|
Home > Archive > Recovery aa > October 2005 > Is God
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/god-west.htm
Warning warning - what follows is highly philosophical and is not arguable
:-))
Cheers
Tommy
The God that can be known in part from the universe is fundamentally
different from it. Only God is identical to his essence, being neither more
nor less than it. By contrast, a being such as Socrates is transcended by
humanity because there are other people. On the other hand, Socrates has
qualities ("accidents") that are not part of his essence; for example, he
may be sitting. So unlike God, Socrates is both greater than and less than
his essence. There is nothing that transcends God so nothing is greater than
his essence. And there are no accidents in God because accidents are caused
by something else (just as part of the cause of Socrates sitting is a
chair).
God is not (completely) knowable because he is not material, whereas our
knowledge is normally dependent on our senses. Furthermore, we normally know
things by knowing their genus and species, yet God is unique and so cannot
be known in that way. We can know something of God the negative way (via
negativa) by removing limits, concluding for example, that God is unmoved,
and unlimited by space. What we can know of God positively is neither
exactly like our knowledge of temporal things (univocal) nor entirely
different (equivocal). Rather, it is analogical, being in some ways the same
and in other ways different. God knows x in a way that is both like and
unlike the way in which Socrates knows x. God knows, but in a way that is,
among other things, complete, immediate, and timeless.
That God created is evident (though not provable) because a material
universe cannot emanate from an immaterial being. The universe exists to
manifest God, who created the fullest possible range of beings because in
them he can be revealed to the fullest extent. Beings range from angels, who
are immaterial; to humans, who are material and immaterial; to animals, who
are purely material (and both eat and move); to plants, to inanimate
objects.
God as primary cause works through such created things as secondary causes.
Nevertheless, creatures with a will remain free and responsible. God can
also work apart from secondary causes in what we call miracles. Being good,
God created the best possible world in the sense that it has the best kinds
of things. Evil is a privation or lack of good and as such God did not cause
it the way he causes other things. So we cannot ask why God brought about
evil, but we can ask why he did not bring about more good. He did not bring
about more good in order that he could be revealed through the greatest
range of things, and as well, to allow for certain types of good (such as
compassion, which can exist only where there is some suffering).
| |
| Philip Demarco 2005-06-27, 8:55 am |
| In article <kflve.208$ZR1.193@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, "Tommy" <ditto> wrote:
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/god-west.htm
"Only God is identical to HIS essence..."
There's the immediate problem..."his," personalizes. If at all, it's an
it, with no
sentient knowledge of it's own existence, let alone ours.
--
Philip Demarco
WYSIWYG
| |
|
|
"Philip Demarco" <thewineguy@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:thewineguy-2506052243260001@192.168.0.11...
> In article <kflve.208$ZR1.193@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, "Tommy" <ditto>
> wrote:
>
>
> "Only God is identical to HIS essence..."
>
> There's the immediate problem..."his," personalizes. If at all, it's an
> it, with no
> sentient knowledge of it's own existence, let alone ours.
>
> --
> Philip Demarco
> WYSIWYG
Of course I know that you know that I know that 'we' are referring to Him
the same way 'we' refer to "Man" in *MAN*kind -
Somewhat like MANkind refers to MOTHER nature, and never FATHER nature.
And neccessity being the mother of invention, why not the father of
invention.
If a General is a higher ranking officer than a Major,
then why is a major illness worse than a general illness?
Some times the English language is great fun :-)
Cheers
Tommy
| |
|
|
"Tommy" <tommyleprechaun@everywhere.com> wrote in message
news:yWDve.1581$ZR1.1137@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Philip Demarco" <thewineguy@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:thewineguy-2506052243260001@192.168.0.11...
>
> Of course I know that you know that I know that 'we' are referring to Him
> the same way 'we' refer to "Man" in *MAN*kind -
>
> Somewhat like MANkind refers to MOTHER nature, and never FATHER nature.
> And neccessity being the mother of invention, why not the father of
> invention.
Because Frank Zapper called his group the Mother of inventions :P
eb 
>
> If a General is a higher ranking officer than a Major,
> then why is a major illness worse than a general illness?
>
> Some times the English language is great fun :-)
> Cheers
> Tommy
>
>
|
| |
|
|