God’s Oneness: The Kinds of Attributes God Does Not Have Argued by Plato: nothing corporeal can be truly one – i.e., truly a unity – because anything corporeal.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The execution of Socrates is an occasion in the Phaedo for a discussion of the nature of the soul with reference to the Forms In the Republic Plato characterizes.
Advertisements

The Subject-Matter of Ethics
Anselm On the Existence of God. “Nor do I seek to understand so that I can believe, but rather I believe so that I can understand. For I believe this.
Descartes God.
The Euthyphro dilemma.
Descartes’ trademark argument Michael Lacewing
“Be kind, because everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” – Plato.
Meditations on First Philosophy
From last time Three kinds of good Three kinds of good Glaucon’s claim that justice is good as a means Glaucon’s claim that justice is good as a means.
David Lewis, “Counterparts and Double Lives” Modal Realism: “When I profess realism about possible worlds, I mean to be taken literally. Possible worlds.
“… if (the best philosophy) doesn ’ t seem peculiar you haven ’ t understood it ” Edward Craig.
The Central Argument P1.If you want your life to go well [to be happy], things must happen as you want. P2. How things happen is not up to you. P3. What.
ARISTOTLE: Background
Introduction to Ethics Lecture 8 Moore’s Non-naturalism
The Existence of God and the Problem of Evil
The argument from design: Paley v. Hume Michael Lacewing
Lecture 8 Introduction to Aquinas –Nature and Supernature –Structure of the Soul –Essences Aquinas on Happiness Introduction to Dante.
Plato BC The Republic Updated, 10/3/07.
Plato Theory of Forms.
Hume on Taste Hume's account of judgments of taste parallels his discussion of judgments or moral right and wrong.  Both accounts use the internal/external.
Aristotle and the Prime Mover
The Rationalists: Descartes Certainty: Self and God
PH354 Aristotle God. Introduction (i) In Metaphysics Book (XII) Lambda L, Aristotle discusses God, and the role, or roles, of God. (ii) He offers a wide-ranging.
 The cosmological argument is, as it’s name sugessts (from the greek cosmos, meaning ‘universe’ or ‘world’). An a posteriori argument for the existence.
LOCKE ON SUBSTANCE (Part 2 of 2) Text source: Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2 ch. 23.
Metaphysics Philosophy 1 Spring, 2002 G. J. Mattey.
Metaphysics Philosophy 21 Fall, 2004 G. J. Mattey.
 Derives from Greek words meaning Love of Wisdom.
Is there such a thing as conscious will?. What is “conscious will”?! Having “free will” or “conscious will” basically means being in control of one’s.
1 I I Animal Rights. 2 Singer’s Project Singer argues we should extend to other species the “basic principle of equality” that most of us recognize should.
Chapter 12 The Freedom of the Children of God. Christ has set us free No one is perfect. Everyone struggles with sin. Video: By God’s grace
Socrates (d. 399 BCE) Plato ( BCE)
Aristotle’s Theory of Eudaimonia or Happiness. 500 BC200 BC Greek Philosophers (500BC – 200BC) Timeline The Great Three Plato ( ) Socrates (469.
Knowing God Through Creation
Pastor Timothy Hinkle August 26, 2012
Philosophy 1050: Introduction to Philosophy Week 10: Descartes and the Subject: The way of Ideas.
Faith & Reason Arguments for God’s Existence. The Two Ways of ‘Knowing’ God  Pure Reason: Many philosophers have created proofs using logic to prove.
Ethics Demonstrated in Geometrical Order
René Descartes ( AD) Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) (Text, pp )
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 5 The Ontological Argument By David Kelsey.
The Problem of Evil: McCabe, “The Statement of the Problem”
EXISTENCE OF GOD. Does God Exist?  Philosophical Question: whether God exists or not (reason alone)  The answer is not self-evident, that is, not known.
Modern Theology. René Descartes Argument from Thought Where do we get our concept of God? It’s the concept of something perfect We never experience perfection.
Who is the Holy Spirit? John 14-16
Worries about Ethics Norms & Descriptions. Hume’s gap In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author.
Lecture 7: The Existence of God Major Arguments for God’s Existence Based upon Natural Theology.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 5 The Ontological Argument By David Kelsey.
The Final Argument Socrates’ replies to Cebes’ by presenting a final argument for the immortality of the soul Socrates’ replies to Cebes’ by presenting.
The Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence or how come we all exist? Is there a rational basis for belief in God?
Where have we been? When we last looked at the book of Galatians (two weeks ago), we took a close look at Galatians 5:16: “But I say, walk by the Spirit,
Anselm’s “1st” ontological argument Something than which nothing greater can be thought of cannot exist only as an idea in the mind because, in addition.
TITLE: The Fine and Important Skill of Pruning TEXT: John 15:1-8 THEME: Pruning is an essential part of bearing fruit.
Aristotle is sometimes said to have brought philosophy down to earth, because he combined the study of humanity and nature. He stands alone as an archetype.
Thomas Aquinas “On Being and Essence”. Saint Thomas Aquinas born ca. 1225; died 7 March 1274 Dominican.
The Battle for God Copyright Norman L. Geisler 2005.
(THE HUMAN PERSON AS A MORAL BEING)
Philosophy 1050: Introduction to Philosophy Week 5: Plato and arguments.
Anselm & Aquinas. Anselm of Canterbury ( AD) The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God (Text, pp )
Meditations: 3 & 4.
PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE Some topics and historical issues of the 20 th century.
L/O: To explore Hume’s criticisms of the Design Argument.
The Nature of God Nancy Parsons. Attributes- Nature of God Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of: 1.God as eternal,
AS Ethics Utilitarianism Title: - Preference Utilitarianism To begin… What is meant by preference? L/O: To understand Preference Utilitarianism.
You live in a goldfish pond and you are a philosophic goldfish. Not for you the normal life of eating and breeding and eating... You wonder WHY there.
The Battle for God Copyright Norman L. Geisler 2002.
Descartes’ trademark argument
Starter Activity Rejecting the use of univocal language
Using Analogy to Understand God
Anselm & Aquinas December 23, 2005.
Three kinds of dependence
Presentation transcript:

God’s Oneness: The Kinds of Attributes God Does Not Have Argued by Plato: nothing corporeal can be truly one – i.e., truly a unity – because anything corporeal is at least theoretically divisible. If we cannot actually divide something corporeal, this establishes only our limitations, not the thing’s oneness Maimonides: There is no true oneness except in “one simple essence in which there is no complexity or multiplication of notions” (p. 149) – that is, no division of any kind, even at the merely conceptual level 4 Kinds of Attributes that Cannot be Predicated of God—and Why (pp ) – Any essence (expressed by a definition)– because God cannot be defined – Any part of an essence (part of a definition)—because God is not a composite – Any qualities—because only composite things have qualities. Qualities are “accidents,” that is, properties that a thing happens to have in addition to its essence. Example: a human has in addition to an essence (rational animal) various qualities of size, shape, color, etc. – Any relations—because God has no relation to anything else – God cannot be related to place because God is incorporeal – God cannot be related to time because time is “an accident of motion,” and only bodies move – God cannot be related to anything created because relations exist only between things of the same species

Why We Can Attribute Actions to God (pp ) It is possible for one simple (noncomposite) essence to perform different actions. Thus we can speak of God’s actions without giving the erroneous impression that God has different powers or capacities Argument by analogy with fire: Even though fire acts in different ways on different substances – burning, bleaching, blackening, etc. – it produces all of these different effects through only one active quality (heat) Argument by analogy with human reason: We ourselves produce a much wider variety of actions than creatures lacking reason and will. We weave cloth, build houses, solve geometrical problems, govern cities, etc. – and yet we do all of these things through a single rational faculty The limits of both analogies: Maimonides uses them only to show that one and the same thing, even in our experience, can produce a variety of different actions. He does not mean to imply that God has some “active quality” or some “rational faculty.” As we cannot know what God is, so we cannot know how God produces different effects

God Has No Similarity or Likeness to Anything Else The argument: Similarity is a kind of relation; God has no relation to anything else; therefore, God has no similarity or likeness to anything else (pp ) Objection: “Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness’….” (Genesis 1:26) Replies—with a warning against using words equivocally: – “Image” cannot be taken literally, because God is incorporeal. “Likeness” refers to the rational capacity of human beings, which no other creatures have, but even this is not a true comparison (Book I, ch. 1) – There can be no true comparison because comparisons can be made only when the notion in question is univocal (used with the same meaning), not equivocal. Hence we cannot even say that God is more perfect than humans because we would be using the word “perfect” equivocally. (Example: when we use “bat” to mean both a flying mammal and a wooden stick used in baseball, we are using “bat” equivocally) – Even when we say “God exists,” we are using the word “exists” equivocally, because only God’s existence is uncaused and identical with His essence (pp ). All creatures exist “accidentally”– meaning that they might happen to exist at a given time, but it is equally possible that they won’t

The Negative Theology of Maimonides We can say what God does (in terms of the effects of God’s actions), but we cannot say what God is. “…We have no correct way of describing Him unless it be through negations” (p. 165). Example: “God is not dead” (vs. “God is living”) People who contemplate how radically God differs from us will become increasingly aware of their own ignorance of God and their incapacity to speak about him (p. 168) People who continue thinking of God in anthropomorphic terms, who even affirm that God has positive attributes (say, by claiming “God is good”), do not even believe that God exists (p. 174). Because whatever it is they are praising is something other than God, they are no better than idolaters Thomas Aquinas’s objection about theological language: Although some words that we use in talking about God should be understood as negations (such as “incorporeal” and “infinite”), we do not mean by “God is good” merely that “God is not bad.” In a case like this we are using the word “good” neither univocally nor equivocally but analogically—that is, by analogy with good as humans know it

Human Perfection: How We Should Live (and Why) (pp ) The true or greatest human perfection is intellectual: the attainment of true opinions regarding God. This perfection alone brings the individual “permanent perdurance” (immortality), which is the ultimate goal (“end”) of human life. “…You ought to desire to achieve this thing, which will remain permanently with you and not weary or trouble yourself for the sake of others” (p. 178) Moral perfection is a disposition to be useful to other people. This is a prerequisite for intellectual perfection but is not the greatest perfection. If you lived alone, having nothing to do with other people, your moral virtues would be useless All actions and moral habits prescribed by the Law are preparations for the ultimate end of intellectual perfection The command to imitate God’s ways, especially God’s loving-kindness, means that we should try to help or harm others according to what they deserve, rather than being motivated by the passions that normally lead us to help/harm others. God cannot have any passions because all passions are evil (pp , 180)