tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post5601595679238204988..comments2023-04-05T09:07:08.419-07:00Comments on Fides et Ratio: Reintroducing the Basic Metaphysical Argument for God's ExistenceAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-91966376367524217252013-07-08T14:23:48.850-07:002013-07-08T14:23:48.850-07:00Hi Richard,
Thanks for your comments! Taking yo...Hi Richard, <br /><br />Thanks for your comments! Taking your questions in order:<br /><br />1. I rather subtly allude to this when I say, "everything that exists participates in one being, but can be distinguished by their various essences." A dog has an essence that is distinguished from its being, which is to say that it does not exist essentially/necessarily. What I love about the argument in De Ente is that it makes sense out of "the one-and-the-many problem." Things are alike insofar as they participate in one being, and they can be distinguished by their plurality of essences.<br /><br />2. I wouldn't put it that way. When we say that God's essence is the same as his existence/being, this is a reference to God's simplicity: that God is not composed of distinct parts. It also means that God has necessary existence, whereas anything distinct from "being itself subsisting" is contingent and in need of a cause. From, "God's essence is the same as his existence," it cannot be validly inferred that God has no essence.<br /><br />3. Since God is a noun, the parallel to "my dog exists" would have to be "my dog has existence." This would mean, "my dog has God" which, while awkward sounding, is also in line with both Greek and Biblical thought. After all, it is in God "we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28, where the Apostle Paul, during his debate with the Athenians, cites Epimenides).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-83428620626443567612013-07-08T12:13:01.576-07:002013-07-08T12:13:01.576-07:00I really like this article alot! I have three issu...I really like this article alot! I have three issues though, that I would be grateful if you (Doug) (or anyone) would clarify: <br /><br />1. In response to "To be distinct from being is to be non-being, in which case the latter does not exist anyway."<br />While I agree that in order to be entirely distinct from being, something must be non-being (which is the same as saying that something that is entirely distinct from being does not exist, or nothing entirely distinct from being exists), I have difficulty seeing why something cannot be partially, yet not fully, distinct from being? Doesn't this occur when something exists but also has a distinct essence, like a dog; so that a dog is (being + dog) and so is partially distinct from being itself (just being), in the same way that a full plate (plate + food) is distinct but not entirely different from an empty plate (just plate)?<br />2. If something's essence is the same as its existence, then is that not the same as saying that that something really has no essence, but purely exists?<br />3. If God (in His Divine Nature) is sheer existence, and existence is something predicable of anything that does exist (for example, "a dog exists"), then how is it that God is not something predicable of anything that does exist, since, according to this, He is existence? (Basically, how do we hold that God is being itself, yet avoid Monism and Emenationism?)<br />[a. God is (in His Divine Nature) existence itself<br />b. My dog is made up of existence (existence itself) and a dog essence.<br />c. My dog is made up of a dog essence and God (c. substitutes 'existence itself' for God, which is equivalent). <br />c. is false, but how?]Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14581448193728881574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-46663936485054645502013-07-04T19:47:25.854-07:002013-07-04T19:47:25.854-07:00It's definitely amusing, to say the least. Sh...It's definitely amusing, to say the least. She's borrowing a Thomistic concept in order to undermine theism. That's like denying the sun's existence while basking in its rays.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-85339889293048103802013-07-04T09:59:15.880-07:002013-07-04T09:59:15.880-07:00I've long found it amusing that Ayn Rand imagi...I've long found it amusing that Ayn Rand imagined she had disposed of God by saying "Existence exists", and this truism is all the explanation necessary to explain or ground the existence of the world and all in it.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.com