 |
| 
jlreed
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 2/23/2004 12:24 PM (GMT -6) |   | There has been much talk about whether or not the doctrine of divine simplicity is coherent. Is this thread I will attempt to give a brief analysis of Thomas' treatment of the issue in his famous Summa Theologiae Ia. Q.3, A.4.
Question: Are essence and being the same in God?
Background: First we must be clear about three notions of being: esse, essentia, and ens. Essentia is the nature of a thing, object, etc. It is that 'by which' something is what it is. For example, the essence of 'humanity' is what makes Socrates a man and not a horse.
Esse is a verb and refers to 'act of existence.' This refers to the being of an thing, object, etc.
For Aquinas, it is the case that what a thing is different than whether it is. That is, what things are is different than whether or not they exist. The essence of something is different then it's act of existence.
If a thing, object, etc. is in the act of existing, then that thing is said to be a being (ens). The question Aquinas is asking is whether or not essence and existence are really distinct in God.
Answer: Aquinas give three arguments for why essence and existence are one in God.
Argument 1:
1. Whatever a being has besides its essence must caused by the essence or be recieved from another.
2. If a being's (ens) act of existing (esse) is distinct from it's essence, then from (1), the esse must be caused by either [e] the essence or [f] by something else.
3. [e] is impossible because for any being (ens) because that would mean that one existed before it existed, which is absurd.
4. [f] is impossible for God because God is the First Cause.
5. In those beings which have essence distince from their act of existence, [e] and [f] are the only possibilites.
6. Since, [e] and [f] are not true of God, then God's act of existence cannot be distinct from his essence.
Argument 2:
1. Esse is the actualize of essences.
2. For things whose essence is distinct from esse must have their esse to essence as act is to potentiality.
3. However, there is no potency is God.
4. Therefore, God's essence is not distinct from his esse.
Argument 3:
1. For every x, if x is not y itself, then x has y by participation.
2. Whatever x has being but is not being itself, has being by participation.
3. If God is not his own being, then God has has being by participation.
4. But is absurd, due to the fact that God is the First Being.
5. Therefore, God is identical to his being.
Response to Objections:
Objection:
1. If one can ask whether or not a thing exists, that is sufficent to show that essence and existence are distinct.
2. We can ask of God whether or not God exists.
3. Therefore, in God essence and existence are distinct.
Response:
Aquinas distinguishes 'exist' in premise . Exist can be understood in two ways: [e] the act of being or [f] the being of a proposition. Aquinas agrees that we cannot understand [e], but we can ask about [f]. We can ask whether or not the proposition 'God exists' is a true proposition. But asking this question does not argue from complexity in God, because we are asking about the truth value of a proposition when we ask whether or not God exists.
Scholium:
The point behind Aquinas' line on Divine simplicity in this article is that if God is not idential to his existence, then God is a creature and hence not God.
[Thanks to Richard Howe for his helpful comments] | | Back to Top | | |
 |
jlreed
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 2/23/2004 5:02 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by CalvinnHobbes
I appreciate your responses on these threads, Jason. You're jumping in quite a bit more here lately. Are things slowing down for you? You have to tell me sometime what you gathered from Stump's class last semester.
Things slowed down a little this weekend. I was in Iowa visiting my family. I had some down time and so I was able to jump in more than usual. I gathered a lot of great stuff from Eleonore. It's interesting that for Aquinas, the simplicity of God is the basis for some of his deep devotional material, esp. his commentaries. When I'm done typing my notes I'll send them to you.
The major difficulity is making sense of God who freely creates, has contingent effects, yet has no accidents. You know of course that there are no accidents in God because such would introduce composition and potency into his essence. You also know that creation is not a categorial action on God's part (see his Commentary on the Sentences, Book 2, Distinction 1, Question 1, Article 2, Ad 4).
Perhaps it will help to understand some of this if you think of (1) How in these one-way relations, the lower and lesser thing related is really dependent, while the higher and greater is comparatively independent; (2) the higher has everything which is in the lower, but the lower fails to have what is in the higher (the analogy of the image in the mirror compared with its prototype may help); (3) when we speak of Divine simplicity, we are speaking of that which is highest and greatest, that which pre-contains everything below, which participates in it or reflects it.; (4) As such, God has, or better is, everything which creatures are, but He is such without any composition or imperfection, -- including the composition of act and potency, or of substance and accident; (5) when creation is said not to be a categorial accident, but is reduced to the Divine operation and ultimately to the Divine substance or essence, nothing is lost. (6) all of this is foreshadowed in the Aristotelian understandings of Pure Act and of motion (containing potency as well as act) and of the category of action itself. (7) On that last, while Creation is not categorial action, categorial action seems of all the categories in some way most to resemble it. But in Aristotelianism there is real question about just what categorial action is. The point is that motion as such is not in the agent but in the patient (that is the whole idea behind the reasoning from motion to an explaining agent (Pure Act) which is in no way a patient (i.e. in potency or motion as it acts or moves). Further, if we consider what passes between agent and patient, say motion, it is entirely in the patient. This means that action and an agent as such are denominated extrinsically from what results in the patient. That is to say that strictly speaking categorial action is not something real in the agent. A fortiori, creation which is in a sense its prototypical analogue is not something in the Creator.
I hope all of this makes some sense to you and that it is helpful. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/26/2004 3:02 PM (GMT -6) | | THE THREAD BEGINS...
quote:
jlreed Posted - 02/23/2004 : 5:24:17 PM
----------------------------------------------------
There has been much talk about whether or not the doctrine of divine simplicity is coherent. Is this thread I will attempt to give a brief analysis of Thomas' treatment of the issue in his famous Summa Theologiae Ia. Q.3, A.4.
Question: Are essence and being the same in God?
I THINK THIS IS RELATED. ITS FROM A DIFFERING POINT OF VIEW--Eastern Orthodox.
quote:
(pp.56,57) "Where one spoke of the persons (or person) one spoke at the same time of the nature, and vice versa. The nature is inconceivable apart from the persons or as anterior to the three persons, even in the logical order."
http://www.jbburnett.com/analogion/lossky/lossky_myst1-theol-myst.pdf
quote:
In the Triune God we distinguish essence and nature and hypostases or persons. This does not mean that the essence or nature can exist without the persons, or that the persons or hypostases can be considered independently of the essence or nature. Moreover, according to the teaching of our Fathers, the essence is seen through the particular hypostatic qualities.
The other error is to be found in the matter of the unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. Some people maintain that the unity is due to the Father who is "original godhead", and others that the unity is due to the common essence. These two views end in different conclusions. The first view ends in overemphasis of the person, the second ends in overemphasis of the essence and creates an abstract theology.
I think that apart from the partial truths which are hidden within such isolated views, the truth is that the oneness of the Persons of the Holy Trinity is due both to the Father, Who begets the Son and sends out the Holy Spirit, and to their common essence. The first shows the cause of the existence of the other Persons and describes their hypostatic characteristics, and the second underlines the common energy. I cannot conceive that each Person acts freely, with the common essence which they have, for in that case we would end with God having a moral will rather than a natural one. [/font=Book Antiqua]
from "THE PERSON IN THE ORTHODOX TRADITION" by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos www.pelagia.org/htm/b23.en.the_person_in_the_orthodox_tradition.04.htm
I REALIZE YOU TWO ARE STUDYING AQUINAS. YOU CAN GET BACK TO THAT. BUT THIS IS THE VIEW OF THE ORTHODOX. | | Back to Top | | |
|
jlreed
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 3/2/2004 4:02 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by rossfadeinout
This stuff is very interseting to me as well. I hope to read a little deeper whenever I'm able to get some time. I think that I could learn alot from you Jason; Dr. Geisler told me how well you know this stuff. And if you're studying with Eleanor Stump then you've worked with some of the best contemporary thinkers on Thomistic thought. Hope you're able to continue to participate on the board.
Ross
Hi Ross,
I assume you are a student of Geislers. He's a great guy, but he might exaggerate. I'm still trying to figure this stuff out myself. I'll do the best I can to help you. I see philosophy as a communal conversation. So, I'll try to contribute as well as I can. When you see Norm tell him hi from me.
-Jason | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 3/2/2004 8:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Jason,
Thanks for your response. Actually, right now I am a potential student of Dr. Geisler. I went to visit SES about three weeks ago and had the privilege of staying with the Geislers. It was an incredible experience.
Honestly my only apprehension about attending SES is my favorable view of the Open View of God. And that is what I would like to discuss with you in addition to the Thomistic ideas that have been brought up.
First off, I really believe that at a practical level, there is not a huge difference between Geisler's view of God and the Opn View of God. I know that this is a pretty bold statement, so I should probably elaborate just a bit.
+ Geisler does NOT believe that God determines every event that transpires (see especially "Chosen But Free") He locates the cause of evil in the free will of agents. On this he is in agreement with Open Theists.
+ Geisler's critique of the Open View seems to come from equating the Open View with Process Theism. I am well aware that Open View thought has been influenced by Process thought, but they are not identical. For example, Geisler often critiques Open Theists because there God cannot be trusted because he is changing. But I have not heard Dr. Boyd ever say on this board or in any book that God changes in his nature. What changes in God are his action, which is exactly what Dr. Geisler affirms.
In the end the MAJOR issue that divides Dr. Geisler's views and the Open view is the coherence of divine timelessness. In a timeless view, God does not foreknow, he simply knows all in his eternal state. The Open View sees that time is a fundamental constituent of reality and therefore God knows reality the way that it is, and if there are free agents (which both sides agree) then God cannot know what does not exist.
Am I way off here? Just calling it like I see it 
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
jlreed
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 3/3/2004 10:48 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by rossfadeinout
First off, I really believe that at a practical level, there is not a huge difference between Geisler's view of God and the Opn View of God. I know that this is a pretty bold statement, so I should probably elaborate just a bit.
I couldn't disagree more. How one practices their Christianity has everything to do with their view of God. Differing views of God will lead to different ways of living.
quote:
+ Geisler's critique of the Open View seems to come from equating the Open View with Process Theism. I am well aware that Open View thought has been influenced by Process thought, but they are not identical. For example, Geisler often critiques Open Theists because there God cannot be trusted because he is changing. But I have not heard Dr. Boyd ever say on this board or in any book that God changes in his nature. What changes in God are his action, which is exactly what Dr. Geisler affirms.
First, a change to one of your statements is required here. Line one should be changed from "seems to come from equating the Open View with Process Theism" to "argues that Open Theism logically entails Process Theism." Geisler argues that Open Theism is a species of Process Theism based on the observation that the metaphysics which grounds the Open View will be very similar to the metaphysics that grounds the Process View. I couldn't agree with Geisler more on this analysis.
Second, the fact that Dr. Boyd does not say that God doesn't change in his nature, it does not follow that Dr. Boyd's understanding of God's nature is correct. It begs the question to say that God doesn't change in his nature proves that Open Theism's view is right, for it is the Open's view of the nature of God that is in question. Geisler thinks he has arguments drawing from Openist premises, that God is not trustworthy. Moreover, this criticism may not touch on a moral condemnation of God. God just may not be trustworthy, because God cannot be trusted to get his will accomplished.
Best,
Jason | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 3/3/2004 5:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Jason,
Thanks for your reply. This is something that has been on my mind, and I hope to increase my understanding in dialogue.
I said in my last post quote:
First off, I really believe that at a practical level, there is not a huge difference between Geisler's view of God and the Opn View of God. I know that this is a pretty bold statement, so I should probably elaborate just a bit.
You responded quote:
I couldn't disagree more. How one practices their Christianity has everything to do with their view of God. Differing views of God will lead to different ways of living.
Let me clarify what I was trying to say in the first place. I agree with you that ones Christian actions flow from their view of God. What I was pointing out was that despite Dr. Geisler's harsh critique of Open Theism, he is fundamentally a free-will theist and as such shares more in common with the Open View of God than the Calvinistic view of God.
+ Against Calvinism, and in agreement with Open Theism, Dr. Geisler affirms that
1) Humans have libertarian free will
2) Evil is the result of free agents who misuse their freedom
3) God desires that all be saved
4) God is by nature good (essentialism) instead of the good being whatever God wills (voluntarism)
Basically what I'm saying is this. I "cut my teeth" in theology on Dr. Geisler's works. And now that I have read the works of Dr. Boyd and others here on this board (especially Alan Rhoda & TGB) I have not found any of their beliefs about God to be significantly different on the issue of who God is. The only issue that I see that is different is whether God is in time (Open Theists) vs God being outside of time (Dr. Geisler, C.S. Lewis). And to me that is not a HUGE ISSUE.
I also have a couple of questions about the whole Thomism issue. If (like Dr. Geisler) you affirm free will, how can God's knowledge not be based on the actions of the free agent? Dr. Geisler continually says that Open Thesits deny God's immutability. But if i have libertarian free will, isn't God's knowledge of my free action (whether timeless or not) based on what I decide?
i've got alot more thoughts on the subject, but I want to take the discussion in small sections so I can process your responses.
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
jlreed
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 3/11/2004 5:56 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by rossfadeinout
I also have a couple of questions about the whole Thomism issue. If (like Dr. Geisler) you affirm free will, how can God's knowledge not be based on the actions of the free agent? Dr. Geisler continually says that Open Thesits deny God's immutability. But if i have libertarian free will, isn't God's knowledge of my free action (whether timeless or not) based on what I decide?
For Thomism, God's knowledge cannot be caused by another due to the fact that there is nothing in God that can be actualized by another. Libertarian free will typically holds to the principle of alternate possibilities (PAP). However, PAP does not necessitate that God's knowledge be based on what you do. Hence, there is nothing about libertarian freedom, at least that I'm aware of, that necessitates dependency in God. | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 3/24/2004 4:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Rossfadeinout
First off, I really believe that at a practical level, there is not a huge difference between Geisler's view of God and the Opn View of God. I know that this is a pretty bold statement, so I should probably elaborate just a bit.
John
I hope I am not too late. I think you are misinformed about Geisler and the Open View. Check out the link.
http://www.blogspy.com/contend/rantGeislerResigns.html
Blessings
John | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:19 AM (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 |
|
|