Confessing Divine Impassibility

[Philip_B]

Divine simplicity - Wikipedia
Impassibility - Wikipedia

Now I am not suggesting that Wikipedia is an authority, however, it is an easily accessible resource to express something on this subject. I suspect that the vote, nearly 60% against the impassibility of God is interesting. The Catholic Church since Aquinas, and really since Augustine, have been supporting an understanding of impassibility. Calvin, Luther, and most of the Continental Reformers clearly held the view, and as I suggested earlier, Cranmer, Parker and most of the Classic Anglican brigade, also took the view.

Does that mean that we think they were wrong, or is it that we have not fully understood what is being said, and how it should be understood?

 

[JAL]

From your bizarre rant it seems you don't understand simplicity, and to some extent have mixed it up with Platonic realism which has nothing to do with it.

How is it a bizarre rant? Maybe you don't understand it either.

 

[Fervent]

How is it a bizarre rant? Maybe you don't understand it either.

Because it has nothing to do with divine simplicity, and seems to misunderstand Platonic realism to boot.

 

[JAL]

From your bizarre rant it seems you don't understand simplicity, and to some extent have mixed it up with Platonic realism which has nothing to do with it.

"God has his properties by being [those properties]."

Divine Simplicity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

This is the bogus claim that properties/concepts exist. Whether DDS is exactly the same as Platonic realism is a moot point because the seeds of it are in Platonic realism.

 

[Fervent]

"God has his properties by being [those properties]."

Divine Simplicity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

This is the bogus claim that properties/concepts exist. Whether DDS is exactly the same as Platonic realism is a moot point because the seeds of it are in Platonic realism.

You seem to misunderstand what that sentence means. Divine simplicity is nothing more than the statement that God is not composite, there aren't smaller elements that come together and form a new being known as God. It comes from a variety of Scripture, one of the most explicit being James 1:17. Platonic realism has nothing to do with it, nor is a metaphysics that relies on Platonic solids necessary for simplicity.

 

[JAL]

You seem to misunderstand what that sentence means. Divine simplicity is nothing more than the statement that God is not composite,

No it's not. Clearly, you're the one misunderstanding. The statement means, for example, that God is not a person who HAS omniscience. He IS the omniscience property/concept itself, according to DDS. From that same article:


"God is omniscient, then, not in virtue of instantiating or exemplifying omniscience — which would imply a real distinction between God and the property of omniscience — but by being omniscience. And the same holds for each of the divine omni-attributes: God is what he has as Augustine puts it in The City of God, XI, 10."

 

[JAL]

Did you catch that? There is no "real distinction between God and the property of omniscience".

He IS that property/concept, per DDS. Which means that concepts/properties exist, which is the essence of Platonic realism.

 

[Fervent]

No it's not. Clearly, you're the one misunderstanding. The statement means, for example, that God is not a person who HAS omniscience. He IS the omniscience property/concept itself, according to DDS. From that same article:


"God is omniscient, then, not in virtue of instantiating or exemplifying omniscience — which would imply a real distinction between God and the property of omniscience — but by being omniscience. And the same holds for each of the divine omni-attributes: God is what he has as Augustine puts it in The City of God, XI, 10."

No, I understand quite well. That's certainly a consequence of the doctrine of divine simplicity, but it isn't what divine simplicity means. There is no distinction between properties and existence in God, so God doesn't possess properties. But the divine simplicity is what is stated on the tin, which is distinguishing between simple and composite. So God is not composed of the property of omniscience/omnipotence/love or whatever other property can be ascribed to Him but instead everything He is He is purely. This in no way makes God one of Plato's universals, nor does it depend on Platonic metaphysics(or any other particular metaphysics).

 

[JAL]

Stupid, idiotic, Platonic realism.

 

[JAL]

No, I understand quite well. That's certainly a consequence of the doctrine of divine simplicity, but it isn't what divine simplicity means. There is no distinction between properties and existence in God, so God doesn't possess properties. But the divine simplicity is what is stated on the tin, which is distinguishing between simple and composite. So God is not composed of the property of omniscience/omnipotence/love or whatever other property can be ascribed to Him but instead everything He is He is purely. This in no way makes God one of Plato's universals, nor does it depend on Platonic metaphysics(or any other particular metaphysics).

You're just dancing. The article is clear:

"God has his properties by being [those properties]."

 

[JAL]

Read it again:

""God is omniscient, then, not in virtue of instantiating or exemplifying omniscience — which would imply a real distinction between God and the property of omniscience — but by being omniscience."

God is not an EXAMPLE of omniscience. He IS that concept/property itself, per DDS.

You're not getting it.

 

[JAL]

No, I understand quite well. That's certainly a consequence of the doctrine of divine simplicity, but it isn't what divine simplicity means. There is no distinction between properties and existence in God, so God doesn't possess properties. But the divine simplicity is what is stated on the tin, which is distinguishing between simple and composite. So God is not composed of the property of omniscience/omnipotence/love or whatever other property can be ascribed to Him but instead everything He is He is purely. This in no way makes God one of Plato's universals, nor does it depend on Platonic metaphysics(or any other particular metaphysics).

I'm not disagreeing with your general summary of simplicity. But you're not understanding what it LEADS to. Since it means no multiplicity (no parts), it also means that we cannot speak of God as these two parts:

"There is also no real distinction between God as subject of his attributes and his attributes. God is thus in some sense identical to each of his attributes,"

So in DDS we cannot say:
...(1) God is a person/subject
....(2) Who HAS properties such as omniscience.

Rather we must say: God IS the property/concept omniscience itself.

 

[JAL]

The foregoing aspect of DDS was already gibberish, but it seems to only get worse. Per the article:

"God is not an existent among existents or a being among beings, but Being (esse) itself."

That statement sounds like Paul Tillich. What in heaven's name could it possibly mean? No one could possibly know. I am a being. I exist, I have being. So if God is being itself, does that mean I'm God? There's no clear way to interpret such nebulous drivel - it's just hollow and deceptive philosophy. It's empty rambling, meaningless jibber-jabber.

 

[Fervent]

I'm not disagreeing with your general summary of simplicity. But you're not understanding what it LEADS to. Since it means no multiplicity (no parts), it also means that we cannot speak of God as these two parts:

"There is also no real distinction between God as subject of his attributes and his attributes. God is thus in some sense identical to each of his attributes,"

So in DDS we cannot say:
...(1) God is a person/subject
....(2) Who HAS properties such as omniscience.

Rather we must say: God IS the property/concept omniscience itself.

No, we don't say God is the "property/concept" omniscience itself. It's certainly true that there is no distinction between subject and attributes, your conclusion is little more than a straw objection. What we can say is: God is. To declare God "the property/concept omniscience" or any other concept is to declare God has a composition, which simplicity denies.

 

[JAL]

No, we don't say God is the "property/concept" omniscience itself. It's certainly true that there is no distinction between subject and attributes, your conclusion is little more than a straw objection. What we can say is: God is. To declare God "the property/concept omniscience" or any other concept is to declare God has a composition, which simplicity denies.

Um...I'll take the advice of the article over you. I think the writer has more expertise on the subject than you.

 

[JAL]

Your position is that God is an instance/exemplification/example of the omniscience property. The article expressly denies that, claiming that, in DDS, He IS that property.

 

[JAL]

To declare God "the property/concept omniscience" or any other concept is to declare God has a composition, which simplicity denies.

No, what you've done here is exposed one of the PROBLEMS with the DDS position, namely, that if we define God as these concepts/properties, again we run into multiplicity. That PROBLEM is discussed in the article. Ideally, for a DDS advocate, we should be able to lump God into ONE existing concept/property - perhaps call it the God-property?

Either way, the notion here is the existence of a concept/property.

 

[Fervent]

Um...I'll take the advice of the article over you. I think the writer has more expertise on the subject than you.

The issue isn't with what's written in the article, but how you're understanding it. The article isn't implying that God is an abstract concept existing outside of space and time, it's stating that God's being cannot be reduced to properties but that anything that can be said of God is true of God entirely. For example, God is love. So my dispute isn't with the writer, as there is no issue with what he says. It is your interpretation of the article that is the issue.

 

[JAL]

The issue isn't with what's written in the article, but how you're understanding it. The article isn't implying that God is an abstract concept existing outside of space and time, it's stating that God's being cannot be reduced to properties but that anything that can be said of God is true of God entirely. For example, God is love. So my dispute isn't with the writer, as there is no issue with what he says. It is your interpretation of the article that is the issue.

See post 77. Probably every serious theological treatise claims that God is omniscient, loving, etc - AND that these properties are not divorced from one another. And that's pretty much all you've claimed here. DDS goes beyond that:

"God has his properties by being [those properties]."

"[No] real distinction between God and the property of omniscience — but by being omniscience. And the same holds for each of the divine omni-attributes: God is what he has as Augustine puts it in The City of God, XI, 10."

"God is not an existent among existents or a being among beings, but Being (esse) itself."

Thus the article is saying "being" isn't one of God's properties. He IS that property/concept.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Fervent]

See post 77. Probably every serious theological treatise claims that God is omniscient, loving, etc - AND that these properties are not divorced from one another. And that's pretty much all you've claimed here. DDS goes beyond that:

"God has his properties by being [those properties]."

"[No] real distinction between God and the property of omniscience — but by being omniscience. And the same holds for each of the divine omni-attributes: God is what he has as Augustine puts it in The City of God, XI, 10."

"God is not an existent among existents or a being among beings, but Being (esse) itself."

Thus the article is saying "being" isn't one of God's properties. He IS that property/concept.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

First, nothing in the quotes you've stated is objectionable. Second, where it becomes objectionable is in your tortured understanding of those quotes. Divine simplicity doesn't turn God into a Platonic universal, and I'd bet if that question was put to the author of that article he would deny any such claim. The article isn't saying God is the "concept" of being, but being as you quoted "God is what He has." And this isn't something philosopher's have come up with, it comes from God's own mouth "ehyah esher ehyah," "I am am."

I'd also like to point out that the Bible(and theologians) do not claim God is loving, but that He is love.