Is this a good way to respond to the Euthyphro dilemma?

[GodMadeMe]

What I mean by God being perfect is that he is perfect by virtue of being of the highest authority and the creator of all things. For me, that alone entitles him to worship. Qualities are ancillary to this issue for me.

Potency cannot move by itself into actuality. A being that is moved from potency to act is not a perfect act of existence since it is dependent on something else for its actuality. It is a contingent being. To me, when dealing with metaphysical qualities of a beings intrinsic nature, having the highest authority or being the creator of all things has no categorical relevance to the question of whether or not a thing has a truly perfect act of existence. The question for me is “what is a perfect nature”. God is the greatest authority and the creator of all things first and foremost because his nature is ontologically perfect in every respect. God cannot meaningfully be the creator of all things if any part of his nature has to be actualized from potency. This would mean that God is an ontologically limited being that is contingent on the act of something else in-order to actualize his potency. It would mean that God is subsisting in the actuality of something else; in which case he is not really God. That is not a perfect act of existence.

Do you understand the distinction between act and potency. Do you understand those concepts?

"spirit time."

This is a meaningless concept to me that you are claiming to have meaning. I have no reason to think it to be plausible or implausible because there is no meaningful or reasonable basis for the statement in the first place.

I am a little puzzled by your potency and action terms too.

I don’t think you really understand those terms including the concept of a perfect being; It appears as if you are making it up as you go along. Which is a shame because you claim that you study.

I don’t think pleasure is the right term either. I’m just saying that God obviously wants to experience something otherwise he never would have created anything.

God created beings not because he is wanting of an experience but because God is love and love by its nature is creative. God is not doing it for Pleasure. God is doing exactly what he is.

 

[GodMadeMe]

I have already pointed out that God does not change but **causes **change. Do you cease to be the same person when you do something?

When i change, potency is being actualized. The fact that i am the same person is of little relevance. I can change because i have potency. I can stand up, sit down, because everything i could be is not yet fully actualized; My potential is not identical to my act of existence. There is a distinction between act and potency in created things.

God on the other hand is pure actuality. God’s existence is identical to what he is doing. This is not a process, or a sequence of acts. God is his will. God “is”. It has always been and always will be what it is and will never change. God is the fullness of being.

 

[tonyrey]

When i change, potency is being actualized. The fact that i am the same person is of little relevance. I can change because i have potency. I can stand up, sit down, because everything i could be is not yet fully actualized; My potential is not identical to my act of existence. There is a distinction between act and potency in created things.

God on the other hand is pure actuality. God’s existence is identical to what he is doing. This is not a process, or a sequence of acts. God is his will. God “is”. It has always been and always will be what it is and will never change. God is the fullness of being.

Nothing you have stated contradicts the fact that God **causes **change.

Do you cease to be the same person when you do something?

 

[GodMadeMe]

Nothing you have stated contradicts the fact that God **causes **change.

Do you cease to be the same person when you do something?

God causes change. but he does not cause change in himself and neither does creation.

 

[tonyrey]

God causes change. but he does not cause change in himself and neither does creation.

I entirely agree. “In Him we live, move and have our being”.

 

[Rohzek]

Potency cannot move by itself into actuality. A being that is moved from potency to act is not a perfect act of existence since it is dependent on something else for its actuality. It is a contingent being. To me, when dealing with metaphysical qualities of a beings intrinsic nature, having the highest authority or being the creator of all things has no categorical relevance to the question of whether or not a thing has a truly perfect act of existence. The question for me is “what is a perfect nature”. God is the greatest authority and the creator of all things first and foremost because his nature is ontologically perfect in every respect. God cannot meaningfully be the creator of all things if any part of his nature has to be actualized from potency. This would mean that God is an ontologically limited being that is contingent on the act of something else in-order to actualize his potency. It would mean that God is subsisting in the actuality of something else; in which case he is not really God. That is not a perfect act of existence.

Do you understand the distinction between act and potency. Do you understand those concepts?

This is a meaningless concept to me that you are claiming to have meaning. I have no reason to think it to be plausible or implausible because there is no meaningful or reasonable basis for the statement in the first place.

I don’t think you really understand those terms including the concept of a perfect being; It appears as if you are making it up as you go along. Which is a shame because you claim that you study.

God created beings not because he is wanting of an experience but because God is love and love by its nature is creative. God is not doing it for Pleasure. God is doing exactly what he is.

Thanks for explaining your terms more. And just to let you know, I am not so familiar with your terms yes. And I will go out on a limb and say it comes from what little I know of scholasticism. I generally read earlier medieval Latin theology (pre-12th or 13th century). So that’s been my focus.

Yeah, I’m just gonna cut to the chase. First, I’m not making it up as I go along. Second, I think what you are promulgating inevitably leads to pantheism. If God is nothing more than a creative act, then that amounts to pantheism. In fact, it doesn’t even begin to describe his essence or nature. You aren’t even talking about nature.

I couldn’t possibly know whether or not God is limited or not. That is beyond anyone’s cognitive capabilities. He may be unlimited, and omnipotent could be a literal term used in scripture. Or it could relative and only mean God is at the top. But even if he were limited in some fashion, I don’t see how that imputes his perfection.

 

[GodMadeMe]

Thanks for explaining your terms more. And just to let you know, I am not so familiar with your terms yes. And I will go out on a limb and say it comes from what little I know of scholasticism. I generally read earlier medieval Latin theology (pre-12th or 13th century). So that’s been my focus.

Okay. A good book would be “On Aquinas” by Edward Feser.

Yeah, I’m just gonna cut to the chase. First, I’m not making it up as I go along. Second,

Sorry, but “spirit-time” sounds made up. I could be wrong.

I think what you are promulgating inevitably leads to pantheism. If God is nothing more than a creative act, then that amounts to pantheism. In fact, it doesn’t even begin to describe his essence or nature. You aren’t even talking about nature.

If God is nothing more than a creative act? God’s nature is his existence which is his love, which is his creativity, which is his will, which is his intent. God is not many parts put together. God is one and absolutely simple. Pantheism is the belief that the universe and its many natures is God. That is not what i am promulgating.

But even if he were limited in some fashion, I don’t see how that imputes his perfection.

If there were a limitation in Gods being, that would mean that God does not exist perfectly and therefore does not have to exist at all. God is an ontologically necessary being, and an ontologically necessary being is pure actuality. There is no unactualized potency in its being. That which is **necessarily real **cannot be considered to be in a state of becoming as that would contradict the fact that it is necessarily real in every aspect of its nature…

 

[Rohzek]

Okay. A good book would be “On Aquinas” by Edward Feser.

Sorry, but “spirit-time” sounds made up. I could be wrong.

If God is nothing more than a creative act? God’s nature is his existence which is his love, which is his creativity, which is his will, which is his intent. God is not many parts put together. God is one and absolutely simple. Pantheism is the belief that the universe and its many natures is God. That is not what i am promulgating.

If there were a limitation in Gods being, that would mean that God does not exist perfectly and therefore does not have to exist at all. God is an ontologically necessary being, and an ontologically necessary being is pure actuality. There is no unactualized potency in its being. That which is **necessarily real **cannot be considered to be in a state of becoming as that would contradict the fact that it is necessarily real in every aspect of its nature…

I believe that considering the will and nature as one and the same is contrary to the teachings of the early Church and the teachings of Chalcedon, so I reject this conception of God. If will and nature are the same, then the very idea of the hypostatic union in the person of Christ cannot possibly remain intact without actually changing the fundamental essence/nature of God. There are other problems with this idea, but I’m still mulling them over. As for the pantheism charge, I stand by it. If you cannot sufficiently demarcate the difference between nature and action, then you cannot adequately distinguish the difference between the creation of the universe and God himself.

As for my “spirit time” I merely used to term to convey the fact that time is not a spectrum, and mostly has to do with material matter, whether it be created or uncreated, etc.

Thanks for the book title. I will make note of it for future reading. My list is long though, so it might take me a while.

 

[GodMadeMe]

I believe that considering the will and nature as one and the same is contrary to the teachings of the early Church and the teachings of Chalcedon, so I reject this conception of God.

So “you” say. Until you provide reasons why i should agree i am not really interested in your assertion.

If will and nature are the same, then the very idea of the hypostatic union in the person of Christ cannot possibly remain intact without actually changing the fundamental essence/nature of God.

First of all, i said that “God’s” will and nature are identical; i** did not say that all will and natures are universally identical.** As for there being problems with the hypostatic union, that depends on how you view the nature of God. God is love. Christ is the word of God made flesh. Christ is the law. The word and the nature that is God is identical. To claim that the word of God and the nature of God are not identical is heresy.

There are other problems with this idea, but I’m still mulling them over. As for the pantheism charge, I stand by it. If you cannot sufficiently demarcate the difference between nature and action, then you cannot adequately distinguish the difference between the creation of the universe and God himself.

You have made a bit of strawman. Not to worry, let me correct you. Pantheism is the belief that God and the universe are identical in essence. Explain to me where i have either argued or inferred such a position? Where did i speak of “action”? Do you understand the concepts i have been using; because if you don’t you cannot reasonably make claims about what you don’t understand. Show me using “my argument”, how i am representing Pantheism. Otherwise please do not claim that i am arguing Pantheism.

As for my “spirit time” I merely used to term to convey the fact that time is not a spectrum, and mostly has to do with material matter, whether it be created or uncreated, etc.

I am merely talking about the fact of change. Change is the actualization of potency and potential. Created things change because they have potency in their being. God is not a created being; God does not have potency in his being. God is not potentially doing something. God is eternally doing what he is without change.

Thanks for the book title. I will make note of it for future reading. My list is long though, so it might take me a while.

Id advise you to bump it up the list.

 

[Rohzek]

So “you” say. Until you provide reasons why i should agree i am not really interested in your assertion.

I did…in the very same paragraph, which you seem to have cut the rest of my statement off from. I’m not sure why you did that.

First of all, i said that “God’s” will and nature are identical; i** did not say that all will and natures are universally identical.** As for there being problems with the hypostatic union, that depends on how you view the nature of God. God is love. Christ is the word of God made flesh. Christ is the law. The word and the nature that is God is identical. To claim that the word of God and the nature of God are not identical is heresy.

Okay, if you insist will and nature are not universally identical, then you should not have a problem with what I am saying.

I totally agree, God is love. But I totally disagree with the statement: “The word and the nature that is God is identical.” At this point you fail to distinguish personhood from nature. Christ and the other two persons of the Trinity have the same essence/nature. God is in three persons. But the person of Christ is not the same as the nature of the Trinity. Distinguishing the persons is very important, but that cannot be done if personhood is considered the same as nature/essence.

You have made a bit of strawman. Not to worry, let me correct you. Pantheism is the belief that God and the universe are identical in essence. Explain to me where i have either argued or inferred such a position? Where did i speak of “action”? Do you understand the concepts i have been using; because if you don’t you cannot reasonably make claims about what you don’t understand. Show me using “my argument”, how i am representing Pantheism. Otherwise please do not claim that i am arguing Pantheism.

I have already explained it. If you cannot demarcate action from essence, then you cannot demarcate God’s creation from God Himself.

Another problem, which I did not initially voice, is that actions do not have an ontological existence. Can an individual punch a rock? Yes. But can an individual punch a walking? No, it’s a completely impossible. This is why we regard “walking” as a gerund instead of a noun. The only way around this dilemma is to regard God as abstract, and thus as nothing more than a synonym for the ever changing universe. For me, this is nothing more than a dead end.

I am merely talking about the fact of change. Change is the actualization of potency and potential. Created things change because they have potency in their being. God is not a created being; God does not have potency in his being. God is not potentially doing something. God is eternally doing what he is without change.

I think this is problematic because again, I don’t think you are talking about nature any longer. If God does not have potency, then explain how else you would begin to talk about his nature or essence?

 

[GodMadeMe]

I did…in the very same paragraph, which you seem to have cut the rest of my statement off from. I’m not sure why you did that.

In the end, that you think that my view of God is against some council or teaching is really beside the point. My argument follows necessarily.

Okay, if you insist will and nature are not universally identical, then you should not have a problem with what I am saying.

You are claiming i have made arguments i have not made.

I totally agree, God is love. But I totally disagree with the statement: “The word and the nature that is God is identical.” At this point you fail to distinguish personhood from nature. Christ and the other two persons of the Trinity have the same essence/nature. God is in three persons. But the person of Christ is not the same as the nature of the Trinity. Distinguishing the persons is very important, but that cannot be done if personhood is considered the same as nature/essence.

The 3 person’s of the trinity are 3 aspects or expressions of one identical divine nature - “Love”; not 3 distinct beings or parts. It is logically impossible to speak of it otherwise.

I have already explained it. If you cannot demarcate action from essence, then you cannot demarcate God’s creation from God Himself.

You do not understand the concepts that i am employing. I did not speak of actions but rather i spoke of potency and actuality. Also if i say that God’s “will” is identical to his nature, it does not follow logically from that statement that God is identical with creation. Clearly.

Another problem, which I did not initially voice, is that actions do not have an ontological existence. Can an individual punch a rock? Yes. But can an individual punch a walking? No, it’s a completely impossible. This is why we regard “walking” as a gerund instead of a noun. The only way around this dilemma is to regard God as abstract, and thus as nothing more than a synonym for the ever changing universe. For me, this is nothing more than a dead end.

Its a false dilemma as i did not voice the argument you are presenting as my own.

I think this is problematic because again, I don’t think you are talking about nature any longer. If God does not have potency, then explain how else you would begin to talk about his nature or essence?

All i can say is that you need to catch up on some basic metaphysics. You should read the book that i proposed.

 

[Rohzek]

In the end, that you think that my view of God is against some council or teaching is really beside the point. My argument follows necessarily.

You are claiming i have made arguments i have not made.

That’s exactly what you just said. You said the following in post #69: “i did not say that all will and natures are universally identical.”

The 3 person’s of the trinity are 3 aspects or expressions of one identical divine nature - “Love”; not 3 distinct beings or parts. It is logically impossible to speak of it otherwise.

No, they are not. At this point you’re now proclaiming Sabellianism. The three person are nothing but persons. They aren’t simply aspects. 3 persons in one God. And what do you mean logically impossible? So what if it is? The Trinity has been known to be completely illogical from the earliest days of Christianity. All we can do is accept what has been passed down. And what you’re saying here doesn’t match up with what the ecumenical councils have proclaimed. The three persons are not aspects.

You do not understand the concepts that i am employing. I did not speak of actions but rather i spoke of potency and actuality. Also if i say that God’s “will” is identical to his nature, it does not follow logically from that statement that God is identical with creation. Clearly.

I understand it clearly more than you do yourself. The demarcation between potency and actuality is action. Actuality is action or change.

Its a false dilemma as i did not voice the argument you are presenting as my own.

It is not a false dilemma. You claim God is pure actuality. Hence God is pure action. The problem with this is that action does not have an ontological existence. My example makes this clear as day.

All i can say is that you need to catch up on some basic metaphysics. You should read the book that i proposed.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . No, they are not. At this point you’re now proclaiming Sabellianism. The three person are nothing but persons. They aren’t simply aspects. 3 persons in one God. . .

youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

 

[GodMadeMe]

That’s exactly what you just said. You said the following in post #69: “i did not say that all will and natures are universally identical.”

No, they are not. At this point you’re now proclaiming Sabellianism. The three person are nothing but persons. They aren’t simply aspects. 3 persons in one God.

You are simply making a contextual error between an ontological context and a theological context. There are 3 distinct persons in God. However, Ontological speaking God is absolutely simple and has no parts. God has no limitation or finiteness in his being. There is no complexity in his being. Therefore having no parts you cannot consider the trinity as having 3 distinct states of being. Rather the nature that is “God” has 3 distinct “personal” expressions that are not identical expressions, but are however 3 eternal expressions of one undivided nature. The word is identical with God, the father is identical with God, the holy spirit is identical with God. It is only the mode of these 3 divine expressions that are distinct. The word eternally or timelessly proceeds from the father for example, but they are not to be thought of as having distinct natures. There is not 3 distinct “good” in God, just one good which is God.

This has to be true in order to make sense of concepts such as omniscience and omnipotence. The father alone is not omnipotence, the word alone is not omnipotence, the holy spirit alone is not omnipotence, but rather all 3 together in one nature is the nature we call omnipotent. The same is true for omniscience and every other attribute that applies to God.

You are labeling my argument according to what it sounds like, but it is not what your allegations imply.

I understand it clearly more than you do yourself. The demarcation between potency and actuality is action. Actuality is action or change.

Change is the actualization of potency.

It is not a false dilemma. You claim God is pure actuality. Hence God is pure action. The problem with this is that action does not have an ontological existence. My example makes this clear as day.

You do not understand the word actuality as it is being used in metaphysics. There cannot be an action such as walking without first actualizing potency; in other-words the potential to walk is being brought into actual-reality from potency.

You can roll your eyes, but the facts remain whether they are accepted or not. Your attempt to equate the physical action of waking with the metaphysical concept of actuality reveals your lack of understanding and your failure to consider the context in which these words are being used.

 

[Rohzek]

You are simply making a contextual error between an ontological context and a theological context.

This is disingenous. We’ve been talking about the existence of God this whole time, hence ontology.

There are 3 distinct persons in God. However, Ontological speaking God is absolutely simple and has no parts. God has no limitation or finiteness in his being. There is no complexity in his being. Therefore having no parts you cannot consider the trinity as having 3 distinct states of being. Rather the nature that is “God” has 3 distinct “personal” expressions that are not identical expressions, but are however 3 eternal expressions of one undivided nature. The word is identical with God, the father is identical with God, the holy spirit is identical with God. It is only the mode of these 3 divine expressions that are distinct. The word eternally or timelessly proceeds from the father for example, but they are not to be thought of as having distinct natures. There is not 3 distinct “good” in God, just one good which is God.

I think we’re so far apart that we cannot find common ground here. Our base approaches are totally different. For me, time isn’t a spectrum. So saying God is outside time simply means that he was before creation, and remains separate in that he is uncreated. It implies nothing about change. However, you conceive of time as related to change. So to say that God changes means that he is subject to time, and thus that conflicts with your idea of God a pure act.

You are labeling my argument according to what it sounds like, but it is not what your allegations imply.

Yes, I think your approaches inevitably lead to my charges, but I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Change is the actualization of potency.

I don’t recall saying otherwise.

You do not understand the word actuality as it is being used in metaphysics. There cannot be an action such as walking without first actualizing potency; in other-words the potential to walk is being brought into actual-reality from potency.

Actions don’t have existence. Again, I think we’re very far apart here and won’t find common ground.