Is Infinity presupposed in classical Christian theology?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ttabor33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

ttabor33

Guest
I was reading a paper by theologian Christian tapp where he states:

" properties are to be freed from all earthly limitations
(especially from anthropological connotations) by saying that God possesses them
in an infnite degree/intensity or that the degree in which God possesses them
exceeds all creaturely degrees infnitely. So God is called ‘infnitely more powerful’
than we are, or His goodness is called ‘infnite goodness’, etc. In traditional theology,
this method is known as ‘via eminentiae’. It is frmly grounded in the tradition. But
it makes some assumptions that are by far not unproblematic, and it is disputable
whether it really makes infnity assumptions.
One problem is the presupposition that all these properties come in objective
degrees, that these degrees are objectively comparable, that there exists not only a
maximum degree, but also an infnite one, etc"

His paper can be found here: (PDF) A11: "Eternity and Infinity" | Christian Tapp - Academia.edu

My question is does Thomistic theology or classical theology presuppose an infinity? I know Aquinas uses elements in his philosophy of neoplatonism but isn’t that just objective truth from the view of reality as act and potency?

I mean if something is unlimited by anything wouldn’t that make it infinite, endless and inexhaustible?
 
Last edited:
ttabor33 said:
…
My question is does Thomistic theology or classical theology presuppose an infinity? I know Aquinas uses elements in his philosophy of neoplatonism but isn’t that just objective truth from the view of reality as act and potency?

I mean if something is unlimited by anything wouldn’t that make it infinite, endless and inexhaustible?
Click to expand...
Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 7 The infinity of God
Article 1. Whether God is infinite?
I answer that, All the ancient philosophers attribute infinitude to the first principle, as is said (Phys. iii), and with reason; for they considered that things flow forth infinitely from the first principle. But because some erred concerning the nature of the first principle, as a consequence they erred also concerning its infinity; forasmuch as they asserted that matter was the first principle; consequently they attributed to the first principle a material infinity to the effect that some infinite body was the first principle of things.

We must consider therefore that a thing is called infinite because it is not finite. Now matter is in a way made finite by form, and the form by matter. Matter indeed is made finite by form, inasmuch as matter, before it receives its form, is in potentiality to many forms; but on receiving a form, it is terminated by that one. Again, form is made finite by matter, inasmuch as form, considered in itself, is common to many; but when received in matter, the form is determined to this one particular thing. Now matter is perfected by the form by which it is made finite; therefore infinite as attributed to matter, has the nature of something imperfect; for it is as it were formless matter. On the other hand, form is not made perfect by matter, but rather is contracted by matter; and hence the infinite, regarded on the part of the form not determined by matter, has the nature of something perfect. Now being is the most formal of all things, as appears from what is shown above (I:4:1 Objection 3). Since therefore the divine being is not a being received in anything, but He is His own subsistent being as was shown above (I:3:4), it is clear that God Himself is infinite and perfect.
Click to expand...
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1007.htm
 
The fact that the ancient philosophers attributed infinitude to the first principle could beg the same question. Did they presuppose an infinitude to the first principle?

Let me ask it a different way. Christian Tapp also goes on to state. The by calling a absolute being Omniscient does not mean that God has an infinite amount of knowledge just that he is unlimited in Knowledge. So if the total knowledge is finite God would still be unlimited in that knowledge but his knowledge would be finite.

But I believe that Aquinas states that God is simple and The act of Knowledge and the object of Knowledge are the same so if one is unlimited the other is unlimited so both the act and the object are both unlimited so Christian Tapp would be wrong. Am i correct in my summery of Aquinas? Or does Christian Tapp have some Merit? He is a professional Catholic theologian.
 
ttabor33 said:
presuppose
Click to expand...
Well if you check the source Aristotle Physics 3, particularly Phys. 3. 6, 206A18–19. you will read Aristotle’s words of conclusion after saying that infinite cannot exist actually but, “The alternative then remains that the infinite has a potential existence”.
 
Last edited:
Ok so then God is potentially infinite? is that what you are saying? If the actual infinite cannot exist Actually then it can only exist potentially. Now we both know that is wrong and God is actually infinite but how do we know that? when I ask theologians about God’s infinity all I get is that it is not a quantitative infinity. Well how to we know it is qualitative and what does that even mean? Infinite to me is something that is inexhaustible and endless.
 
Never mind the theology, I need a wall chart just to understand the sentence structure.

As a practical matter, “from everlasting to everlasting” is an Old Testament thought. Man being created for immortality, thus future infinity is in the Book of Wisdom.
 
My understanding of the term infinite in theology means without limit. It does not mean an infinite number of things in a mathematical sense. So in other words saying God has infinite power means he has all power, that is all power that exists. Since for something else to have power over God would mean he is limited by something else. But being limited by something else means to have unactualized potential. But, since it is shown in the unmoved mover argument that God is the unmoved mover or purely actual actualizer of all things he must not have any potentiality in him. Therefore he is all powerful.
 
Ok that makes sense.

So we can say that God’s knowledge is infinite in the sense that is is unlimited. So he knows all that is knowable.
Aquinas goes on to state
Since God knows not only things actual but also things possible to Himself or to created things, as shown above (A[9]), and as these must be infinite, it must be held that He knows infinite things.

So God being unlimited knows all that is knowable and what is knowable is an infinite number of things and that can be taken as an infinite quanity
 
I should add that god knows that infinite quantity not like us part after part but in a complete whole.
 
ttabor33 said:
Ok so then God is potentially infinite? is that what you are saying? If the actual infinite cannot exist Actually then it can only exist potentially. Now we both know that is wrong and God is actually infinite but how do we know that? when I ask theologians about God’s infinity all I get is that it is not a quantitative infinity. Well how to we know it is qualitative and what does that even mean? Infinite to me is something that is inexhaustible and endless.
Click to expand...
Aristotle is saying, Physics 3.
Part 6

But on the other hand to suppose that the infinite does not exist in any way leads obviously to many impossible consequences: there will be a beginning and an end of time, a magnitude will not be divisible into magnitudes, number will not be infinite. If, then, in view of the above considerations, neither alternative seems possible, an arbiter must be called in; and clearly there is a sense in which the infinite exists and another in which it does not.

We must keep in mind that the word ‘is’ means either what potentially is or what fully is. Further, a thing is infinite either by addition or by division.

Now, as we have seen, magnitude is not actually infinite. But by division it is infinite. (There is no difficulty in refuting the theory of indivisible lines.) The alternative then remains that the infinite has a potential existence.

But the phrase ‘potential existence’ is ambiguous. When we speak of the potential existence of a statue we mean that there will be an actual statue. It is not so with the infinite. There will not be an actual infinite. The word ‘is’ has many senses, and we say that the infinite ‘is’ in the sense in which we say ‘it is day’ or ‘it is the games’, because one thing after another is always coming into existence. For of these things too the distinction between potential and actual existence holds. We say that there are Olympic games, both in the sense that they may occur and that they are actually occurring.

The infinite exhibits itself in different ways-in time, in the generations of man, and in the division of magnitudes. For generally the infinite has this mode of existence: one thing is always being taken after another, and each thing that is taken is always finite, but always different. Again, ‘being’ has more than one sense, so that we must not regard the infinite as a ‘this’, such as a man or a horse, but must suppose it to exist in the sense in which we speak of the day or the games as existing things whose being has not come to them like that of a substance, but consists in a process of coming to be or passing away; definite if you like at each stage, yet always different.
Click to expand...
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.3.iii.html

However, God is not conditioned by His creation and so is not limited by any idea we have of time.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure what is meant by actually infinite. Something can be infinite and yet bounded. Something can be infinite without a boundary or with a boundary and there are different levels of infinity.
 
I heard God’s omniscience explained this way. Since the unmoved mover argument demonstrates the existence of God as the unactualized actualizer that actualizes everything else then there can be no unactualized potentials in God. So while some might envision God’s omniscience as a kind of great seeing or vision of everything that is going on, God seeing everything. That is not what Aquinas means by all knowing. For Aquinas God is that which actualizes everything’s existence at every moment. So God is the cause of its existence at all times and that is why God knows everything.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top