Theological Implications of Right to Lifers

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If it doesn't affect the souls in limbo (as the mere existence of roller coasters might) then, no, it isn't.

What if the pope declared that limbo exists and is an eternally running roller coaster? This may affect the souls, as some may enjoy it and some may be tormented by it. Would you believe the pope?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What if the pope declared that limbo exists and is an eternally running roller coaster? This may affect the souls, as some may enjoy it and some may be tormented by it. Would you believe the pope?

Yes, I would.

Happy?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Metaphysical nature needs "support" only if one is talking about contingent beings.

I know that you have some training in mathematics so I'm pretty sure you know what I mean when I say "support." I mean the framework over which the attributes of God have definition.

I have this analogy floating in my head of a real-valued vector, V, in T(x) that only takes say positive values, where x is the number of attributes (probably infinite). Think of God then as this vector. From where did the negative values come? The complex? If God is contained in T(x) space, from where did this space come?

I'm thinking the best way out of this is to construct the non-positive and the complex values from the positive reals. Nonetheless a single vector cannot be the basis for T(x). Therefore V is not sufficient to span all of T(x).

I wouldn't be surprised to discover this analogy is misplaced (and I encourage non-theists to correct me as well), but I do wonder about it nonetheless. I also don't understand how being non-contingent changes things. You know more philosophy than I do though, so I suppose you'll help me out.

The numbers and values have to sit on some table.

Originally posted by telerion
I know that you have some training in mathematics so I'm pretty sure you know what I mean when I say "support." I mean the framework over which the attributes of God have definition.

I have this analogy floating in my head of a real-valued vector, V, in T(x) that only takes say positive values, where x is the number of attributes (probably infinite). ...[text shortened]... nges things. You know more philosophy than I do though, so I suppose you'll help me out.

There are some limitations with the vector analogy, but let's run with it a while.

From the perspective of Thomistic metaphysics, there are no negative values, no complex values. It's just being vs. non-being (i.e. zero). You cannot have "negative being" or "imaginary being" (well you can, but not in the sense of 'imaginary' numbers!)

This is where the analogy breaks down. In V(x), you would be thinking about (I'm thinking) x 'unit' vectors to span the space (I know that's not entirely necessary, but it is the most intuitive solution). You would then be thinking about multiples of those vectors.

In Thomism, one goes about it the other way (in a manner of speaking) around. One begins with God who is infinite in every direction and all other beings would possess limitations with respect to God.

Nevertheless, I think an answer to your question about "support" can be provided in this context. In T(x), what is the necessary element to define the space? I would say those are the unit vectors themselves. Every other vector would be 'contingent' on those. The unit vectors themselves don't need further support.

(Some of that might be a bit incoherent because I'm trying to simultaneously keep the metaphysics in mind.)

Analogously, God, as a necessary being, does not require a support. In a sense, he defines the entire space of Being.

An additional complexity here is that God, in Thomism, is utterly simple; i.e. he does not have an infinite number of attributes (unlike, I think, Spinoza's conception) - there is just the one. Whether we speak of God's mercy, or His justice, or His goodness, or His power - we are referring to the same attribute. It is named differently in so far as a particular manifestation resembles this or that human activity or conception but, in reality, it is the same attribute.

(This is vistesd's cue to say something about the name of God from the burning bush - "I AM".)

Don't know if that answers your question but, if it doesn't, I'll give it another shot.

Originally posted by telerion
I know that you have some training in mathematics so I'm pretty sure you know what I mean when I say "support." I mean the framework over which the attributes of God have definition.

I have this analogy floating in my head of a real-valued vector, V, in T(x) that only takes say positive values, where x is the number of attributes (probably infinite). ...[text shortened]... nges things. You know more philosophy than I do though, so I suppose you'll help me out.

put that into a Lie Algebra and then god could be defined as a Lie Group. or possibly the associated gauge field.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
There are some limitations with the vector analogy, but let's run with it a while.

From the perspective of Thomistic metaphysics, there are no negative values, no complex values. It's just being vs. non-being (i.e. zero). You cannot have "negative being" or "imaginary being" (well you can, but not in the sense of 'imaginary' numbers!)

This is wh t answers your question but, if it doesn't, I'll give it another shot.

(This is vistesd's cue to say something about the name of God from the burning bush - "I AM".)

🙂 You’re really working my Hebrew these days. I have to really knuckle down and study the grammar to up-level my beginner’s skills... :'(

eheyeh asher eheyeh. (eheyeh spelled aleph-hay-yod hey: AHYH.) I am that I am. I will be whatever I will be. I become as I become. I am as I become. Other combinations and variations... (The tense is imperfect, which in the Hebrew denotes uncompleted action, and can be used for our future tense as well.) It is really archaic Hebrew, I believe.

YHVH is a third-person form, and according to some views contains past, present and future tenses within it.

One interesting point—at least from the monistic (as opposed to theistic) view that I come from—is that the name of the ultimate One is a verb, in whatever person, not a noun: the basic being verb, hayah in Hebrew—to be, to become, to happen. I really don’t know anything about process philosophy/theology. Meister Eckhart referred to God as “Is-ness” (“What is God? God is.” ) Rabbi David Cooper just says, “God is a verb.”

From my Hebrew Wordbook entry:

“Very seldom in the OT is hayah used to denote either simple existence or the identification of a thing or person. This can be illustrated by a quick glance at almost any page of the KJV on which one will find numerous examples of words such as "is, are, was, were," in italics, indicating that these are additions by the translators for the sake of smoothness, but not in the Hebrew itself. In such cases the Hebrew employs what is known grammatically as a nominal sentence, which we may define most simply as a sentence lacking verb or a copula, for example: I (am) the Lord* your God; the Lord (is) a sun and shield; the land (is) good; and in the NT, blessed (are) the poor. This almost total lack of hayah as a copula or existential particle has led some to use this phenomenon as confirming evidence that "static" thought was alien to the Hebrews, the latter thinking only in "dynamic" categories.” (My bold.)

* Hebrew: ani YHVH; ani is the personal pronoun “I.”

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Yes, I would.

Happy?

What if the Pope showed all the classic signs of delusional schizophrenia. Would you still believe what he had to say?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What if the Pope showed all the classic signs of delusional schizophrenia. Would you still believe what he had to say?

Is this a hypothetical question?