 |
 | 
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 5/23/2005 6:55 PM (GMT -6) |   | Matt said...
Here is Alan's question:
"Why, for example, can't we suppose that, as a metaphysically necessary being, God's essence guarantees his existence, (i.e. His essence is His existence) while at the same time supposing that God is "composed" in some other respect?... Why must a metaphysically necessary being be absolutely simple (uncomposed) in all respects?" (emphasis mine)
So I don't think he was asking about essence and existence per se. He seemed to be asking, 'Even if God is uncomposed of essence and existence, why must we assume that God is absolutely simple? (i.e. absolutely uncomposed) My response to this was that if God is composed of any metaphysical principles, His being would be, in some way, contingent on something other than Himself.
Actually, Matt, I do not take it as obvious that for God's essence to guarantee His existence entails that His essence is His existence. That's one way in which His essence could guarantee His existence but not, I think, the only possible way. As far as I can see, there are three possible relations between God's essence and His existence:
(1) God's essence = God's existence
(2) God's essence > God's existence
(3) God's existence > God's essence
(1) is Aquinas' view. As for (2), I think it is probably incoherent. It says basically that God's nature is not fully instantiated, which would mean that God qua God does not exist. (3) strikes me as a serious competitor to (1), however. It says that some things about God are essential and some aren't. This seems to be not only coherent but also true, unless we want to say, for example, that God is essentially a Creator and a Creator of the very world which He in fact has created.
At any rate (3) is what I would affirm. I don't see any compelling reason to opt for (1) over (3). Do you know of any such reason?
Regards,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/23/2005 8:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey guys-
I don't think Greg would mind my posting this bit of an email of his to me regarding this very question (that is, Is God's essence IS his existence?):
"Yes. As a matter of fact, Aquinas got this one right. But, unfortunately, he conceived of essence in Aristotelian and thus substantialistic terms, whereas it should have been construed in dispositional terms -- as I argue [in my thesis]."
Haven't read that thesis, but will one day. Are you familiar with Greg's arguments here Alan?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Grahaminator
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 70
| Posted 5/24/2005 6:10 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Dr. Rhoda,
Thanks for your post.
Dr. Rhoda said...
At any rate (3) is what I would affirm. I don't see any compelling reason to opt for (1) over (3). Do you know of any such reason?
I deny (3) because, as far as I can tell, it entails real metaphysical distinctions in God, which entails composition. As I have noted earlier, composition implies dependance. This point is made over and over again by Aquinas in his Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologica. I assume that you have read his arguments for simplicity. That being the case, you would know that there is not merely ONE SINGLE argument that leads to this conclusion, which is why I have not tried to give a comprehensive argument for this position. Aquinas takes a long time to lay out the logic for simplicity.
We talked breifly about the essence / existence distinction in finite things. You agreed that this distinction existed in finite things. Do you agree that composition of essence and existence imply contingent being? If you agree to these, how could God's being be composed of essence and existence?
Tom,
Is Greg's paper available for all to read? I would love to read it.
Man is the feeblest reed in existence, but he is a thinking reed. There is no need that the universe be armed for his destruction; a noxious vapour, a drop of water is enough to cause his death. But though the universe were to destroy him, man would be more noble than his destroyer. -Pascal | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 5/25/2005 1:20 AM (GMT -6) | |
Matt said...
I deny (3) because, as far as I can tell, it entails real metaphysical distinctions in God, which entails composition. As I have noted earlier, composition implies dependance. This point is made over and over again by Aquinas in his Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologica. I assume that you have read his arguments for simplicity.
Hi Matt,
I'd still like to see your argument that composition implies dependence. I'm familiar with Aquinas' discussion in the Summa Theologica, Pt. 1, Q. 3, but I find his arguments quite unconvincing. For example, in article 3 he considers the question whether God is the same as His essence or nature. His argument runs basically as follows:
1. Matter is the only thing that can distinguish an individual from its essence.
2. God is not material in any way.
3. Therefore, God is His essence.
The argument is valid, but I don't see any compelling reason to grant premise 1. It's not obviously true. And I think there are good reasons to deny premise 1. In particular, it seems clear to me that there things that are true of God (e.g., His being a creator, His having become incarnate, etc.) that are not true of God simply qua God (i.e., because of His essence or nature). God would still be fully God even if he hadn't created anything or become incarnate in Jesus. Aquinas' other arguments also seem to me to depend on assumptions of Aristotelian metaphysics that are far from obviously true and that lead to consequences that are problematic for Christians.
Blessings,
Alan
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/13/2005 10:54 AM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...What happened to this thread? I was looking forward to following Matt and Jeff. OK, well, I've got a pdf file (chapter nine of Jay Wesley Richards' The Untamed God: A Philosophical Exploration of Divine Perfection, Simpliticyt, and Immutability) and would be happy to email it to Jeff and Matt (and anyone else interested). You guys got emails? If you email me at opentheist@hotmail.com I'll send it on to ya. Matt, I think you'd especially be interested in Richards' book if you don't already have it. Here's the pdf Tom is referencing:
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/13/2005 8:02 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 111 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:02 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|