysical being” does not do justice to our God Who is Pure Love.

In fact, one could extend this - when it comes to accounting for us human persons, metaphysics falls far short of the job.

.
 
To say God is pure Being is to say God is pure ;love, pure goodness, pure intelligence, pure truth God is all in all. Why have a philosophy forum, if we can not show that our Faith is the truth, and reasonable, not in conflict with reality. I just witnessed a thread being closed down because an OP was said be to be disturbed and nervous so in charity we should close the thread. I suspect the O.P hd these problems before he was allowed into the forum.
Now there is a sugestion that we call God Pure Love, and for that reason we should not go further. What about Truth. Jesus is the Way, and Truth and the Light Do we shut a forum down because of opinions?
 
Philosophy is the search for wisdom and truth by the light of human reason, and it can bring us to the doorstep of faith. It is enlightened by Faith which surpasses the fallibility of human judgement. This Faith has to have the guarantee of infallibility which is promised to us by Jesus. So we adhere to the doctrines of our faith, and at the same time follow the guidance of its appointed teachers one being ST.Thomas Aquinas whose philosophy was integrated with the Churches Theology. He perfected the natural wisdom of the Old Philosophers. He synthesized , brought philosophy together with theology in the Summa Theologica. We should show the logical reasons for our faith to counter a lot of false philosophies , and errors that are circulated in our society, founded on false beliefs What does it profit a person to eat a meal that another had digested? IN other words, if we just parrot words taught to us in order to understand, then thats exactly what we are doing. We haven’t learned to think on our own. Of course this is fraught with danger because we are fallible. So we are guided in our thinking by our teachers, and at the same time engage our own minds, to check our selves out, and to check others out to see if we are on the path to finding the truth. This can not be done if we are not allowed to make our mistakes. God planted in each person a desire to know the truth, and it will all lead to Him if we are thinking properly. We need to be humble and open, not predjudiced or bias in our thinking, or proud. If a philosophical question is asked, and no one answers or if if the answer may be wrong, it’s OK, We can say IMO and the question can remain unanswered If we think the question is right, give your reasons, and supply other sources from Church teaching and even from your own experience, if you find it consistent with the Church teaching. Don’t stifle the Spirit of truth
 
levinas12 said:
We have had any number of discussions on other threads that point out some of the “paradoxes” and “antinomies” that crop up when we apply metaphysical categories (e.g., substance, efficient causality) to God.

The reason for this is that God is “outside” the world yet metaphysical categories seem to be “world-dependent”. What I mean is that “time” is involved in their meaning. For instance, “substance” in Aristotle is governed by “presence” which is inescapably temporal (“presence” implies “past” and “future”). Likewise “efficient causality” is temporal, I.e., involves a “before” and “after” (and a “change” in the agent).

What brings all this to a head is the assertion (by Thomas Aquinas himself) that God does not have a “real” relation to the world although the world has a “real” relation to God. This move is necessary to safeguard God’s radical transcendence (that God does not need the world to be God).

But it also leads to “difficulties”.

For example, how can God be a substance without turning God into one entity alongside others?
Click to expand...
I don’t think these difficulties can ever be resolved. The way I understand it, all we know about God is ultimately derived from ens commune. This is what we know from our own experiences. Metaphysics is the study of this ens commune, being as being. We can look at being as being and understand that no being has within itself necessary actuality, thus the need for the unmoved mover that we can know from the universal effect, ens commune. Thomas does get into a detailed discussion about this topic in his writings and again, it boils down to analogy.

Also, the way I understand it, even in ens commune, there is no such thing as ens commune that you can separate from individual beings. Ens commune is simply an abstraction. The ens of a rock, is clearly only analogous to the ens of a human being, or a solar system.

God bless,
Ut
 
levinas12 said:
If I thought this thread was confusing the faithful, I would agree.

All I’m trying to say is that, when it comes to describing God, I think metaphysics is woefully inadequate.

“Impersonal metaphysical being” does not do justice to our God Who is Pure Love.

In fact, one could extend this - when it comes to accounting for us human persons, metaphysics falls far short of the job.

.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I agree with this. The fruits of metaphysics are modest, but they help with the preambles of the faith. Reason can only get us so far when dealing with God but the catholic church does not advocate fideism,

With regard to us human persons, I think we need to be careful to define what metaphysics is supposed to accomplish on this front. I think as metaphysics can be used to reveal the need for the unmoved mover, it can also be used to prove the immateriality of human cognition and free will. Every human being is a prime mover to a certain extent, just as God is prime mover of the universe.

God bless,
Ut
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top