Argue with THIS if you can.

JGL53 said:

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

Click to expand...

Why would God be beyond essence and existence? That entire argument seems based on nothing but presumption. To me it sounds like a straw man argument. I think you are basing this idea on the notion that God is omnipotent, however the Catholic Church has abandoned the idea of logically inconsistent omnipotence for decades. To quote the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. These last words of the definition do not imply any imperfection, since a power that extends to every possibility must be perfect. The universality of the object of the Divine power is not merely relative but absolute, so that the true nature of omnipotence is not clearly expressed by saying that God can do all things that are possible to Him; it requires the further statement that all things are possible to God. The intrinsically impossible is the self-contradictory, and its mutually exclusive elements could result only in nothingness. "Hence," says Thomas (Summa I, Q. xxv, a. 3), "it is more exact to say that the intrinsically impossible is incapable of production, than to say that God cannot produce it."

As intrinsically impossible must be classed:

1. Any action on the part of God which would be out of harmony with His nature and attributes;
2. Any action that would simultaneously connote mutually repellent elements, e.g. a square circle, an infinite creature, etc.

(1) Actions out of harmony with God's nature and attributes

(a) It is impossible for God to sin
Man's power of preferring evil to good is a sign not of strength, but of infirmity, since it involves the liability to be overcome by unworthy motives; not the exercise but the restraint of that power adds to the freedom and vigour of thewill. "To sin," says St. Thomas, "is to be capable of failure in one's actions, which is incompatible with omnipotence" (Summa, I, Q, xxv, a. 3).
(b) The decrees of God cannot be reversed
From eternity the production of creatures, their successive changes, and the manner in which these would occur were determined by God's free will. If these decrees were not irrevocable, it would follow either that God's wisdom was variable or that His decisions sprang from caprice. Hence theologians distinguish between the absolute and the ordinary, or regulated, power of God (potentia absoluta; potentia ordinaria). The absolute power of God extends to all that is not intrinsically impossible, while the ordinary power is regulated by the Divine decrees. Thus by His absolute power God could preserve man from death; but in the present order this is impossible, since He has decreed otherwise.
(c) The creation of an absolutely best creature or of an absolutely greatest number if creatures is impossible, because the Divine power is inexhaustible
It is sometimes objected that this aspect of omnipotence involves the contradiction that God cannot do all that He can do; but the argument is sophistical; it is no contradiction to assert that God can realize whatever is possible, but that no number of actualized possibilities exhausts His power.

Click to expand...

Simply put, anyone who argues that the idea of God is logically impossible is going by outdated definitions.

Likewise according to Church definition, God not only has an essence, His essence is immutable:

Immutability.— Since the essence of anything is that whereby the thing is what it is, it follows directly from the principle of contradiction that essences must be immutable. This, of course, is not true in the sense that physical essences cannot be brought into being or cease to exist, nor that they cannot be decomposed into their constituent parts, nor yet that they are not subject to accidental modification. The essence of God alone, as stated above, is so entirely free from any sort of composition that it is in the strictest sense immutable. Every essence, however, is immutable in this, that it cannot be changed or broken up into its constituent parts and yet remain the same essence.

Click to expand...

So I have no idea of how Tillich came to the conclusion that God lacks essence save for a profound naivety on the subject.

If God is being, and only being, he's completely useless, and he sure seems to fit much more nicely with Eastern pantheistic theological conceptions than Western panentheistic ones. Tillich apparently didn't see this. Even if one were to say that God is the ground of being, and a little extra, by saying that he's being essentially says nothing. What people are looking for is interventional theism; a deity who acts, rewards and punishes, loves and (metaphorically) hates.

Received said:

If God is being, and only being, he's completely useless,

Click to expand...

Whether or not something is useful is a value judgment, not a claim that has any degree of existential import.

Heaven forbid that God shouldn't be related to values. If God isn't "useful", if he doesn't aid in our happiness, there is no point in believing Him. In the same sense, elephants may dance on invisible planets in foreign universes, but the pragmatic aspect makes belief in such a thing a waste of time; there is no point in believing such a thing. If God is being, He doesn't profit us. Being, as being, has no power; it is a predicate, not a subject. There's an infinite difference between saying this and saying that God is the ground of all being, or, say, as Eckhart did, that the eye through which you perceive God is the same eye that God perceives you. This would allow for the possibility that God transcends the ontological sphere and is Himself (i.e., something more than brute being).

quatona said:

Good points, variant.
Another problem is the desire to transcend concepts that derive their meaning and usefulness from the context and the frame of reference into something "absolute".

Click to expand...

I have always wondered the exact degree of usefulness the word absolute carries. It may very well be one of those words I was speaking of that, while it is a logical conclusion based on the language, is usually ill founded.

I can think of some exceptions, but they seem to be few and far between.

Anyway, I think the frequent use of, and attempts to speak to “the absolute” are one thing that constantly plagues human thought. I don’t believe we usually think in such a manner. Going by my experience, human experience is that of the limited, contextual and exception based rules, rather than that of a world of absolutes.

Deontological said:

Why would God be beyond essence and existence? That entire argument seems based on nothing but presumption. To me it sounds like a straw man argument. I think you are basing this idea on the notion that God is omnipotent, however the Catholic Church has abandoned the idea of logically inconsistent omnipotence for decades. To quote the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

Click to expand...

well all arguments to define God are based upon pressumption. if God is the source or the being, God would have to inevitable be beyond being and existence don't you think? as the source, it'd be the only possible way.

there can't be a strict or a loose explanation of God being omnipotent. either God is or God isn't omnipotent. but what does omnipotentancy have to do with this? i missed the point behind your reasoning.

Simply put, anyone who argues that the idea of God is logically impossible is going by outdated definitions.

Likewise according to Church definition, God not only has an essence, His essence is immutable:

Click to expand...

what does immutability have to do with this? even with your reasoning, i don't see your point. what does the fact that God is immutable have anything to do with this? since when did anything God change?

So I have no idea of how Tillich came to the conclusion that God lacks essence save for a profound naivety on the subject.

Click to expand...

read his books and find out.

Received said:

If God is being, and only being, he's completely useless, and he sure seems to fit much more nicely with Eastern pantheistic theological conceptions than Western panentheistic ones. Tillich apparently didn't see this. Even if one were to say that God is the ground of being, and a little extra, by saying that he's being essentially says nothing. What people are looking for is interventional theism; a deity who acts, rewards and punishes, loves and (metaphorically) hates.

Click to expand...

Received said:

Heaven forbid that God shouldn't be related to values. If God isn't "useful", if he doesn't aid in our happiness, there is no point in believing Him. In the same sense, elephants may dance on invisible planets in foreign universes, but the pragmatic aspect makes belief in such a thing a waste of time; there is no point in believing such a thing. If God is being, He doesn't profit us. Being, as being, has no power; it is a predicate, not a subject. There's an infinite difference between saying this and saying that God is the ground of all being, or, say, as Eckhart did, that the eye through which you perceive God is the same eye that God perceives you. This would allow for the possibility that God transcends the ontological sphere and is Himself (i.e., something more than brute being).

Click to expand...

that is the problem with theism as far as i'm concerned. we define God with definitions of a human being. kind of like the idea of if cows had gods, that god would be have qualities that have cows have or the idea that human being have to be able to relate to their precious god because of whatever emotional/sappy/existential problem they deal with.

I don't think the problem is in defining God, but in defining God according to an anthropomorphic model. In other words, concepts, while being anthropocentric, are not necessarily anthropomorphic when applied to something. The concept of a door is not man-like because it is conceptualized. The same goes for God.

However, when it does come to God, at the most fundamental level He's undefinable -- ineffable. To define Him is to use as a signifier something that signifies a direction, the direction metaphorical; the idea is encapsulated with a finger pointing in a direction. The finger itself is not the truth, but what it points at -- that is the signifier. And, so it goes, this is the best we can do at defining God. To conceptualize is to place skin around something; compartmentalize it for the sake of categorizing it -- which makes things a little easier (though we run the risk of confusing the concept, the signifier, with the thing it stands for, the real thing "out there", the signified). God cannot be conceptualized; He can only be relationally entered into. This makes sense. An appropriate, non-anthropomophic term correctly applied to Him has been His supernatural quality: He transcends nature; that is, He transcends the physical, which translates, rather naively but truly, into our interpretation as "invisible" -- He isn't applicable to the senses, but something is still there. He must be experienced; in the same way that you cannot see light, but know it by its effect on physical reality, so God can be "concluded" in the same way through His effect on the human self.

When we forget all this, and insist on defining Him, limiting Him to a concept, we miss the entirety of who He is, and what other aspects of His character there are we run the risk of freezing and therefore negating who He is. God exists, if you will, despite His probable eternity, in real time. Any chracteristics that are extracted from His so-called acts throughout history will give one a wrong impression. At times, particularly in the Old Testament, He seemed quite the vindictive, vengeful type (though arguably the spiritual condition of people back then was much coarser than it is now), therefore it's easy to say, "God is vengeful, is vindictive," and some characteristics along these lines might be true for a while, but are not necessarily true absolutely. Perhaps it can be argued that an underlying thread can be ascertained; that God is love, for love wills the good towards those who are loved. But this is an intersubjective interpretation. God is love, yes -- towards us, towards nature; but presumably He isn't loving towards, say, rocks, or photon packets. This is because love here is not applicable. "Well, then, God is love where love is applicable." That could be true. So it might be. God is love to those or that which can be loved. Is that still defining God? To define a person according to his love is to define according to actions, and although it can be argued that actions are the center of a person -- who the person "really is" -- there are other constituents involved. Nonetheless, yes, this doesn't debunk the possible fact that God has, at least in part, been understood, but not defined -- definition involves circumspection, comprehension.

I never learned to read.

I could say the same thing about the Keebler Elf.

Ignorance

And as the hooves of the
Mustang beat the ground
Running wild and defying man
Daring you to tame him as he races the wind
As the voices of whales
Pierce the ocean many miles wide
As the eagle drops from his height
Racing the clouds
Defying the wind to stop him.
Can you really say that there is no GOD?
From the infinite complexity
Of a single cell
To the infinite vastness
Of the cosmos
Do you not see? Do you not hear?
I bid to you
"Be not ignorant"

Robert Ryan Capeder