What is the definion of the God of the philosophers?

[Mike_from_NJ]

The Divine is ultimately One, because It is perfect by Its nature. If there were two, how would we differentiate between them? If one had a quality the other lacked, then the one lacking wouldn’t be perfect then! If neither lacked anything the other had, then they are really the same thing! So the Divine must be One.

Could it be that the creators of the universe when combined contain all of the attributes necessary to create said universe? Why does the creator or creators of the universe have to be perfect? What does “perfect” even mean in such a context?

 

[Solmyr]

God is :

Transcendent

Above the universe, distinct from the universe

Immanent

In the universe, involved in the universe

Omnipresent

Everywhere in the universe

Omnibenevolent

All loving , all merciful

Omnipotent

Able to do anything that is logically consistent, and consistent with His character

Simple

Not a composite of attributes ( i.e. God is good not made of of good )

Not a bad start. Let’s check the attributes.

Transcendent - by the word “universe” if you meant “physical universe” that is an acceptable attribute. But the next two attributes “immanent” and “omnipresent” contradict this. Something cannot be distinct from the universe and within the universe.

Omnibenevolent is also logically sound - on the surface. It means to act in the best interest of everyone. And what is in the best interest of “A”, is not in the best interest of “B”. One size does not fit all. Moreover, the observed reality contradicts this concept.

All loving and all merciful are undefined. What do these phrases mean? And how are they manifested?

Omnipotent is also ill-defined. If you would stop at “able to do anything and everything that is logically consistent”, it would be fine. But to add “consistent with his nature” makes it nonsensical, because you cannot know what God’s “nature” is.

Simple is not problematic - on the surface. But if you consider that God’s knowledge is part of his “essence” and that God’s knowledge reflects nature it becomes incoherent. The universe is separate from God.

Yet, thank you for your contribution.

 

[Lucretius]

Could it be that the creators of the universe when combined contain all of the attributes necessary to create said universe? Why does the creator or creators of the universe have to be perfect? What does “perfect” even mean in such a context?

God as known through philosophy doesn’t just start the world, but maintains it in being. Basically He’s always creating it. Thus, He is always one.

Furthermore, if they come together and seperate, this means that they are changing, an imperfection, which is again impossible because of the very perfect nature of God as discovered by the Unmoved Mover argument. Or in other words, Perfect things don’t have to change because they are perfect (any change would introduce an imperfection).

God must be perfect because He is what we would call Pure Act. This means He contains in Himself explicitly or implicitly all the powers of the things He has created. It’s a direct result of the Unmoved Mover Argument and the Fourth Way.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

God as known through philosophy doesn’t just start the world, but maintains it in being. Basically He’s always creating it. Thus, He is always one.

I don’t see why a creator or creators would need to maintain the universe after creating it. That almost seems like a flaw, whereas a universe that can maintain itself is a better creation and reflects a better creator.

Furthermore, if they come together and seperate, this means that they are changing, an imperfection, which is again impossible because of the very perfect nature of God as discovered by the Unmoved Mover argument. Or in other words, Perfect things don’t have to change because they are perfect (any change would introduce an imperfection).

I still don’t think you’ve defined perfection here. Also, is it possible that two different things can both be perfect? In his refuting of the ontological argument Gaunilo of Marmoutiers talked about a perfect island, of which was there was none greater? Could two islands both be perfect yet have different attributes of which none are flaws? Could there be two perfect roses, one red and one pink?

And again with regards to the idea that the God of the philosophers is actually a collective, it’s not as if they “come together and separate”. We can say that they “just are” in their existence in being the so-called unmoved mover, and there’s no evidence that can be shown otherwise.

God must be perfect because He is what we would call Pure Act. This means He contains in Himself explicitly or implicitly all the powers of the things He has created. It’s a direct result of the Unmoved Mover Argument and the Fourth Way.

If an entity has the power to create a universe (via “Pure Act” or whatever trademarked methodology it or they use) who is to say that it or they don’t have flaws outside of that moment of creation? Often when talking about the Catholic Church believers will note errors that it has made but will note that it is infallible on matters of faith. I propose an entity or collective of entities which created the universe who have flaws, but in that moment of creating the universe was infallible.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Of course one must ask which philosophers is he asking about? Classical theism?

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Not a bad start. Let’s check the attributes.

Transcendent - by the word “universe” if you meant “physical universe” that is an acceptable attribute. But the next two attributes “immanent” and “omnipresent” contradict this. Something cannot be distinct from the universe and within the universe.

Omnibenevolent is also logically sound - on the surface. It means to act in the best interest of everyone. And what is in the best interest of “A”, is not in the best interest of “B”. One size does not fit all. Moreover, the observed reality contradicts this concept.

All loving and all merciful are undefined. What do these phrases mean? And how are they manifested?

Omnipotent is also ill-defined. If you would stop at “able to do anything and everything that is logically consistent”, it would be fine. But to add “consistent with his nature” makes it nonsensical, because you cannot know what God’s “nature” is.

Simple is not problematic - on the surface. But if you consider that God’s knowledge is part of his “essence” and that God’s knowledge reflects nature it becomes incoherent. The universe is separate from God.

Yet, thank you for your contribution.

Distinct form the universe = not the universe , therefore transcendence and immanence are compatible

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Not a bad start. Let’s check the attributes.

Transcendent - by the word “universe” if you meant “physical universe” that is an acceptable attribute. But the next two attributes “immanent” and “omnipresent” contradict this. Something cannot be distinct from the universe and within the universe.

Omnibenevolent is also logically sound - on the surface. It means to act in the best interest of everyone. And what is in the best interest of “A”, is not in the best interest of “B”. One size does not fit all. Moreover, the observed reality contradicts this concept.

All loving and all merciful are undefined. What do these phrases mean? And how are they manifested?

Omnipotent is also ill-defined. If you would stop at “able to do anything and everything that is logically consistent”, it would be fine. But to add “consistent with his nature” makes it nonsensical, because you cannot know what God’s “nature” is.

Simple is not problematic - on the surface. But if you consider that God’s knowledge is part of his “essence” and that God’s knowledge reflects nature it becomes incoherent. The universe is separate from God.

Yet, thank you for your contribution.

Omnibenevolent simply means to be all good and loving , and reality does not contradict this statement

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Distinct form the universe = not the universe , therefore transcendence and immanence are compatible

“Not the universe” as in God is not this pencil or this planet or this star. But this pencil, this planet and this start participate in God’s being and God is present in them since they have being. But they are not to Godhead. We also are the body of Christ. We have God’s life and breath within us. But we are not God. In fact we are so different from God it makes no sense to think otherwise. We have within us the spark of the soul - God is immanent. Yet even that spark transcends our daily consciousness unless we are saints.

 

[Solmyr]

Omnibenevolent simply means to be all good and loving , and reality does not contradict this statement

Good and loving must be manifested in actions, otherwise they are empty words. And reality shows absolutely no sign of God’s “loving” and “benevolent” involvement. At best God looks to be indifferent, at worst, malevolent.