Is it possible to conceive of God?

[Dendron]

Jesus is the concept i.e., son of God.

 

[mikekle]

I dont think its possible for mankind to actually understand or comprehend ‘what’ God is, I think its just too much for us human mind to consider a being that has always been around, always is a big word!!!

I still dont really understand how we are made in his image if he is truly just spirit though, But Im pretty sure this is something else we cannot comprehend. I do hope we get to learn all this upon our deaths though!

 

[Kilbourne]

Do our minds have the ability to conceive of the concept of an utterly perfect, all-powerful, omnibenevolent being like God?

I’m asking this because if we cannot, then it seems that my Cartesian mindset would be invalidated?

Hi Andy,

I think the first question is whether one can even make positive statements about God. Aquinas believed we can. So did St. Anselm before him. In fact Anselm was so bold as to propose a definition of God as That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be Thought.

But does this or any other definition make sense? Logical positivists say no concept of God makes sense. Any proposition which asserts “God is…” is nonsense, akin to talking about round squares.

But we can ignore the LP’s because their criterion for meaningfulness, the verifiability principle, is now generally regarded to be self refuting. We can only conclude then that some (at least one) concept of God may be meaningful.

Let’s take Anselm’s TTWNGCBT as a serious candidate. But note how general and abstract this definition is. It is devoid of specific content but yet it definitely points to something. This is very strange. In fact Fr. Robert Barron gave a lecture on this topic called “The Very Strange God of St. Anselm.” The more you think about TTWNGCBT you are driven also to conclude, as Anselm later states in the Proslogion, that God is also greater than I can conceive. It functions more like an algorithm. Step 1: Think of something, no matter how great. Step 2: God is greater than that.

 

[Kilbourne]

But if we grant that there is some meaningful definition of God, Christians still face the problem of justifying that God possesses all the traditional attributes (all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, etc.) which we receive from Revelation. Traditional objections focus on the logical contradiction inherent in maintaining them all. Take the argument against God based on the existence of evil as an example. How can an all-good God, who is also all-knowing and all-powerful, permit evil? But there are Christian responses which leaves a fair-minded person to conclude that faith in the traditional God remains reasonable.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on a very large question.

Kilbourne

 

[bsroufek]

As St. Paul says [1 Cor 13:8-]

Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away
…
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known

So, now we have a limited understanding and vision of God, but in the Beautific Vision in Heaven, we will know him completely.

 

[Della]

As St. Paul says [1 Cor 13:8-]

So, now we have a limited understanding and vision of God, but in the Beautific Vision in Heaven, we will know him completely.

I would qualify that a bit. We will know him to the best of our ability to know him. No one but God can know God completely, yes?

 

[andyklein]

If we can define God, then does it follow that we have conceived of Him? Does merely asserting a definition of a being allow us to conceive of the being?

It can’t be the case, like Hume says, that sense-perception allows us to create concepts of beings such as God. Otherwise we would have experienced utter perfection, goodness, and power. Hence, any conception of God must be a priori.

I am basically asking: If we suppose that God is beyond our power to fully understand, then can we really conceive of Him? If we can’t, does that imply that God cannot be conceived by us? If the answer to the latter question is no, then are the ontological arguments of Descartes and Anselm and Aquinas unsound?

 

[fhansen]

I would qualify that a bit. We will know him to the best of our ability to know him. No one but God can know God completely, yes?

Yes, but knowing Him is a gift of grace-He* enables* or empowers us to know Him to an extent beyond our innate capabilities and to an extent that totally satisfies.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Do our minds have the ability to conceive of the concept of an utterly perfect, all-powerful, omnibenevolent being like God?

I’m asking this because if we cannot, then it seems that my Cartesian mindset would be invalidated?

I would suggest that you switch to Thomas Aquinas, Cartesianism died with Descartes or even before. You can start with Aquinas by Edward Feser or Science before Science by Anthony Rizzi. Both excellent in each its own way.

But no, we cannot have a true concept of God, we can reason that He exists and by observing the creatures He created, we can determine some of the attributes He must have. And we can know even more through His Revelation of Himself. But none of this gives us a true concept of His nature. Our minds being contingent, can have proper concepts only of other contingent things. Even in Heaven we will not see God as He is. So any concept we will ever have of Him will be analogical at best.

Linus2nd

 

[OliverR]

Personally I can’t.

The little that I am shown and feel is enough for me.

 

[Kilbourne]

If we can define God, then does it follow that we have conceived of Him? Does merely asserting a definition of a being allow us to conceive of the being?

It can’t be the case, like Hume says, that sense-perception allows us to create concepts of beings such as God. Otherwise we would have experienced utter perfection, goodness, and power. Hence, any conception of God must be a priori.

I am basically asking: If we suppose that God is beyond our power to fully understand, then can we really conceive of Him? If we can’t, does that imply that God cannot be conceived by us? If the answer to the latter question is no, then are the ontological arguments of Descartes and Anselm and Aquinas unsound?

Hi Andy,

Yes, if we can define God in some fashion, then we have conceived of Him. But merely asserting a definition does mean we have conceived of something. For example, I could propose this definition: A round square is circle which at the same time and place is a square. But such a definition is meaningless nonsense. Those who propose definitions of God, such as Anselm, have the burden of convincing us that the definition is meaningful. (BTW, Anselm just assumed this.)

God is beyond our power to fully grasp and understand, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t say some positive things about Him. We can have some true conceptions of Him. Most things we ascribe to God are from revelation, but reason and our experience can lead us to some knowledge of God.

So I do not reject out of hand all ontological arguments. BTW, Aquinas did not accept St. Anselm’s argument or his definition.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If we can define God, then does it follow that we have conceived of Him? Does merely asserting a definition of a being allow us to conceive of the being?

It can’t be the case, like Hume says, that sense-perception allows us to create concepts of beings such as God. Otherwise we would have experienced utter perfection, goodness, and power. Hence, any conception of God must be a priori.

I am basically asking: If we suppose that God is beyond our power to fully understand, then can we really conceive of Him? If we can’t, does that imply that God cannot be conceived by us? If the answer to the latter question is no, then are the ontological arguments of Descartes and Anselm and Aquinas unsound?

If you are defining " concept " as an idea, yes we can have an idea about what God is like, that is we can have an intellectual understanding of His attributes and nature. The Church defines these. However, Thomas points out that to know God as He is in Himself is impossible for us or even for Angels. The intellects of both are limited and God is eternal and infinite. So though we can say things about God which are absolutely true, we can have no understanding of the infinite application of these truths to the nature of God. Thomas says that whatever we say about God must be considered to be infinitely less than the actuality, or thoughts to that effect. He and other theologians call this approaching God by remotion.

Linus2nd