Any limitations placed on a being’s existence means that it can not be the cause of existence. Since it would be relying on something else for part of its existence. If you have something that is limited then that automatically means that something else has power over it by definition. It is limited by something else. That is what it means to be limited. To be unlimited means to not be limited by anything else. If you are not limited by anything else then you are also not dependent on anything else. If you are limited you are dependent and thus can not be completely independent or as you say self explanatorySo I was reading about the Spinoza’s proof of God being infinite from a book. Here is the paragraph which argues the infinitness of God:
The idea is that infiniteness grants self-explanatory which is one requirement for God. I don’t understand why a finite being cannot be self-explanatory?
Any other argument about infiniteness of God is also welcome.
The parent is, of course, contingent. That there was a necessary being that created the first cat, is what’s in play here. Hence my recourse to the “ultimate” – that is, to the fact that there can’t just be an infinite regress of contingent cats stretching backward into infinity: there must have been a first cat, created by a non-contingent being.When a kitty is born, are the mother cat and father cat contingent or necessary?
I agree.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.
Their interpretation of form is different! How such a thing which you suggest is possible.It’s like stepping into Plato’s realm of forms (but in an Aristotlean sense of form, not Platonic).
I agree.Goodness Itself is also not just a set of all possible good things or action, it transcends that.
I am not getting you here. Godness is an universal concept. God is a being.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.
What do you mean with measuring? We are just different but we are both real. To me the phrase that God is infinite compare to us doesn’t make any sense. I lost you here.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.
This boils down to what we mean when we say God is Being Itself, or that He is subsistence being. Take being as a universal (transcendental, really). That IS God.I am not getting you here. Godness is an universal concept. God is a being.
I agree.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.
I am generally lost but I specifically don’t understand the bold part.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.
Good, that I understand. But that only say that we could be or not could be. It doesn’t say that we are created.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…
I don;t think so. I think that some people are atheists or agnostics because of the problem of evil, or other issues.To deny God is to claim that things are and are not at the same time.
Cats evolved so there does not have to be a first cat but a line of life from the first living things which themselves supposedly evolved from chemical substances.The parent is, of course, contingent. That there was a necessary being that created the first cat, is what’s in play here. Hence my recourse to the “ultimate” – that is, to the fact that there can’t just be an infinite regress of contingent cats stretching backward into infinity: there must have been a first cat, created by a non-contingent being.
(Of course, we can split hairs, if you wish: a kitty’s parents are contingent beings in themselves (after all, they didn’t have exist, per se). But, in reference to that specific kitten, a pair of parents are necessary to him.)
Why?Any limitations placed on a being’s existence means that it can not be the cause of existence.
That really doesn’t follow.Since it would be relying on something else for part of its existence.
Not really. Think of a finite chain of hierarchy. The being on the top has power on everybody else.If you have something that is limited then that automatically means that something else has power over it by definition.
A thing could be generally limited but not limited by something else.It is limited by something else. That is what it means to be limited. To be unlimited means to not be limited by anything else. If you are not limited by anything else then you are also not dependent on anything else. If you are limited you are dependent and thus can not be completely independent or as you say self explanatory.
If something is limited then it is limited by something else. We only talk of limitations in terms of limited from some real potential. When we say God is infinite we really mean unlimited, not the number infinity. So for example saying that God has infinite power is not saying that his power is infinity, but that of all power that exists God has all of it. It is the same as saying there is nothing else that has power over God of all that exists. If God was not all powerful then something else would have power over him. Which means something else would be superior in some way to him. And he wouldn’t really be God. He could not be the explanation for all that exists because there is something that exists apart from God that is more being, more power, than God and that has power over God. There can be only one all powerful being since having two all powerful beings would be a logical contradiction. It would be like saying the cup is full of Bill’s water and then saying cup is full of Tom’s oil. They can’t be both true. The minute you introduce any of Tom’s oil into the cup then the cup is no longer full of Bill’s water. Since it has some of Bill’s oil. Thus both can’t have complete control of the cup at the same time. Because one would have to give control to the other which means they wouldn’t be all powerful.Why?
That really doesn’t follow.
Not really. Think of a finite chain of hierarchy. The being on the top has power on everybody else.
A thing could be generally limited but not limited by something else.
This doesn’t follow. God could be limited but not limited by something else.If something is limited then it is limited by something else.
That I agree. So there is not need that God has infinite power.We only talk of limitations in terms of limited from some real potential. When we say God is infinite we really mean unlimited, not the number infinity. So for example saying that God has infinite power is not saying that his power is infinity, but that of all power that exists God has all of it. It is the same as saying there is nothing else that has power over God of all that exists. If God was not all powerful then something else would have power over him. Which means something else would be superior in some way to him. And he wouldn’t really be God.
I don’t see the relation between being creator and being the most powerful.He could not be the explanation for all that exists because there is something that exists apart from God that is more being, more power, than God and that has power over God.
That is not really a good argument. I don’t think that God fills something, the universe for example.There can be only one all powerful being since having two all powerful beings would be a logical contradiction. It would be like saying the cup is full of Bill’s water and then saying cup is full of Tom’s oil. They can’t be both true. The minute you introduce any of Tom’s oil into the cup then the cup is no longer full of Bill’s water. Since it has some of Bill’s oil.
They can have the control of the cup at the same time and make similar decision always.Thus both can’t have complete control of the cup at the same time. Because one would have to give control to the other which means they wouldn’t be all powerful.
Something can be without cause and in the same time not be God (the creator). God could be limited, the most powerful and the creator.In order God to be the explanation for all that exists he must be without cause and without limitation as I explained earlier.
That I don’t agree. Why cannot God create something more powerful than Himself?Everything must ultimately originate from him. And therefore in order be their explanation they can not have power over God or limit him in any way. Since they come from him.
It seems you want to disagree with everything without really trying to understand it. In order for God to be the origin of all he must be all powerful. It is his existence that makes everything else exist. Therefore all power must necessarily come from him. Where else would it come from? Because there is nowhere else for it to come from. From non existence? . Thus if something else had power over God, that is power that did not come from God, then God could not be the explanation or creator of everything else that exists. There would be someone more powerful that we would look to as the explanation.This doesn’t follow. God could be limited but not limited by something else.
That I agree. So there is not need that God has infinite power.
I don’t see the relation between being creator and being the most powerful.
That is not really a good argument. I don’t think that God fills something, the universe for example.
They can have the control of the cup at the same time and make similar decision always.
Something can be without cause and in the same time not be God (the creator). God could be limited, the most powerful and the creator.
That I don’t agree. Why cannot God create something more powerful than Himself?
That is not correct (bold part). Lets define God as the creator. Now suppose that God cannot do X. Could God create someone who can do X? Of course yes. You are mixing the power in general with the ability to create and that is the source of your error.It seems you want to disagree with everything without really trying to understand it. In order for God to be the origin of all he must be all powerful. It is his existence that makes everything else exist. Therefore all power must necessarily come from him. Where else would it come from? Because there is nowhere else for it to come from. From non existence? . Thus if something else had power over God, that is power that did not come from God, then God could not be the explanation or creator of everything else that exists. There would be someone more powerful that we would look to as the explanation.
You refer here to a demiurge, but we would reply that anything less that an unconditioned reality of eternal, pure act, something that is simply subsistence “beingness” (continuing off a previous post of mine) is not something that can be called divine or god.I don’t see the relation between being creator and being the most powerful.
I’m not sure I would use the cup analogy. The issue is that an ultimate reality of pure act is what we refer to as God. To assume a second unconditioned reality of pure act creates an absurdity. Why? Because two beings would share the same essence. If there was no difference between the two, they are the same being and not two different beings, by the law of identity If there was a difference between them then at least one wouldn’t be subsistent existence essentially and would be conditioned. But they can’t both be unconditioned and conditioned at the same time.That is not really a good argument. I don’t think that God fills something, the universe for example.
No.Something can be without cause and in the same time not be God (the creator).
God is not the most powerful being, in that being the most powerful being among beings isn’t what makes Him God. God is subsistence being, Beingness Itself, and only that. God is Existence. God is To Be, unconditionally. All beings share in having “beingness”, and what we refer to as God is Beingness Itself.God could be limited, the most powerful and the creator.
This is like asking why there can’t be something more triangularity than triangularity, or more “dogginess” than “dogginess.” It’s asking how something can be more than subsistent, unconditioned being.That I don’t agree. Why cannot God create something more powerful than Himself?
Er… No, He can’t. At least not for anything that isn’t itself a limitation. (God cannot change his mind, but that is due to Him being incorruptible, and fully knowledgeable of Himself, everything else and His actions. A being that changes is mind does so due to gaining new knowledge, intellectual defects, etc… so we would not consider this a greater power). But God cannot create a square circle, nor can He create a being that could create a square circle.Now suppose that God cannot do X. Could God create someone who can do X? Of course yes.
Why so? You haven’t provide any argument that the omnipotence God must be pure act and vice versa.You refer here to a demiurge, but we would reply that anything less that an unconditioned reality of eternal, pure act, something that is simply subsistence “beingness” (continuing off a previous post of mine) is not something that can be called divine or god.
I cannot accept the law of identity. Why two things which share exactly the same attributes must be one? Why we cannot have two Gods with the same attributes? They could distinguish themselves since they are conscious of their beings. That is us who could not distinguish them. So to me the laws of identity is problematic. The root of the problem lays on the fact that look at two beings from third perspective. There is no problem from first perspective. We have two Gods each conscious of His being and conscious of everything else but not another God.I’m not sure I would use the cup analogy. The issue is that an ultimate reality of pure act is what we refer to as God. To assume a second unconditioned reality of pure act creates an absurdity. Why? Because two beings would share the same essence. If there was no difference between the two, they are the same being and not two different beings, by the law of identity If there was a difference between them then at least one wouldn’t be subsistent existence essentially and would be conditioned. But they can’t both be unconditioned and conditioned at the same time.
Why not? You need to provide an argument for that.
That I understand.God is not the most powerful being, in that being the most powerful being among beings isn’t what makes Him God. God is subsistence being, Beingness Itself, and only that. God is Existence. God is To Be, unconditionally. All beings share in having “beingness”, and what we refer to as God is Beingness Itself.
Why do you equate subsistence with the power?This is like asking why there can’t be something more triangularity than triangularity, or more “dogginess” than “dogginess.” It’s asking how something can be more than subsistence, unconditioned being.
There is a difference between Omniscience and Omnipotence. Are you saying that being Omniscience means being Omnipotence? We are talking about Omnipotence when discuss power. God could be supreme in knowledge but not supreme in power. He is the creator so He in principle can create something which is more powerful than Him. Even us can do that, building a chess engine which can beat us.Er… No, He can’t. At least not for anything that isn’t itself a limitation. (God cannot change his mind, but that is due to Him being incorruptible, and fully knowledgeable of Himself, everything else and His actions. A being that changes is mind does so due to gaining new knowledge, intellectual defects, etc… so we would not consider this a greater power). But God cannot create a square circle, nor can He create a being that could create a square circle.
You could unplug, incinerate or demolish a chess engine with a baseball bat. Can the chess engine do any of those things to you? Is the chess engine’s knowledge not limited by the sum total of man’s knowledge? We make computers, computers cannot know more than the total collected knowledge of mankind.There is a difference between Omniscience and Omnipotence. Are you saying that being Omniscience means being Omnipotence? We are talking about Omnipotence when discuss power. God could be supreme in knowledge but not supreme in power. He is the creator so He in principle can create something which is more powerful than Him. Even us can do that, building a chess engine which can beat us.
I didn’t say that computers can know better than us but can perform some specific task better than us.You could unplug, incinerate or demolish a chess engine with a baseball bat. Can the chess engine do any of those things to you? Is the chess engine’s knowledge not limited by the sum total of man’s knowledge? We make computers, computers cannot know more than the total collected knowledge of mankind.
I don’t think so. The egg of a chicken is limited in that it will only yield a chick.If something is limited then it is limited by something else…