Why only one God?

[MilesVitae]

I have always had trouble understanding one of the classic arguments for God’s uniqueness, so I was hoping others here could help me strengthen my grasp on the matter.

The particular argument I have in mind is something like this: There can be only one infinitely perfect Being because, if there were two (or more), they would be indistinguishable. For them to be distinguishable from each other, one would have to possess an attribute not present in the other. In other words, one would have to possess a perfection the other lacked - but then the other would not be a second, infinitely perfect being. So there can be only one.

The way I have usually seen the argument put, it sounds as though the point being made is that, since we could not distinguish one from another if they were both infinitely perfect, there could not be more than one. I am guessing this is not what is meant (please, correct me if I’m mistaken) - it doesn’t seem to follow that if they would be indistinguishable to us, there could not be two (or more) such Beings. I am assuming the argument is really that for them to be two really distinct beings (not merely mentally distinct to us), at least one would lack a perfection found in another (in which case, it wouldn’t be infinitely perfect). I have a vague sense of why this might be so, but not a very clear understanding of it.

Thoughts?

 

[raikou]

There is only one God, but three PERSONS distinct from one another. The three persons are consubstantial and co-equal. All the attributes of one Person are also possessed by the other two Persons. The distinction mainly stems from their relation to one another.

At least this is how I understand the Trinitarian dogma. Please cry heresy if I said something wrong.

 

[MilesVitae]

I think you may have misunderstood what I was asking, raikou. I wasn’t asking about the Trinity (although the answer to my question quite probably is relevant to understanding the Trinity - that’s just not what I’m interested in here) - I was simply asking how we know, philosophically, that there must be only one God.

 

[raikou]

I think you may have misunderstood what I was asking, raikou. I wasn’t asking about the Trinity (although the answer to my question quite probably is relevant to understanding the Trinity - that’s just not what I’m interested in here) - I was simply asking how we know, philosophically, that there must be only one God.

Ah, ok. I mentioned this distinction because there really is a distinction among the Persons. Apart from their relationship, they are equal in every way. So, to answer your question, indeed your explanation makes sense. They possess one and the same attributes and cannot be “distinguished” from one another apart from the differences proper to their being distinct Persons.

Another argument for the unity of God is that God possesses supreme attributes. There cannot be a most powerful God, then another most powerful God as that will contradict the former statement. There can only be one most powerful.

 

[MilesVitae]

Ah, ok. I mentioned this distinction because there really is a distinction among the Persons. Apart from their relationship, they are equal in every way. So, to answer your question, indeed your explanation makes sense. They possess one and the same attributes and cannot be “distinguished” from one another apart from the differences proper to their being distinct Persons.

But, I don’t completely understand why the argument is sound - why can’t there be two infinitely perfect beings? In other words, why must one possess a perfection that the other does not for them to be distinct beings in reality?

Another argument for the unity of God is that God possesses supreme attributes. There cannot be a most powerful God, then another most powerful God as that will contradict the former statement. There can only be one most powerful.

Why can’t they be equally powerful?

 

[raikou]

But, I don’t completely understand why the argument is sound - why can’t there be two infinitely perfect beings? In other words, why must one possess a perfection that the other does not for them to be distinct beings in reality?

When you say “distinct” beings in reality, do you mean to say like seeing two different forks on the table? I don’t think we can presently grasp such distinction in the spiritual realm.

But here, I would like to recall the concept of “simplicity” as I vaguely remember it. Simplicity is a perfection compared to being “composed” of distinct parts. If God is infinitely perfect, then he should be perfectly simple - one. He is not composed of portions “distinguishable” in reality.

Why can’t they be equally powerful?

The Persons are equally powerful, but there are just no “two Gods” as powerful as one another. The concept is that “God is supremely powerful.” It follows that there must be only one supreme degree of power and one standard. If there exists a supreme degree of power, then there must be just one. If there are to be two supreme degrees, then “God is supremely powerful” would not be true. I guess this “argument” stems more from the definition of supreme (superior to all others). Otherwise, if this is equalled or surpassed by another, it wouldn’t be supreme. The next question would probably be “Why is God supreme?”

I guess what is confusing here is really how God exists in “reality.” I cannot also understand how that is. But that’s how it is: one God, three persons, God has supreme attributes. God is supremely simple, God is supremely powerful.

 

[MilesVitae]

When you say “distinct” beings in reality, do you mean to say like seeing two different forks on the table? I don’t think we can presently grasp such distinction in the spiritual realm.

I think I added “in reality” to emphasize that, even if we cannot mentally identify a differentiating attribute between them, they would still be two distinct beings in reality.

So, when I say really distinct, I simply mean they are two real beings who are not each other.

But here, I would like to recall the concept of “simplicity” as I vaguely remember it. Simplicity is a perfection compared to being “composed” of distinct parts. If God is infinitely perfect, then he should be perfectly simple - one. He is not composed of portions “distinguishable” in reality.

This addresses how the infinitely perfect being(s) is in Himself - unity in this regard would simply mean completely one with Himself. That’s different from unity in the sense of uniqueness, being the only one.
Of course, St. Thomas would argue that since God is simple, He is His own essence, and therefore there cannot be more than one of Him. This is true in Thomistic philosophy/theology of the angels as well - they are their own essences (although they are not completely simple as God is, since they are composed of essence and act of existence). But, I’ve never understood why that must be so, which is perhaps why I don’t understand the argument for God’s uniqueness which I presented.

The Persons are equally powerful,

Yes, of course. As I said, my original question wasn’t concerned with the Persons of the Trinity - I’m not asking how it is that the three persons of the Trinity are one God rather than three Gods.

but there are just no “two Gods” as powerful as one another. The concept is that “God is supremely powerful.” It follows that there must be only one supreme degree of power and one standard. If there exists a supreme degree of power, then there must be just one. If there are to be two supreme degrees, then “God is supremely powerful” would not be true. I guess this “argument” stems more from the definition of supreme (superior to all others). Otherwise, if this is equalled or surpassed by another, it wouldn’t be supreme. The next question would probably be “Why is God supreme?”

Well, you’ve already laid out the questions I would have asked in response to this - namely, why must we define “supreme” to mean “superior to all others” in a way which excludes multiplicity, rather than in a way which includes the possibility of multiple supreme beings AND, why must God be supreme in this way - which perhaps merely brings us back perhaps to my original question, which is why can there be only one God?

 

[raikou]

This is probably a metaphysical question. How is the divine being one in essence, nature, and substance? I think this should require a thorough understanding of what these terms mean and some hint as to how God exists. And why should it be necessarily one? Since I haven’t studied metaphysics, I cannot answer it.

 

[john_doran]

The particular argument I have in mind is something like this: There can be only one infinitely perfect Being because, if there were two (or more), they would be indistinguishable. For them to be distinguishable from each other, one would have to possess an attribute not present in the other. In other words, one would have to possess a perfection the other lacked - but then the other would not be a second, infinitely perfect being. So there can be only one.

it’s basically an application of the principle of the identity of indiscernibles, or liebniz’s law, which states that any objects having all of the same properties must be the identical, or the same, object.

the intuition is that for *X *and Y to be distinct objects, one will have to have at least one property that the other lacks; failing this, it is becomes literally meaningless to say that X and Y are different (in what would the difference consist?)

that’s the picture in broad strokes - as with everything in philosophy, there is some controversy around the principle (e.g. for objects in the quantum domain), but there you have it.

 

[Pugsly]

I have always had trouble understanding one of the classic arguments for God’s uniqueness, so I was hoping others here could help me strengthen my grasp on the matter.

The particular argument I have in mind is something like this: There can be only one infinitely perfect Being because, if there were two (or more), they would be indistinguishable. For them to be distinguishable from each other, one would have to possess an attribute not present in the other. In other words, one would have to possess a perfection the other lacked - but then the other would not be a second, infinitely perfect being. So there can be only one.

The way I have usually seen the argument put, it sounds as though the point being made is that, since we could not distinguish one from another if they were both infinitely perfect, there could not be more than one. I am guessing this is not what is meant (please, correct me if I’m mistaken) - it doesn’t seem to follow that if they would be indistinguishable to us, there could not be two (or more) such Beings. I am assuming the argument is really that for them to be two really distinct beings (not merely mentally distinct to us), at least one would lack a perfection found in another (in which case, it wouldn’t be infinitely perfect). I have a vague sense of why this might be so, but not a very clear understanding of it.

Thoughts?

Miles…have you ever looked into how a Virtuous God is (in a sense) divided?
If God is perfect…then He contains every Virtue (virtus is Latin for “power”). Now, the virtues that we know of are divided into two different kinds: extroverted and recessive. For example, if God is perfectly powerful and virtuous, then He is capable of expressing Absolute Justice and even Raw Physical Power…these are extroverted virtues. Virtues that God could also express are infinite Mercy, Patience, Humility and raw Physical Restraint…these are introverted virtues.

So you can quickly see that a Perfectly Virtuous God would be capable of both extroverted (male) and recessive (female) acts of virtue. The Bible states: “He made them both male and female, in His own image He made them”.

Now, extroverted and recessive also implies a kind of “heirarchy”…that perhaps God explains to us through a Father/Son relationship.

Following this line of reasoning, their is always One God…because many virtues are always part of Virtue.

 

[Glacies]

St. Thomas Aquinas gives three arguments for the oneness of God: His simplicity, His infinite perfection, and the unity and order of the created world. The first argument is that due to His simplicity God is His Godhood whereby there cannot be more than God; the second is that because God is infinitely perfect and contains all perfection of being, more than one God would differ whereby none of them would have the whole perfection of being; the third is that as all the universe is in one order there should be one cause of this order. The exposition is found in the Summa Theologica. Cf. S. th. I:11:3, Commentary I, Commentary II

I answer that, It can be shown from these three sources that God is one.

First from His simplicity. For it is manifest that the reason why any singular thing is “this particular thing” is because it cannot be communicated to many: since that whereby Socrates is a man, can be communicated to many; whereas, what makes him this particular man, is only communicable to one. Therefore, if Socrates were a man by what makes him to be this particular man, as there cannot be many Socrates, so there could not in that way be many men. Now this belongs to God alone; for God Himself is His own nature, as was shown above (Question 3, Article 3). Therefore, in the very same way God is God, and He is this God. Impossible is it therefore that many Gods should exist.

Secondly, this is proved from the infinity of His perfection. For it was shown above (Question 4, Article 2) that God comprehends in Himself the whole perfection of being. If then many gods existed, they would necessarily differ from each other. Something therefore would belong to one which did not belong to another. And if this were a privation, one of them would not be absolutely perfect; but if a perfection, one of them would be without it. So it is impossible for many gods to exist. Hence also the ancient philosophers, constrained as it were by truth, when they asserted an infinite principle, asserted likewise that there was only one such principle.

Thirdly, this is shown from the unity of the world. For all things that exist are seen to be ordered to each other since some serve others. But things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same order, unless they are ordered thereto by one. For many are reduced into one order by one better than by many: because one is the “per se” cause of one, and many are only the accidental cause of one, inasmuch as they are in some way one. Since therefore what is first is most perfect, and is so “per se” and not accidentally, it must be that the first which reduces all into one order should be only one. And this one is God.

 

[J_Peterson]

I have trouble with this too. I think it comes from thinking of God as an object. The best analogy for me is that of whiteness. You can have two white objects but there can only be one “white”.

 

[Glacies]

I have trouble with this too. I think it comes from thinking of God as an object. The best analogy for me is that of whiteness. You can have two white objects but there can only be one “white”.

This is close to the comment by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O. P:

“If there were two infinitely perfect beings, there would have to be a difference between them, and this difference would have to be a perfection and not an imperfection. Hence a certain “perfection would be wanting to one of them.” This means that each of them would have to be the self-subsisting Being, and then there would be no way of distinguishing between them, either on our part or in themselves. In other words, there is only one unreceived subsisting Being, just as there would necessarily be but one whiteness, if this were not received in anything.”

 

[MJDorry]

I have always had trouble understanding one of the classic arguments for God’s uniqueness, so I was hoping others here could help me strengthen my grasp on the matter.

The particular argument I have in mind is something like this: There can be only one infinitely perfect Being because, if there were two (or more), they would be indistinguishable. For them to be distinguishable from each other, one would have to possess an attribute not present in the other. In other words, one would have to possess a perfection the other lacked - but then the other would not be a second, infinitely perfect being. So there can be only one.

The way I have usually seen the argument put, it sounds as though the point being made is that, since we could not distinguish one from another if they were both infinitely perfect, there could not be more than one. I am guessing this is not what is meant (please, correct me if I’m mistaken) - it doesn’t seem to follow that if they would be indistinguishable to us, there could not be two (or more) such Beings. I am assuming the argument is really that for them to be two really distinct beings (not merely mentally distinct to us), at least one would lack a perfection found in another (in which case, it wouldn’t be infinitely perfect). I have a vague sense of why this might be so, but not a very clear understanding of it.

Thoughts?

It’s not so much that if there were two, and one were Perfect, the other would have to be less so, but that it simply doesn’t make sense for there to be two Gods. A source would have to be singular and there were were two Gods, they couldn’t both be the absolute source of existence, making them both possibly contingent and relying themselves upon a sustaining force greater than themselves.