Questio scholastica

[Qoeleth]

Si Deus infinitus sit, Deus est egens nihil.

Si Deus sit egens nihil, Deus non est egens fines.

Si Deus sit est egens fines, ille habat fines

Si Deus habeat fines, ille non est infinitus.

Ergo, si Deus (aut aliquid) est infinitus, non est infinitus.

Ubi est error, si etiam error sit?

 

[capablanca911]

I suspect, but certainly could be wrong, that the problem is as follows:

If A then B
If B then C
If NOT C then D
If D then not A.

It’s an invalid form I think.

If it’s red, it’s a color
If it’s a color, i can display it on my computer monitor.
If it can’t display it on my computer monitor, I’ll be frustrated.
I’m frustrated therefore it’s not red.

Does that example sufficiently show that the form of the argument is invalid?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Until that intro is translated, this thread is going nowhere.

 

[landon13]

Si Deus infinitus sit, Deus est egens nihil.

Si Deus sit egens nihil, Deus non est egens fines.

Si Deus sit est egens fines, ille habat fines

Si Deus habeat fines, ille non est infinitus.

Ergo, si Deus (aut aliquid) est infinitus, non est infinitus.

Ubi est error, si etiam error sit?

Interesting insight there but the logic does seem off. You are using some of the basic logic principles as capablanca mentioned above but the end argument is not that strong and has fallacy in it because through your logic you worked yourself a paradox.

God bless!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Si Deus infinitus sit, Deus est egens nihil.

Si Deus sit egens nihil, Deus non est egens fines.

Si Deus sit est egens fines, ille habat fines

Si Deus habeat fines, ille non est infinitus.

Ergo, si Deus (aut aliquid) est infinitus, non est infinitus.

Ubi est error, si etiam error sit?

1, If God is infinite, God lacks nothing.
2. If God lacks nothing, God is without limit.
3. If God is lacks limit, he has limit.
4. If God has limit, he is not infinite
6. Therefore, if God or anything else is infinite, he/it is not infinite.

Totally incoherent, if I have translated correctly.

Linus2nd

 

[Qoeleth]

Si Deus infinitus sit, Deus est egens nihil.

Si Deus sit egens nihil, Deus non est egens fines.

Si Deus sit est egens fines, ille habat fines

Si Deus habeat fines, ille non est infinitus.

Ergo, si Deus (aut aliquid) est infinitus, non est infinitus.

Ubi est error, si etiam error sit?

Fratres, nonne disputatio est melior in lingua Ecclessia? Hic est translatio:

If God is infinite, God lacks nothing.

If God lack nothing, God does not lack ends (boundaries).

If God does not lack ends, God has ends.

If God has ends, God is not infinite.

Therefore, if God (or anything) is infinite, He is not infinite.

Where is the error, if indeed an error there be?

With humble respect, neither of the refutations presented seem to actually to apply…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Fratres, nonne disputatio est melior in lingua Ecclessia? Hic est translatio:

If God is infinite, God lacks nothing.

If God lack nothing, God does not lack ends (boundaries).

If God does not lack ends, God has ends.

If God has ends, God is not infinite.

Therefore, if God (or anything) is infinite, He is not infinite.

Where is the error, if indeed an error there be?

With humble respect, neither of the refutations presented seem to actually to apply…

I did pretty good. Your step # 3 has no precedent. It doesn’t follow from anything previous. In fact it is a direct contradiction to steps 1 & 2. That is where the error is.

And it may be better to use Latin but since most of us have left our Latin behind decades ago, it is better to use English. More people will respond that way.

Linus2nd

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

Fratres, nonne disputatio est melior in lingua Ecclessia? Hic est translatio:

If God is infinite, God lacks nothing.

If God lack nothing, God does not lack ends (boundaries).

If God does not lack ends, God has ends.

If God has ends, God is not infinite.

Therefore, if God (or anything) is infinite, He is not infinite.

Where is the error, if indeed an error there be?

With humble respect, neither of the refutations presented seem to actually to apply…

For God to be infinite means that God has every conceivable perfection (He is pure Being and pure Act). Any lacking would be lacking in perfection or being (i.e. not being pure Act). This would be the source of ends or boundaries. But ends, boundaries in power or goodness or perfection, etc. are not things, but rather descriptions of privations. God lacks privations, but privations have the character of non-being rather than being. They are failings in other things, as evil is only a privation of good.

Therefore the error is 2 since to lack nothing is to lack no thing, or nothing which has the character of being. A privation is not; therefore, since God lacks all privations, God lacks all forms of nothing. Thus, God lacks nothing.

 

[Qoeleth]

For God to be infinite means that God has every conceivable perfection (He is pure Being and pure Act). Any lacking would be lacking in perfection or being (i.e. not being pure Act). This would be the source of ends or boundaries. But ends, boundaries in power or goodness or perfection, etc. are not things, but rather descriptions of privations. God lacks privations, but privations have the character of non-being rather than being. They are failings in other things, as evil is only a privation of good.

Therefore the error is 2 since to lack nothing is to lack no thing, or nothing which has the character of being. A privation is not; therefore, since God lacks all privations, God lacks all forms of nothing. Thus, God lacks nothing.

Est vere ut fines sunt deprivationes? Fines habeant functio definitionum. Exempli gratia- circus est circus propter sui fines. Similiter, hora, dies, numerus, sunt definitus finibus eorum. Neve res sit qui est, nisi habet fines, quibus res definitus. Ergo, fines non sunt per ipsa deprivationes.

Is it truly that end/boundaries are deprivations? Ends may have the function of definition. For example- a circle is a circle on account of its borders. Similarly an hour, a day, a number, are definied by their ends. Never a thing may be what it is, unless it has ends, by which the thing is defined. Therefore, ends are not, in themselves, deprivations.

 

[Qoeleth]

I did pretty good. Your step # 3 has no precedent. It doesn’t follow from anything previous. In fact it is a direct contradiction to steps 1 & 2. That is where the error is.

And it may be better to use Latin but since most of us have left our Latin behind decades ago, it is better to use English. More people will respond that way.

Linus2nd

Exponeatis cui, exacte, habet non precedentem, ut clarior sit mihi ubi est error, et unde credes fallor?

Could you expound on what, exactly, has no precedent, so that it may be clear to me where is the error, and where you believe I err?

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

Est vere ut fines sunt deprivationes? Fines habeant functio definitionum. Exempli gratia- circus est circus propter sui fines. Similiter, hora, dies, numerus, sunt definitus finibus eorum. Neve res sit qui est, nisi habet fines, quibus res definitus. Ergo, fines non sunt per ipsa deprivationes.

Is it truly that end/boundaries are deprivations? Ends may have the function of definition. For example- a circle is a circle on account of its borders. Similarly an hour, a day, a number, are definied by their ends. Never a thing may be what it is, unless it has ends, by which the thing is defined. Therefore, ends are not, in themselves, deprivations.

From Reality by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.:
“Since existence (esse) is of itself unlimited, it is limited in fact only by the potency into which it is received, that is, by the finite essence capable of existence. By opposition, then, ‘as the divine existence (God’s existence) is not a received existence, but existence itself, subsistent, independent existence, it is clear that God is infinitely and supremely perfect.’”

“Existence” is unlimited, just as whiteness and dogness are not limited to any particular white thing or dog but are universally applicable to every white thing or dog. So actual existing things must limit the existence which they receive - imagine a cup filled with water, where the cup represents the essence and the water represents the existence. The water is limited by the dimensions of the cup; otherwise there could be more water.

God’s existence is unlimited since He is Being. Received existences are limited by the essence into which they are received. Thus a circle is not God because it is a circle and not more than a circle; its ends define it, but they define it by limitation. The existence of the circle is the existence only of the circle and not more. Since God is the source of all existence and indeed is existence itself, God’s essence is existence, which makes Him more perfect because He is not limited.

Lacking ends is simply a double-negative way of phrasing “possessing everything” - the two negatives in the phrase must cancel out, so since “lack” is “not to have,” “end” must have the character of “not to be.”

 

[inocente]

If God is infinite, God lacks nothing.

If God lack nothing, God does not lack ends (boundaries).

If God does not lack ends, God has ends.

If God has ends, God is not infinite.

If God is infinite, God lacks nothing.

If God lacks nothing, God does not lack endlessness.

If God does not lack endlessness, God is infinite.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Exponeatis cui, exacte, habet non precedentem, ut clarior sit mihi ubi est error, et unde credes fallor?

Could you expound on what, exactly, has no precedent, so that it may be clear to me where is the error, and where you believe I err?

" If God lack nothing, God does not lack ends (boundaries).

If God does not lack ends, God has ends. "

Your logic fails in step 2. Lack of nothing does not men " God does not lack boundaries. It means God is Perfect, having no limitation whatever. It does not mean He has boundaries as you conclude in step 3.

It is a clever bit of Sophistry I admit. But it just a device intended to trap the unwary.

So have fun, it doesn’t mean a thing.

Linus2nd

 

[Qoeleth]

It is a clever bit of Sophistry I admit. But it just a device intended to trap the unwary.

Linus2nd

Speratur ut qui possunt juste diceri ‘unwary’ non sint contributores aut lectores in hoc foro. Sed qui faciunt, speratur, habent satis sapientiam non duceri in erroribus sic faciliter!

Benigni fratres, nonne volatis facere disputatio scholastica in lingua Ecclesia?

 

[Qoeleth]

If God is infinite, God lacks nothing.

If God lacks nothing, God does not lack endlessness.

If God does not lack endlessness, God is infinite.

Is ‘endlessness’ merely a deprivation? Perhaps, if endlessness means ‘lacking ends’, and therefore, one could say, is a nothing rather than a something.

And indeed, if an ‘end’ is a ‘nothing’ this would make sense to be expressed a follows-
“If God lacks nothing, God lacks end”.

But, if an ‘end’ really is a ‘nothing’ how could anything (a year, a circle, a life) ‘have’ an ‘end’, since, as a ‘nothing’ it is non-existent, and therefore cannot be ‘had’.

Sum totus confusus!

 

[jonathan_hili]

Fratres, nonne disputatio est melior in lingua Ecclessia? Hic est translatio:

If God is infinite, God lacks nothing.

If God lack nothing, God does not lack ends (boundaries).

If God does not lack ends, God has ends.

If God has ends, God is not infinite.

Therefore, if God (or anything) is infinite, He is not infinite.

Where is the error, if indeed an error there be?

With humble respect, neither of the refutations presented seem to actually to apply…

I think the first premise is problematic to start with: “If God is infinite, God lacks nothing.” This doesn’t seem to follow since the quality of infinitude is not equivalent with the quality of plenitude (i.e. having no lack). For example, an actual infinite set of whole numbers lacks no numbers but still lacks some things, such as letters or height or depth. Likewise, God’s infinity does not mean that He lacks nothing, if by “nothing”, you mean this literally. Otherwise, you would have to conclude that God cannot lack “the ability to sin” or “dirty thoughts” or “the colour purple”.

So, let’s then look at the second premise: “If God lacks nothing, God does not lack ends (boundaries).” This also doesn’t seem to follow. A boundary is not a positive quality or quantity that can be lacked, it seems, but is rather the limit of achievability. Now, for finite beings (like ourselves), their nature sets limits or boundaries. God, if He is infinite, and having divine nature, cannot have a limit that isn’t set by His nature. Are some limits set by divine nature? It seems so, for example, contradicting one’s divine nature. However, this again is not a lack since it is not a positive attainment.

Consequently, premise three doesn’t follow. I would agree that God has boundaries (as imposed by His nature) but I wouldn’t understand these as lacks and therefore not intrusive or limiting His infinity.

I would say the main issue with the argument as a whole is equivocation on the term “infinite” or else “boundaries/ends”.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Est vere ut fines sunt deprivationes? Fines habeant functio definitionum. Exempli gratia- circus est circus propter sui fines. Similiter, hora, dies, numerus, sunt definitus finibus eorum. Neve res sit qui est, nisi habet fines, quibus res definitus. Ergo, fines non sunt per ipsa deprivationes.

Is it truly that end/boundaries are deprivations? Ends may have the function of definition. For example- a circle is a circle on account of its borders. Similarly an hour, a day, a number, are definied by their ends. Never a thing may be what it is, unless it has ends, by which the thing is defined. Therefore, ends are not, in themselves, deprivations.

God’s boundaries, like those of a circle, are self-imposed by His nature. An hour or day is, in a sense, an artificially imposed boundary - imposed from outside (by us).

Having said that, I still think a boundary is more like a deprivation than a quality one possesses, since it is a limiting factor. Alternatively, if it is something possessed, it is only possessed indirectly, that is, not itself possessed by arising directly from a quality that is possessed. For example, all things being equal, a human has the boundary of living above and not below water. This is not because any human possesses “non-water living” as a boundary, but because this boundary results from possessing a certain cardiovascular system.

 

[inocente]

Is ‘endlessness’ merely a deprivation? Perhaps, if endlessness means ‘lacking ends’, and therefore, one could say, is a nothing rather than a something.

And indeed, if an ‘end’ is a ‘nothing’ this would make sense to be expressed a follows-
“If God lacks nothing, God lacks end”.

But, if an ‘end’ really is a ‘nothing’ how could anything (a year, a circle, a life) ‘have’ an ‘end’, since, as a ‘nothing’ it is non-existent, and therefore cannot be ‘had’.

Sum totus confusus!

I didn’t go near any of that.

The problem, imho, is with “God does not lack X”, since X can always be substituted by its negation, leading to a contradiction - “God does not lack tallness” yet also “God does not lack shortness”.

For this non-Catholic there’s also an underlying problem with the whole business of trying to work out God’s attributes by reason:- If God is greater than all we can imagine then, in our head, God should be the concept transcending all other concepts, meaning that God should transcend all definition. In which case any attempt to define God will then lead either to contradictions or will only define a housebroken god who can be carried around in our pocket.

Imho.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Speratur ut qui possunt juste diceri ‘unwary’ non sint contributores aut lectores in hoc foro. Sed qui faciunt, speratur, habent satis sapientiam non duceri in erroribus sic faciliter!

Benigni fratres, nonne volatis facere disputatio scholastica in lingua Ecclesia?

I think you are being overly optimistic. I know of a well known Doctor of Theology at Notre Dame who does not know Latin. And American seminaries went through a long period where Latin was not required in all cases. I know lots of priests who do not know Latin. So by insisting on using Latin, limits the discussion. And while my own Latin was a little deeper, it is 40 years old! I can still follow Thomas somewhat but I certainly would not care to rely strictly on the Latin and certainly wouldn’t engage in any mutual conversation in Latin.

Linus2nd

 

[jonathan_hili]

I didn’t go near any of that.

The problem, imho, is with “God does not lack X”, since X can always be substituted by its negation, leading to a contradiction - “God does not lack tallness” yet also “God does not lack shortness”.

For this non-Catholic there’s also an underlying problem with the whole business of trying to work out God’s attributes by reason:- If God is greater than all we can imagine then, in our head, God should be the concept transcending all other concepts, meaning that God should transcend all definition. In which case any attempt to define God will then lead either to contradictions or will only define a housebroken god who can be carried around in our pocket.

Imho.

I think that’s a good point, Inocente, but at the same time some attributes are not attributes of perfection, and therefore don’t seem applicable to God. It’s difficult to see, for example, how tallness or shortness are qualities that denote perfection in the same way that omniscience or omnipresence would - furthermore, tallness and shortness (as well as other attributes, like fatness, thinness, hairiness, and so on) apply to physical beings.

God is certainly greater than we can imagine but it doesn’t follow that we cannot understand God’s attributes analogically. If so, how can we say anything worthwhile (or honestly) about God’s goodness or love?