Questio scholastica

[Qoeleth]

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.

So, you are suggesting that attributes or qualities can always be presented in a two-fold way- one attribute (e.g. tallness) and another attribute contradicting it (e.g. shortness), and contradictions will arise in attributing the perfection or fullness of both attributes to the same Being (God)?

Are ‘attributes’ then, merely verbal constructions? If ‘having an end’, is an attribute, then a word ‘endlessness’ can proposed which creates an attribute out of its contradiction (, i.e. lacking the quality of ‘having an end’). Conceivably, then, one could have ‘un-endlessness’ (meaning lacking the quality of <lacking the quality of 'having an end>) But then, why not also ‘un-endlessness-lessness’ and so forth.

Further, if we do not define God (at least to some extent), how can we talk about Him, or how can we be sure people are referring to the same Being when the word ‘God’ is used?

 

[Qoeleth]

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, would you say God is infinite only with respect to certain things (e.g. possession of those things which are ‘good’- e.g. truth, beauty, justice, mercy, etc.), but does not extend to other things (e.g. physical properties [tallness, colour], or things which are not ‘good’ [envy]). But then, what about things which are morally ambiguous? For example, does God have an infinite ‘sense of humour’, is God infinitely ‘polite’?

Obviously these things seem rather absurd. But then, if God’s infinitude is limited in its scope (as, for example, a set of whole numbers is), then is His infinitude finite?

 

[jonathan_hili]

So, would you say God is infinite only with respect to certain things (e.g. possession of those things which are ‘good’- e.g. truth, beauty, justice, mercy, etc.), but does not extend to other things (e.g. physical properties [tallness, colour], or things which are not ‘good’ [envy]). But then, what about things which are morally ambiguous? For example, does God have an infinite ‘sense of humour’, is God infinitely ‘polite’?

Obviously these things seem rather absurd. But then, if God’s infinitude is limited in its scope (as, for example, a set of whole numbers is), then is His infinitude finite?

Well, I think God’s infinitude is equivalent to perfection, that is, that He is the fullness or perfect completeness of those qualities or attributes which are define power and goodness (in which, I would include truth and beauty). “Tallness” or “colour” are not attributes of either of these things - it makes no sense to say X is perfectly blue or perfectly short - but one can understand perfect justice or omniscience or omnipresence. I would say God certainly has a perfect sense of humour inasmuch as humour is a consequent of certain natural perfections (such as intellect, joy, and so on). However, “politeness” seems to be a human construction, so I’m not sure that would apply to God.

I think if you understand God’s infinitude as perfection, it doesn’t make sense to say He is finite. God is perfectly good and beautiful and just: if we speak of His infinite goodness, we mean His perfect goodness. In this way we avoid thinking of infinitude as a form of quantitative measure; rather, it is qualitative perfection.

 

[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?

S.T. Part 1, Ques 3-13, The difference between Philosophy and Gaming

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

So, you are suggesting that attributes or qualities can always be presented in a two-fold way- one attribute (e.g. tallness) and another attribute contradicting it (e.g. shortness), and contradictions will arise in attributing the perfection or fullness of both attributes to the same Being (God)?

Are ‘attributes’ then, merely verbal constructions? If ‘having an end’, is an attribute, then a word ‘endlessness’ can proposed which creates an attribute out of its contradiction (, i.e. lacking the quality of ‘having an end’). Conceivably, then, one could have ‘un-endlessness’ (meaning lacking the quality of <lacking the quality of 'having an end>) But then, why not also ‘un-endlessness-lessness’ and so forth.

No, I was observing that in your argument “if God lacks nothing, God does not lack X”, X can be whatever you choose it to be, meaning that X can be substituted by the negation of X, rendering your argument mere playing with words.

 

[inocente]

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?

Further, if we do not define God (at least to some extent), how can we talk about Him, or how can we be sure people are referring to the same Being when the word ‘God’ is used?

Yes it may be an administrative inconvenience, but my argument is that if the fullness of God is beyond anything we can imagine, beyond our understanding, then by definition we cannot define God since doing to is beyond our puny powers of reason. Therefore any definition of god will fall well short of God and fool us into believing He is less than He is.

I don’t think this is particularly controversial given the Catechism:

206 In revealing his mysterious name, YHWH (“I AM HE WHO IS”, “I AM WHO AM” or “I AM WHO I AM”), God says who he is and by what name he is to be called. This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery. It is at once a name revealed and something like the refusal of a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is - infinitely above everything that we can understand or say: he is the “hidden God”, his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men.

 

[inocente]

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.

Keep this to yourself but Google Translate can do a get-you-home translation of Latin.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Yes it may be an administrative inconvenience, but my argument is that if the fullness of God is beyond anything we can imagine, beyond our understanding, then by definition we cannot define God since doing to is beyond our puny powers of reason. Therefore any definition of god will fall well short of God and fool us into believing He is less than He is.

I don’t think this is particularly controversial given the Catechism:

206 In revealing his mysterious name, YHWH (“I AM HE WHO IS”, “I AM WHO AM” or “I AM WHO I AM”), God says who he is and by what name he is to be called. This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery. It is at once a name revealed and something like the refusal of a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is - infinitely above everything that we can understand or say: he is the “hidden God”, his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men.

Sure, I agree, if you mean by “defining God” that we cannot exhaustively understand God of His being and essence. However, would you agree that we can know something definitive (true and real, if through some form of analogy) about God through both our reason and revelation?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Keep this to yourself but Google Translate can do a get-you-home translation of Latin.

Right, but it still isn’t perfect and I don’t feel like struggling through all that just to humor the O.P.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Sure, I agree, if you mean by “defining God” that we cannot exhaustively understand God of His being and essence. However, would you agree that we can know something definitive (true and real, if through some form of analogy) about God through both our reason and revelation?

I think you’re right. Analogy allows us to put into words what we feel about God. But that’s bound to be imperfect and so the more closely we try to define God, the further away we get.