Evidence for God from Science

Silvertusk wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Here is the thing about God, if he "can't" be something then He is not God, is He?

If God can't be divisible ( whatever that means) He is not God because, if a being that exists CAN be divisible then that being can do something God can't and as such, God is can't be viewed as God anymore.

Love it. Never thought of that.

Here is the thing, God can't be anything that is inconsistent with His Nature, if He were He would not be God.
Being an "other-centered" being, that is a being that loves others above itself, God must be "more than single" because if He were just The Father then He would just love Himself and that is "self-centered" love which is an inferior love ( as per Christ stating that no greater love can exist than to give oneself for another).
IMO, the one argument that holds the most water for God being a Triune being is the "other-centered relational" argument ( or whatever it is called, LOL).

Thanks guys, I really wish I was smarter and had more knowledge of philosophy.
I feel really out of my depth, I started reading what Jac had written on his blog and didn't really understand much of it.

Is Summa Theologica easy to understand and which volume is Divine Simplicity in?

The books are expensive!!!

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Thanks guys, I really wish I was smarter and had more knowledge of philosophy.
I feel really out of my depth, I started reading what Jac had written on his blog and didn't really understand much of it.

Is Summa Theologica easy to understand and which volume is Divine Simplicity in?

The books are expensive!!!

you can read them online for free I think.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Thanks guys, I really wish I was smarter and had more knowledge of philosophy.
I feel really out of my depth, I started reading what Jac had written on his blog and didn't really understand much of it.

Is Summa Theologica easy to understand and which volume is Divine Simplicity in?

The books are expensive!!!

Daniel, you're not the only one who didn't grasp the divine simplicity thesis Jac wrote. I had no idea divine simplicity could be so un simple to understand. I read it a few times and gave up. It was way over my head.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Here is the thing about God, if he "can't" be something then He is not God, is He?

If God can't be divisible ( whatever that means) He is not God because, if a being that exists CAN be divisible then that being can do something God can't and as such, God is can't be viewed as God anymore.

Love it. Never thought of that.

Here is the thing, God can't be anything that is inconsistent with His Nature, if He were He would not be God.
...

A point I intended to make but to which I didn't get around. There are a good number of things God has said that He is and does - e.g. truthful, just, faithful, good, loving - which intrinsically mean there are things God cannot be or do (the inversions of those characteristics and actions). Numbers 23:19 is a good example of God pointing out something He cannot do.

neo-x wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Thanks guys, I really wish I was smarter and had more knowledge of philosophy.
I feel really out of my depth, I started reading what Jac had written on his blog and didn't really understand much of it.

Is Summa Theologica easy to understand and which volume is Divine Simplicity in?

The books are expensive!!!

you can read them online for free I think.

Thanks Neo-X I will have a look see but I have a suspicion that I will be out of my depth.

A good starting point in looking might be Christian Classics Ethereal Library, ccel.org.

I have a bad case of the brain farts today!

I know simplicity is a hard doctrine. I'm looking for ways to make it easier to understand. I think divine non-composition maybe a better term, at least to help people get the idea of what it is. we hear the term simple and we think easy. anyway the point is there is no division in God. that is God is not composed of parts. he just is what he is. that is not the case of course with any of us. we are all composed of a lot of parts, not just physical parts, but also mental parts, temporal parts, things we are now at as compared to things we could be later, etc. none of that is or can be the case with the first cause, which is to say, with God.

naturally, many Christians use the Trinity against the doctor the simplicity because it sounds like God is divided into three persons. for reasons I explain in my paper that is just not the case, and in fact, I argue that if you don't accept divine simplicity, then you are necessarily committed to accepting tritheism.

will say more later.

Jac3510 wrote:I know simplicity is a hard doctrine. I'm looking for ways to make it easier to understand. I think divine non-composition maybe a better term, at least to help people get the idea of what it is. we hear the term simple and we think easy. anyway the point is there is no division in God. that is God is not composed of parts. he just is what he is. that is not the case of course with any of us. we are all composed of a lot of parts, not just physical parts, but also mental parts, temporal parts, things we are now at as compared to things we could be later, etc. none of that is or can be the case with the first cause, which is to say, with God.

naturally, many Christians use the Trinity against the doctor the simplicity because it sounds like God is divided into three persons. for reasons I explain in my paper that is just not the case, and in fact, I argue that if you don't accept divine simplicity, then you are necessarily committed to accepting tritheism.

will say more later.

I get that God cannot be reduced to parts and I get why, the part I am having trouble understanding is how that relates to the Trinity. Now if the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Spirit and the Spirit is not the Fatherand they all are of the same mind and will, doesn't this make a division between them if they are not the same and now can be broken into parts??

Ok I have been doing some more reading on divine simplicity, now please correct me if I am wrong on any of the parts that follow.

God is not a person, God just IS.

So it follows that God IS things and not God has things.
For example God is the property of Omnipotent and not God has the property of Omnipotence.

So what I am understanding when it comes to the Trinity is that God is Jesus, God is Spirit, God is Father. So if I am understanding this correctly the Father, Son and Spirit are expressions of God or attributes of God. God is expressing himself in three ways to mankind or his attributes of the Father, Son and Spirit are viewed by us as his expression of himself.

So far this is my limited understanding, I am not saying it is correct as I am still trying to understand it myself.

This brings me a new question about the hypostatic union, now if Jesus has a human side and a divine side does that mean his divine side being God is separated from his human side after the ascension? In heaven is there God with the attributes/expressions of Father, Son and Spirit and then there is Jesus the human? Is there now a separation of Jesus the human from Jesus the divine?

Dan

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I get that God cannot be reduced to parts and I get why, the part I am having trouble understanding is how that relates to the Trinity. Now if the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Spirit and the Spirit is not the Fatherand they all are of the same mind and will, doesn't this make a division between them if they are not the same and now can be broken into parts??

That's the typical Christian objection against the Trinity, but is one that I think is rooted in a misunderstanding of the Trinity, not of simplicity. Look at the definition of the Trinity:

• God is three Persons in one being (or substance).

Simplicity is nothing more than the doctrine that takes "in one being" seriously. If you really believe that God is "one being," then you have to accept simplicity, because the moment you start allowing divisions in God, you lose any and all principled ways to say that all three of the Persons are really the same substance. If I can make any distinctions in God (say, if God has a property called omnipotence and He also has a property called omniscience and these properties are really and distinct from each other--God is "made up" of those two properties (again, think of the egg and sugar in a cake)), then is just no principled was of saying that all of the Persons are the same substance.

The trick to all of this is to use "one being" as the controlling idea for governing our understanding in what sense God can be "three Persons"; we absolutely should NOT try to use the "three Persons" as the controlling idea for in what sense God is "one being." So bottom line: when you think of the Trinity, the first and most important thing you should grasp is NOT that God is three Persons. That is important, but the most important thing that you grasp is that He is ONE BEING.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Ok I have been doing some more reading on divine simplicity, now please correct me if I am wrong on any of the parts that follow.

God is not a person, God just IS.

So it follows that God IS things and not God has things.

Correct.

For example God is the property of Omnipotent and not God has the property of Omnipotence.

Just to pick on your verbiage, God is not a property (that's Alvin Plantinga's supposed coup de grace against the doctrine). There is a reason they are called "attributes" rather than "properties." We attribute to God omniscience, and we[/i] attribute to Him omnipotence. In our human mind, those ideas are the best way to represent God. When we think about Him in terms of "what He knows," we see He knows everything; so we say that is omniscience. And when we think about Him in terms of "what He can do," we see that He has all power to do everything (doable); so we say that is omnipotence. But the distinction between omniscience and omnipotence is really only in our own minds. In God Himself, there is no distinction between the two. He just is what He is.

So to touch up your language here, I would say, "For example God is Omnipotence; He does not have a property called omnipotence." That may be exactly what you meant, but the language, unfortunately, get's rather precise in all of this, and necessarily so.

So what I am understanding when it comes to the Trinity is that God is Jesus, God is Spirit, God is Father. So if I am understanding this correctly the Father, Son and Spirit are expressions of God or attributes of God. God is expressing himself in three ways to mankind or his attributes of the Father, Son and Spirit are viewed by us as his expression of himself.

So far this is my limited understanding, I am not saying it is correct as I am still trying to understand it myself.

No, the Persons are not expressions or attributes of God (that would be modalism, which would mean that they are not really Persons at all). All three of the Persons ARE omnipotence, and they ARE omniscience, and they ARE omnibenevolence, etc. All three of the Persons have the same attributes because all of them are God, and God (by nature) has all of the same attributes as Himself.

Think of it this way:

• Whatever is God is omniscient;
  The Father is God;
  The Son is God;
  Therefore, the Father and the Son are omniscient

So that makes sense, but what if you imagine that the Persons are attributes or expressions of God. Then, by the same logic you would have:

• Whatever is God is the Holy Spirit;
  The Father is God;
  The Son is God;
  Therefore that Father and the Son are the Holy Spirit

But that is not true. That, again, is modalism. The Father, Son, and Spirit are real distinctions in God--they are the only distinctions. Though that seems like it violates divine simplicity, it does not. I can walk you through the technical reasons, but I would just remind you before we do all of that, that if you affirm any version of the Trinity, you have to affirm that in SOME sense, three Persons are ONE being (not parts of one being!). So the Trinity, by definition (literally), no more contradicts simplicity than it does itself. That is, if the Trinity contradicts simplicity, then the Trinity is just self-refuting.

This brings me a new question about the hypostatic union, now if Jesus has a human side and a divine side does that mean his divine side being God is separated from his human side after the ascension? In heaven is there God with the attributes/expressions of Father, Son and Spirit and then there is Jesus the human? Is there now a separation of Jesus the human from Jesus the divine?

Dan

I'm not sure why there would be a separation after the ascension if there wasn't one before the ascension? Jesus has TWO natures--the human nature (which is not God) and the divine nature (which is God). We have to be carefully here and not say that Jesus' humanity is God. Jesus the man is God because He also has a fully divine nature. But Jesus' divine nature does not "have" a human nature.

Now, Jesus' human nature is not simple. It's just like yours and mine. Jesus, the man, is not simple. His divine nature (by which He is God) is simple. This is why we say that God took on flesh. He did not change. The divine nature is still exactly what it was--fully divine, fully simple. God simply exists along side the human nature in the person of Christ. That's what the hypostatic union says, that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. He is not 50% God and 50% man. The two natures are not co-mingled into some hybrid nature. They are fully distinct, each remaining what they were, existing completely in the same person. Jesus' human nature was just subordinate at ALL times to His divine nature. That was the case in His life and is the case after the ascension.

Thanks Jac I can see where I have erred in some thinking.

I have had some discussions with my pastor and some other knowledgable people at Church and this is where I am at the moment.

I accept Divine Simplicity even though it seems to be in conflict with a Triune God, they seem contradictory and remain in tension. We see this tension a lot when it comes to God, like God is love but he is also just, Jesus is fully human but also fully divine, we also see these tensions in the natural world also like we are free will beings but we are also predestined. Both are true even though they seem contradictory, both are two sides of the same coin and are held in tension.

I do reject the Jewish notion that God is fully knowable, I cannot find any scriptural support for this notion and I do not recognise the Oral Torah as being authoritative which is where this notion comes from. I see no scriptural support for the Oral Torah and I think it could be easily corruptible or even could be a later tradition that was never ordained by God.

I think it is quite arrogant and prideful to think the we in our limited understanding be able to understand fully the nature of God. We are restricted by time and space, we are restricted to our three dimensional thinking where as God is a infinite, eternal, multidimensional, unembodied mind.

Of course I am going to continue my reading and continue to grow because I still have many questions.
But let me know your thoughts on my conclusions because I don't think you (Jac) see the tension that I see between a Triune God and God being indivisible or maybe you do I'm not sure lol.
Dan

I think your conclusions are sound so far, and I am in 100% agreement with you that God is not fully knowable. In fact, that is a major tenant of classical Christianity. Most people I've met are surprised to discover that the Christians who developed the doctrines like the Trinity and the hypostatic union all held, to a man (and rightly so, I think), that God is so unknowable that ALL of our language about Him is ultimately metaphorical in some sense. That's not to say that what we do know about God is nothing. Indeed, what we know, we truly know, but what we know, we know (as Paul says) dimly, as if looking through a dark glass. It would be like trying to describe the color red to a blind man. He may soon "know" a lot about the color, but he won't "get it" until he gets his vision and sees it for himself. And so it is with God. We "know" a lot about Him now, and what we know is true. But when we stand in His presence in heaven, all of the sudden, what we have known will make sense in a way it never did before.

Keep up the studies. The doctrine of God is a very difficult subject, but it is a beautiful one. You'll always be a student of that one, no matter how advanced you get, too!

I was always taught that the doctrine of the Trinity was a supernatural mystery--that we will never understand it completely--especially here on earth. I find trying to pick apart that mystery to be very frustrating and so I would rather spend my time encountering God in nature, in each other, and in my everyday life. Everyday for me is a new surprise from and about God. It is said that once in Heaven we will never stop learning new things about God. Can you imagine that? So, to try to understand God in His mysteries is, for me, a waste of my precious time to adore Him and His creation. I know that sounds stupid and maybe lazy, but it is more important for me to experience God's love and His handiwork than to try to figure out how He did it....