Summa Blogologica - Question 7: The Infinity of God

So God is "big" right? Wrong. Big is a relative degree of size and God has no size and there is nothing relative to infinite. He has no measurement. As you're about to understand, only things that are finite can be measured.

Question 7 of the Summa Theologica deals with this topic, the Infinity of God. Its easy to understand up front, but some of the details get confusing. You will need to understand potential in relation to God. That can be found in Question 2, Existence of God.




... Try to (bear with me).











------------------------------------------------------------
God is infinite. God is not finite because things that are made of form and matter are finite. The form limits the matter, and the matter limits the form. Since God has no form or matter, He is not limited and is therefore infinite.  On the other hand, things of creation are relatively infinite as their existence is related to their potential to have an infinite number of forms. However, this is not the same infinite as that of God, who is not limited by form and matter. Bodies cannot be infinite in magnitude. Because bodies have size, they are measurable, which makes them finite. If a number has infinite potentiality, this means that a number can be divided and multiplied by any number. However, infinity itself cannot be divided and end with a real result. Infinity is limitless, endless, and is like a black hole of math and existence and power
------------------------------------------------------------

Thing that have potential = finite.
Things that are measurable = finite.
Things that have body = finite.
Things that can be divided = finite.
Finite = things are limited by all of the above.
God is not any of these by His, already discussed, nature and essence. God has no potential, He is simple (no body), and cannot be divided. God - is - infinite.

I hope that sort of simplifies things. These are necessary achievements in understanding God. If you cant understand this, we cannot move further to the "unchangeable" God, the "love" of God, and others.

Sorry Jr. Asparagus but God is not bigger than the Boogie Man. God, by His very nature, is not able to be compared to the finite, like the Boogie Man.

Larry the Cucumber would ask, "but isn't infinity bigger than finite?" No. Infinity has no measurement. Haven't you been paying attention, Larry? I can see why Bob gets annoyed with him, garsh.

JK, of course. When we say "God is bigger" we are referring to power, which He is bigger.






Do ask questions. Do read this more than once.

Go here for the Summa Question 7 text and go here for the simplified version.

Summa Blogologica - Question 6: The Goodness of God

Now we get to the good stuff. The previous Summa Blogologica posts were the roots, the foundation of the rest of the understanding of God and His nature. The rest is vital as well but now we get to learn about the love of God, the good of God, and more. All the things Christians say about God that matter.

The Summa Theologica Question 5 reasons with Goodness in General, now Question 6 answers the Goodness of God. I will include the objections given by Thomas Aquinas because they help unfold the understanding a little bit.

Here we go:

-------------------------------------------------------

Article 1 consists of whether God is good. The objections state that God cannot be good because (1) good belongs to things of order, species and order, to which God is not, and (2) God cannot be good because good is desirable but God is not desirable by all as all do not know God. The reply is that God is the first and final cause, and thus he is also the cause of goodness and all good comes from Him. Why is that? Remember in Question 5 we learned that anything that has being has goodness? Well if God created everything then all goodness comes from Him. The mode, species and order are found in the essence of the cause, God is the cause. One does not need to know God as Himself, but can have natural knowledge of divine intelligence, and also all things seek their own perfection (goodness) and subtly seek God in this way.

Article 2 consists of whether God is the supreme good. The objections state that God is not the absolute good because, (1) supreme good adds something to good, but God has nothing added to him (he is not a compound being) but is simple, (2 & 3) to say God is the supreme good is to say there are other good things, but “God alone is good”. The reply to these is that the good between God and man are not univocal, that is, they are not the same thing. As creatures, we only “have” this good as imparted from the creator and is therefore limited, but God is not. God is the good - it is His very nature to be good, and not have good like us.

Article 3 consists of whether to be essentially good belongs to God alone. We know that, as all good comes from God, we must remember that God is His essence and anything coming from His emanation into thing is only possesses that thing which in this case is goodness; we have good, God is good.

Article 4 consist of whether all things are good by the divine goodness. God caused the goodness in things, and creatures are therefore good by reason of the divine goodness.

----------------------------------------------------------

Simple? What you need to know is in Articles 1, 3 and 4. What we must understand is essence/nature. For lack of easier terms, essence is nature, and they are what a thing is. We are human and so we have a human nature which has attributes. God does not have a nature, He is His nature. That is everything in understanding God. Because He is the cause of things, and nothing causes Him, He just is - period. .

Therefore, in the case of Goodness, we know that God does not have goodness, but is Goodness. The Goodness in the world is an effect of His act and will.

God - Is - Good . Its not just a nice thing we say to complement Him Questions? Comments? Gripes?

Summa Blogologica - Question 5: Goodness in General

So last blog post in Summa Question 4, towards the end I said something about the link to the Summa itself and then had a link for the summarized version. Anyone see the irony here? The Summa is short for summary. It was written by Aquinas to be a summary of the Christian faith. It ended up being, still, a very high level and difficult read. And we think often we are more intellectual than the best of antiquity. I seriously disagree. Not to say we are not advanced thinkers, but on the topics of basic philosophy and universal concepts, we fall so short of the genius of these.

With that, next is Question 5, Goodness in General. What is good at all?  Eh, who knows. Well, you’re about to know! Because Aquinas knows and now I know, I want you to know! Ya know? If you haven't done so already, make sure you have a basic understanding of perfections: do that in Question 4.

Here. We. Go:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Goodness comes from a desire for a thing’s perfection, and all things that are actual have perfection of some degree. Anything that really exists has this perfection and so "being"  does not differ from goodness in idea. In other words, we can know of a thing without knowing it is good. So there is not a REAL distinction, but an IDEAL distinction.

“Idea” is prior to a thing because we form a word in our mind which corresponds to a thing we intend it to be. We only discover goodness after we discover the thing and determine it to be good. In other words, we know of the being before we know that it is good at all.

Every being, as being is good. Because all things are in some way perfect or contain some perfection, and perfection is desirable, and perfection is what we find as goodness, all beings are good. Being = some perfection = goodness .

Goodness is the aspect of final cause because, as discussed in previously, goodness is in things which have perfection. Perfections are desirable and so are being sought out which is akin to finality “in-view” and so goodness has the aspect of final cause as opposed to other causes.

As said before, anything can be good so long that it is perfect because in this way it is desired. This goodness is ordered in a thing’s form and furthermore, a thing’s form in a things species. When a number, or given part of form is given to or added to this form, the species is changed; hence this follows as an order. Thus, goodness does consist of mode, species, and order.

Goodness is divided among either of the three but they are all different thing in their relativity to the appetite for the thing. If a thing tends toward another it is useful; if a thing for its own sake achieves its appetite completely, that thing is virtuous; but that thing which achieves its appetite to respite or rest, that thing is pleasant.   

------------------------------------------------------------------

What a blast right? The keys are in knowing what Goodness is and how virtue is thus defined. This is different from fundamental moral theology and is only discussing the goodness of THINGS, not ACTS  of the will.

 

 

Bear that in mind.

 

 

 

Think now on God calling the created world "very good" in Genesis 1:31. More like, "completion in view" than, "wow, I did a fantastic job!"

As always, for more reading on Question 5, go here for the Summa and go here for the summarized Summa.

Next we will look at the goodness of/in God.

Summa Blogologica - Question 3: Our God is a "Simple" God

 

The things below come from Question 3 of the Summa Theologiae, “Whether God is Simple.” They discuss many attributes of God, as does the great part of the Summa, all adding up to God being quite simple. You’ll soon understand what I mean. Here we go:

-----

God cannot have a body for a body is of matter and form. Matter and form are complimented by one other ingredient to make a body, which is the ability of change. Remember in the quinque viae (Five Proofs) that change was a proof of God, which made this “God” the necessary being for all other change in the world? That idea is important here for obvious reasons because God cannot undergo change (otherwise He would require a thing before and more powerful than Himself) and it directly shows why he does not have a body, by cause (a priori) and not effect (a posteriori).  [NOTE: think of a priori and a posteriori as evidence of something having happened prior to, and evidence of something having happened after, hence cause and effect]

Essence and nature are used interchangeably as terms, and God is the same as His essence or nature. Essence is what a thing “is”, e.g., humans have a nature that is “universal”. The argument against here is that God cannot be “in” Himself. That is, God does not have a body and so there is nothing to be in. However, God is just pure act, the prime mover, He is not like or akin to anything like a genus or species like offspring of another thing, He just is who He is and so whatever He is, is in fact, His very nature. “I am who I am.” Creatures receive their essence when they are created, but God was never created and so He never received his existence, but so instead He is His existence. This is a H.U.G.E. idea that the reader must remember going forward!

An accident is an external thing which is associated with a thing. For example, a hat has black color, it has its shape, its size, its smell, its taste. All of these things are accidents. So with God, we say that He has no accidents, obviously, because He does not have matter and form (hyle and morphe).

-----

In all of these ideas, as difficult to grasp as they might be, they make for what we refer to as the Simplicity of God. God is simple. Simple things are not complex. Complex things are made up of matter, form, accidents, bodies, … some have legs, eyes, DNA, proteins … but God has none of these. He might be infinite, powerful, and omniscient, but there are no complexities in God. God is simple! See?

Questions?

Summa Blogologica

Anyone ever heard of St. Thomas Aquinas? Angelic Doctor? Dominican Priest?

Sure you have! He is the patron saint for education, teachers, and the like. For good reason too - this man gathered around himself other priests, philosophers of all creeds, Bishops, Archbishops, and even was at the disposal of Pope Clement IV as papal theologian - those are few and far between. His brilliance in thought was desired by all because his style and arguments brought light to the more hidden knowledge of the world.

Some may remember him as a Dominican, but many don't realize this was a big controversy early on. He came from a family of Benedictines - solemn, prayerful people. The Dominican Order was largely brand new, and he was expected to join the Benedictines as soon as allowed. However, he became a Domincan by his own choice. It was so bad an insult that many threatened him.

He was bright. That's an understatement. He was brilliant! That still doesn't cover it. Before he (Thomas) was dead, Dante placed him in heaven in his writings. He was cannonized 49 years after his death in 1274.

His works, largely Summa Contra Gentiles and the Summa Theologica (or Theologiae) are still the permier text studied in Trinitarian, Christological, and other macro and micro theological courses in the very best universities. His level of worksmanship is definately one that requires a level education and background to understand. One can pick up the Summa and read over the cover the Prima Pars ("Part One") but they will certainly not understand the uses of the vocabulary of the philosopher unless the reader is given a formal lesson(s) on the words of essence, existence, nature, idea, knowledge, truth, form, matter, etc. The format of the Summa is this:

Question: (topic)
   Article: (sub-topic)
      Objection 1, 2, ...: (objection to the teaching of the church or contrary to logic and truth)
      I answer that: (a quote or usually a verse to defend the Church's teaching or truth)
      On the contrary: (a lengthy defense of the teaching of the Church or truth)
      Answer to objection 1, 2, ...: (direct answer to objection)

It follows this format as stepping stones starting with God and His existence, then His simplicity, then His goodness, then His this, then His that. The Questions continue to cover so many topics you just wouldn't even think of some of them. But you can't really skip one either. For example you cannot understand God's infinite knowledge without understading what perfections are and how they are in God, and how infinity works in God, and how both of those are his essence which are his existence. Confused? Let me explain shortly:

Perfections are those things which a thing desires to achieve. A perfection is what makes a thing complete. So as the first mover, as pure act, as the completely necessary being (meaning he doesnt depend on other things for his existence), there is no level of perfection that God needs to reach - he just is (I am). That would be a literal contradiction in God. Since there was nothing before God, we call God self-existent and so he is therefore infinite. So then to knowledge. Knowledge is the attainment of ideas, which are either "exemplar" (are knowable) or "archetypal" (can be created). Now, these are either true or false - levels of perfection! So knowledge is a perfection, and is God is infinite, and perfect, then he posesses all perfect knowledge! This is not a gained perfection, once again, but is a simultaneous, all present, knowing. In better words - He is truth!

Lost still? I don't blame you if you are. There are great resources for anyone looking to learn more about God and what St. Thomas has to say about Him.

You can read the entire Summa Theologiae here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/
The "cliffs notes" version is here: http://www.catholictheology.info/summa-theologica/summa-part1.php?t=1

I am going to be condensing the Questions on here under the title "Summa Blogologica" - I promise I will try to make is easy to understand!