The laws of identity and Gods

[seagal]

I think he is subjected to identity predicate too. You already used it, He is being. I think it is correct to say that I am being instead of I am unless one claims that predicate is hidden in the second sentence.

I can’t speak to your main point but I did want to correct your idea of “being” here. As tee_eff_em said, God told Moses “I Am”, meaning “I am that without which nothing else can be”. He could have said “I Am Life” (which isn’t as precise, but serves to make my point) You couldn’t say that about yourself, the most you can say is “I am alive”. Similarly, you can’t say “I am being” you can only say “I am a being”.

To reiterate (and I think to render your question meaningless as it stands) God is not a being. You can’t compare God with any being. He is not the greatest being out of all beings. He is instead the act of “to be” itself. (I guess that does speak to your main point after all.)

 

[STT]

Alright, so I found a relevant point in W. Norris Clarke’s book The One and the Many. We may encounter some issues, because this comes at the end of the book, after much discussion already regarding act and potency, substance and accidents, the transcendentals, form and matter, essence and existence, intrinsic and extrinsic causes… And furthermore the entire argument of this subsection of this chapter is arguing from any conditioned being to one infinite source of all being, and I’m starting smack dab in the middle, not the beginning. Anyway, there are two points which must be discussed, the first of which is that any being self-sufficient for its own existence must be infinite in perfection, that is, unlimited in its qualitative fullness of all perfections, and therefore no finite being can be self-sufficient.

Good. Lets see.

Why? Let us suppose it were finite. This means it would be one determinate, limited mode of being (limited in qualitative intensity of perfection) among at least several other modes possible, such that at least one higher mode were possible (i.e., this one does not exhaust all possible fullness of perfection). Otherwise, it would not be finite or limited.

That doesn’t really follow. There could be a bounded mode where a being is the highest in the mode, meaning that it is perfect, yet the being is finite.

Now there must be some sufficient reason why the being in question exists in this limited, determinate mode of being and not in some other possible. Why this being, or this whole finite world-system, in fact, and not some other? A principle of selection is needed to select this mode of being from the wider range of possibility and give actual existence to it according to this limited mode (or “essence,” as the metaphysician would call it). But no finite being can do this election of its own essential mode of being and confer existence on itself in this mode. For then it would have the impossible task of preexisting its own determinate actual existence in this mode, picking out what it wills to be before it actually exists, and then conferring actual existence on itself in this mode. All of this is obviously absurd, unintelligible. It follows that no determinate finite being can be the self-sufficient reason for its actual existence as this particular finite being. Therefore it requires an independent efficient cause or source of being to determine it to exist as this finite mode of being. But since no finite cause can ever be self-sufficient, we must eventually come to some infinite (in terms of being the fullness of being/goodness/knowledge) cause or ultimate source of all these finite beings. Something that is not conditioned or limited in any way and simply is unconditioned being/existence.

I cannot really follow you here (bold part).

The same conclusion can be reached by a slightly different approach. Suppose that a finite being were self-sufficient. This would mean that it would have to be the total ultimate source of all attributes within it, including the central, all-embracing perfection of existence itself. Now it does not make sense that the ultimate source of a perfection should possess this perfection in some limited, imperfect way, less than the full plenitude possible of the perfection in question, when it is the very source of this perfection itself.

Why? What is the relation between perfection and to be the source itself?

Nor does it make sense that it should deliberately restrict its own possession of this perfection of which it is the ultimate source to some limited degree when it could enjoy the full plenitude of it. The notions of ultimate, self-sufficient source of a perfection and limited possession of the same clash irreconcilably and cancel each other out. No being self-sufficient for its own existence, therefore can possess existence – or any other perfection – only in some limited, incomplete, imperfect way.

What do you mean with the bold part?

Now, there can only be one such infinite being. For suppose there were two such. Then one could not be the other, must be really distinct from the other. But this is impossible unless at least one of the two lacks something that the other one has. Otherwise, they would coincide into total indistinguishable identity.

Yes, they would indistinguishable from third point of view but not from first point of view.

But if either one lacked some positive perfection, it could not also be absolutely infinite in all perfections. If there were two self-sufficient infinite beings, they could not both know each other. For to know another real being one must either have caused it, or been acted on, caused, by it. But in this case one would have to e dependent in some way on the other, and hence could not be self-sufficient for its own existence and all its perfections. Hence there can be only one infinite self-sufficient being.

Yes, they could not know each other. That is the end of story.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

So, I am troubled with this problem and I hope that you can help me to resolve it. So lets put facts together:

(1) No one can prove a negative, prove that Gods do not exist.
(2) The laws of identity simply says that “A is A.” where the first “A” is the subject and the second “A” is predicate.
(3) Two beings that share exactly the same attributes are not same contrary to what the law of identity proposes.

I think we can agree on (1). (2) can be used to prove that two Gods are one. The idea is as following: “B=C” and “A=C” therefore “A” and “B” are identical.

The problem in my opinion is that this law cannot be applied to two beings, in another word conscious things, meaning that the conclusion of the last argument doesn’t follow from premises. Consciousness is not an attribute but it tells a being that “It is” therefore each being can distinguish itself regardless of how many beings exist.

You leave out the fact that there are three persons as one divine God. They are one God because they are in Unity with the same Spirit. The Father is in the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son is in the Father and the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is in the Father and the Son. There wills as three divine persons is in Union with the Will of God. They are indivisible. They cannot be separated from Unity. As the will of the Father is, so is the will of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[STT]

You leave out the fact that there are three persons as one divine God. They are one God because they are in Unity with the same Spirit. The Father is in the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son is in the Father and the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is in the Father and the Son. There wills as three divine persons is in Union with the Will of God. They are indivisible. They cannot be separated from Unity. As the will of the Father is, so is the will of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

It is possible to have three Gods but they could not know each other (quoted from end of post #18):

Originally Posted by Wesrock
But if either one lacked some positive perfection, it could not also be absolutely infinite in all perfections. If there were two self-sufficient infinite beings, they could not both know each other. For to know another real being one must either have caused it, or been acted on, caused, by it. But in this case one would have to e dependent in some way on the other, and hence could not be self-sufficient for its own existence and all its perfections. Hence there can be only one infinite self-sufficient being.

 

[STT]

Anyway, two beings with different consciousness are therefore not simply unconditioned existence. One is therefore existence WITH consciousness A and existence WITH consciousness B. I emphasize the ‘with’ for a reason as the point is easily missed. As soon as you have existence with something else that’s not simply existence, it’s not longer simply self-subsistent being, but some mode of existence with a particular consciousness. Furthermore, you suddenly place being into a genus of which at least two possible modes could be (one with consciousness A and one with consciousness B), but that undermines the entire point, because they are no longer unconditioned. If it could be A or B, then there must be a sufficient reason for this one to be A and for that one to be B, and the being could not preexist itself to determine its own mode of existence. Therefore both of these beings require some type of extrinsic cause or dependence on something else to sufficiently explain being type A as opposed to B.

I don’t understand why you use “WITH”. One is consciousness A and another is consciousness B. By this we mean that A is conscious of itself, and not another, and B is conscious of itself, and not another.

 

[seagal]

It is possible to have three Gods but they could not know each other (quoted from end of post #18):

Then they wouldn’t be Gods would they? Because they don’t know everything.

 

[STT]

Then they wouldn’t be Gods would they? Because they don’t know everything.

Once one God create a universe then other God knows about it but not wise versa. That is how I understand it.