What is the main attribute of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

STT

Guest
God should have only one main attribute. Otherwise it is not metaphysically simple. What is that?
 
I think that I would say that we can posit truths about God but not, strictly speaking, call any of them ‘attributes’, per se, for precisely the reason you mention: God is simple, not composite.

So, I can say “God is simple”, and “God is perfect”, and “God is goodness itself”, and “God is infinite”, and so on. However, I would not posit any one of these as ‘attributes’, since it would mean that God is made up of parts (simplicity, perfection, goodness, infinity), which is simply not true.
 
Gorgias said:
I think that I would say that we can posit truths about God but not, strictly speaking, call any of them ‘attributes’, per se, for precisely the reason you mention: God is simple, not composite.

So, I can say “God is simple”, and “God is perfect”, and “God is goodness itself”, and “God is infinite”, and so on. However, I would not posit any one of these as ‘attributes’, since it would mean that God is made up of parts (simplicity, perfection, goodness, infinity), which is simply not true.
Click to expand...
If what you say these definitions are all true then one should be able to start from one of them and reach to another one. Do you believe that there are many definition of God? That is heretic in my opinion. 😉
 
God is absolutely simple, meaning in reality His attributes are identical to His essence. So it is misleading to ask which one of His attributes is His main attribute.
 
SalamKhan said:
God is absolutely simple, meaning in reality His attributes are identical to His essence. So it is misleading to ask which one of His attributes is His main attribute.
Click to expand...
That leads to contradiction, A=B and B=C, means that A=C where A and C are two different attributes and B is God’s essence.
 
STT said:
Ok, description. How God could have many different descriptions?
Click to expand...
God is simple in His nature. How we describe Him, however, can take many forms. That doesn’t mean His nature is composite, however…
 
STT said:
Could I know your opinion about post #6?
Click to expand...
Your error there is the attempt to impose the equality relation on the context.

When you say A=B and A=C, in this context, what you really mean is something like:

God is perfect. God is infinite.

These are both true. However, when you bring an equality relation into the picture, you’re asserting that two things are identical. This is not what the previous two statements are asserting.

If you wanted to use equality, then you’d have to say:

God is identical to perfection. God is identical to infinity.

Only then (if these statements hold up logically, which they do not!) would you be able to use transitivity to assert, “perfection is identical to infinity.”

See the problem?
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
Your error there is the attempt to impose the equality relation on the context.

When you say A=B and A=C, in this context, what you really mean is something like:

God is perfect. God is infinite.

These are both true. However, when you bring an equality relation into the picture, you’re asserting that two things are identical . This is not what the previous two statements are asserting.

If you wanted to use equality, then you’d have to say:

God is identical to perfection. God is identical to infinity.

Only then (if these statements hold up logically, which they do not!) would you be able to use transitivity to assert, “perfection is identical to infinity.”

See the problem?
Click to expand...
So God is not identical to perfect, infinite, etc?
 
STT said:
The problem is that is in the sentence God is good is different than is in pizza is good.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Yet, you’re attempting to do a similar thing with the application of the equality operation. 😉
 
Gorgias said:
Agreed. Yet, you’re attempting to do a similar thing with the application of the equality operation. 😉
Click to expand...
I think is in God is good exactly means equals to. That is what I learn from your teaching, God is love for example.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
I think is in God is good exactly means equals to.
Click to expand...
You would be mistaken, then.

Take a look at Aquinas’ discussion of univocal, equivocal, and analogical expressions. That might help clarify things for you.
 
Gorgias said:
You would be mistaken, then.

Take a look at Aquinas’ discussion of univocal, equivocal, and analogical expressions. That might help clarify things for you.
Click to expand...
I understand what analogical and equivocal are. I think is in God is Love is equivocal. What is univocal by the way?
 
Love

Love is of God everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knows not God for God is love. 1 John chapter 4
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top