Why God should be infinite?

[STT]

Because anything that is finite is therefore a composite of existence and essence

Why? I don’t understand how your conclusion follows from your premise.

and requires a reason external to itself to explain it being a such-and-such composite as opposed to something else. This would result in an infinite regress (essentially ordered) if there was no non-composite, unconditioned reality, and Thomism considers an essentially ordered infinite regress to be an impossibility, I believe due to it being a contradiction (in that it results in something being/having and not being/having at the same time).

I don’t understand why something which is a composite of existence and essence needs something else to explain what the thing is.

That probably doesn’t directly answer your question. I’ll need to dig into what it means to be an unconditioned reality of pure act and what it means to be an “infinite being” further. At the moment I can’t recall if “infinite being” is a real metaphysical term in Thomism or not, and if it is I should get a proper explanation of it.

Thank you. By the way, do you understand the Spinoza’s argument?

 

[STT]

This is a category error. God is not a member of a set. God cannot be defined with math. Which is why, to me, infinite is not a valid descriptor of God. God is eternal.

We are talking about mode of existence and whether it is finite or infinite and whether God is finite or infinite.

 

[Tomdstone]

Thomism considers an essentially ordered infinite regress to be an impossibility,

The real line extends without boundary and without end toward minus infinity. There is no contradiction in that assumption.

 

[davidv]

We are talking about mode of existence and whether it is finite or infinite and whether God is finite or infinite.

No, this is a false dichotomy. God is existence. He has no mode of existence. This is another category error.

Also, please explain your terms. What are the modes of existence? What does infinite mean.

 

[Gorgias]

Wesrock:

Thomism considers an essentially ordered infinite regress to be an impossibility

The real line extends without boundary and without end toward minus infinity. There is no contradiction in that assumption.

The set of real numbers is ordered, but not essentially ordered. The existence of a real number (R[sub]1[/sub]) does not depend on some other real number (R[sub]x[/sub]), even if there is a order relation between R[sub]1[/sub] and R[sub]x[/sub].

Wesrock is talking about a different sort of relation, in which the existence of a thing is conditioned on the existence of another thing. In such a relation, an infinite regress is a contradiction – that is, contingent existence can only be predicated upon some existence that is not contingent.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t understand why something which is a composite of existence and essence needs something else to explain what the thing is.

It doesn’t need something else to explain what it is… it needs something else to explain why it is.

Let’s use an example. You and I share an essence – we are both ‘human’ in essence. However, our existence differs: you and I are distinct, and I do not depend on you for my existence, nor you on me. Therefore, our existence depends on our essence, but not vice-versa … after all, our essence precedes us. In fact, it precedes our parents’ existence, and their parents’, and so on and so on…

In other words, human ‘essence’ depends on something external to human existence. It requires something that created human essence – which, by definition, cannot be a human.

Therefore, only in a being in which its existence and essence are identical and not conditioned – not contingent upon other things, and not distinct from one another – do you truly have a being that is both simple (i.e., not composite) and necessary (i.e., not contingent). That being is ‘God’.

 

[Tomdstone]

contingent existence can only be predicated upon some existence that is not contingent.

What is the proof of that?

 

[Tomdstone]

It doesn’t need something else to explain what it is… it needs something else to explain why it is. .

Why something is - is ambiguous and subjective. Why does that sharp rock exist? It exists so that I can cut my rope. Why does that egg exist? It exists so that I can make scrambled eggs for breakfast. Why does that duck egg exist? It exists so that a baby duck can be born. Why does a duck have feathers. It has feathers so that water will flow off of the duck’s back and let it fly. Why does the internet exist? It exists because it makes it easier for people to learn foreign languages.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

contingent existence can only be predicated upon some existence that is not contingent.

What is the proof of that?

By definition. Unless, that is, unless you’re attempting to interpret it trivially – that is, to mean that a contingent being cannot give rise to another contingent being. That’s not what I’m trying to say; rather, I’m saying that the ultimate cause of existence of a contingent being cannot be another contingent being, but must be a necessary being.

 

[Gorgias]

Why something is - is ambiguous and subjective. Why does that sharp rock exist? It exists so that I can cut my rope. Why does that egg exist? It exists so that I can make scrambled eggs for breakfast. Why does that duck egg exist? It exists so that a baby duck can be born. Why does a duck have feathers. It has feathers so that water will flow off of the duck’s back and let it fly. Why does the internet exist? It exists because it makes it easier for people to learn foreign languages.

LOL. Are you being facetious? Or are you asking whether I’m acquainted with Aristotle and his “four causes”?

No… we’re talking about causation, vis-a-vis existence. Why something exists, in this context, is a question of contingency and necessity… not whether you need to cut a rope or eat breakfast.

 

[STT]

It doesn’t need something else to explain what it is… it needs something else to explain why it is.

That was a mistype. Thanks for finding it.

Let’s use an example. You and I share an essence – we are both ‘human’ in essence. However, our existence differs: you and I are distinct, and I do not depend on you for my existence, nor you on me. Therefore, our existence depends on our essence, but not vice-versa … after all, our essence precedes us. In fact, it precedes our parents’ existence, and their parents’, and so on and so on…

That I agree.

In other words, human ‘essence’ depends on something external to human existence. It requires something that created human essence – which, by definition, cannot be a human.

That I cannot follow. Why we should be created?

Therefore, only in a being in which its existence and essence are identical and not conditioned – not contingent upon other things, and not distinct from one another – do you truly have a being that is both simple (i.e., not composite) and necessary (i.e., not contingent). That being is ‘God’.

That I cannot follow either. Why God’s existence is necessary?

 

[Wesrock]

We are talking about mode of existence and whether it is finite or infinite and whether God is finite or infinite.

There may be some confusion about what is meant by Being Itself. Let’s consider a universal, such as triangularity, something that all triangles possess, whether made of ink, lines in the sand, pixels on a computer screen, and so on. Now, all triangles have triangularity, but triangularity is not itself simply the set of all possible triangles, of every triangle in existence. As a universal concept, it transcends the existence of all possible triangles. It’s like stepping into Plato’s realm of forms (but in an Aristotlean sense of form, not Platonic). Goodness Itself is also not just a set of all possible good things or action, it transcends that. Likewise, Being Itself is not simply a set of all possible beings (finite or infinite), it is something that as a universal transcends the simple beings that are or could be, and is prior to any other trait or universal being. God is that universal. He doesn’t have a mode of existence like that, and he doesn’t exist in the same manner we do. We exist in a way that can only be spoken of in an analogous way to the way God exists. If it’s improper to say that God exists in the same we do, it’s not because he is less real, but because he is more real than we are. The ontological difference between our mode of being and Being can’t be measured in any finite way, and can be said to be infinite.

 

[Tomdstone]

I’m saying that the ultimate cause of existence of a contingent being cannot be another contingent being, but must be a necessary being.

That is an unproven assumption. And the words “necessary”, “ultimate”, and “cause” are ambiguous.

 

[Tomdstone]

LOL. Are you being facetious?

Why something exists is subjective. Purpose is something that humans inject into a situation since they are looking for some purpose. It may not mean that the purpose is really there. The purpose can be in the subjective mind of the observer.

 

[Wesrock]

That I cannot follow. Why we should be created? . . . That I cannot follow either. Why God’s existence is necessary?

If every human being was wiped out of existence, humans would have no existence, but the essence of humans, the universal “what” of what we are, would remain as a possibility. Humans could still be or not be, perhaps evolving independently elsewhere, as unlikely as that is. But Being as a universal can’t at the same time “not be”. That is a contradiction. Unlike humanness, which could be now and could not be before or later, Being Itself is different. If there was no Being, then it never could come to be. I feel like I’m not articulating it well. Without Being as a universal, nothing could be, now or ever. It’s not a possibility. No thing comes from nothing. Either there is Being Itself, or eternally no being (at all, of anything). Since there are things that exist, there is Existence. To deny God is to claim that things are and are not at the same time. To be honest, I’m not sure I’ve even hit on the primary point about what is meant be His necessary existence.

Anyway, that was to speak to God’s necessity, but humans could not be without Being being a thing. Since humans could be or could not be, even though “humanness” is there as a universal either way, existence is not a part of our essence. To be (to exist) is not essential to the concept of humanness (though it is exactly what God’s essence is). Therefore it’s not something we can give ourselves. Neither is existence essential to any other conditioned reality, because it could be or not be, so it’s not something that can be explained by a network of only conditioned realities. Existence is in the system, but it’s not something intrinsically essential to any conditioned reality in the system, and a thing cannot give what it doesn’t have (either intrinsically or received from another). Since it IS in the network of conditioned realities, and since we exist in the present, there must be something which all conditioned realities are participating in (Being) now and at all points in time external to themselves that has it (and is it) intrinsically as part of its essence.

I’m rambling and phone is dying, so I’m going to post this now.

 

[Wesrock]

Hmm… I’ll be thinking on my last two posts more carefully tonight. Kind of posted them in a rush.

 

[Gorgias]

That is an unproven assumption. And the words “necessary”, “ultimate”, and “cause” are ambiguous.

This is a philosophical discussion, isn’t it? In that case “necessary” and “contingent” are pretty standard terms.

Oh – and, how can a contingent being proceed only from contingent being(s), without a necessary being standing as the first cause of them?

 

[Tomdstone]

how can a contingent being proceed only from contingent being(s), without a necessary being standing as the first cause of them?

When a kitty is born, are the mother cat and father cat contingent or necessary?

 

[Tomdstone]

This is a philosophical discussion, isn’t it? In that case “necessary” and “contingent” are pretty standard terms.

So you claim with a shrug that all philosophers, including Bertrand Russell, agree on the terms “necessary” and “contingent”? And that all ;philosophers agree that these terms are not ambiguous?

 

[Wesrock]

According to Ed Feser, what Aquinas meant by a necessary being is NOT a being that is logically necessary or one that exists in all possible worlds. He would instead define a necessary being as incorruptible, eternal. Contingent beings are beings that are corruptible, that have a tendency towards corruptibility, and a possibility of not being at some point in the future given infinite time.

Aquinas would not have argued that there is only one necessary being using this definition. An eternal world of prime matter/substance from which everything else is made, angels, his understanding of the “heavenly bodies” he’d have been happy with conceding as necessary beings in that they were incorruptible. However, given Aquinas’ definition, every necessary being either has its necessity caused by another, or not. That is, even an eternal world of “prime matter,” which in Aquinas’ definition would be a necessary being, might very well have its necessity derived from another necessary being, and that this series of necessary beings could not procede to an infinite regress.

Just wanted to quickly speak on what is meant by necessary and contingent. It’s a nice refresher for myself, too, as I have used the terms in a different sense here and elsewhere, I believe. I’m going to do some further review of Aquinas’ Argument from Contingency (Third Way).