« Your Labor and the Two Great Commandments | Main | Challenge: Christians Are Narrow-Minded Bigots »

September 01, 2014

Comments

The Necessary Being - void of the contingent - is the Perfectly Free Being. We find no Duty, no Beholdeness, in the the motions we call Justice nor in those we call Mercy.

Ad infinitum.

The analogy becomes a wash in the Part-Less Singularity Who just is Triune Divine Simplicity.

Until we peer further........


The Necessary Being is the Perfectly Free Being.


The phrase, “God is under no moral obligation, no duty, not beholden to, offer Mercy, Ransom” will, rightly, arise. Also, the phrase, “God is under no moral obligation, no duty, not beholden to, offer Justice, Wrath” will, rightly, arise. And this is the case, ad infinitum, in all “directions” (to borrow the semantics of our contingent world of contingent parts). All analogies here then which juxtapose God and Man, or, God and X, end in what is overall a wash within the Part-Less Singularity Who just is Triune Divine Simplicity.


The Necessary Being on ontological regress has no Duty, no Obligation, no Restraint. He is Perfectly Free, and here the Physicalist / Determinist will rant that such cannot be, for surely we find in Him some-X contingent upon some-Y, all his semantics constrained by his contingent matrix made up of contingent parts. The physicalist / determinist knows no other language.


To say He is “unfree” because He cannot make round-squares takes nothing from Him. To say He is “unfree” because He cannot sin only just reveals an ignorance of Privation, of Insufficiency in that Privation – the Pure-Self in isolation as such stands in the Contingent Self (Man in our case) as compared to the Uncreated (Necessary) Self (God). Of course in Trinity God can and does motion into the Pure-Self and in doing so He lands on that which any Contingent Self never can land on: the Great I AM, on All-Sufficiency. On necessity He cannot – therein (as Man can) – extricate Lack, Want, Insufficiency (sin) with any motion inside of Privation, as the term Privation in His case just means All-Sufficiency. The assertion that the Necessary Being is unfree because He cannot be In-Sufficient is just as vacuous as the bit about round squares.


Perhaps it was WisdomLover who raised an issue of much import here in a post a few months ago and the liberty will be taken here to “stretch it out further” (without his permission) into some other (unintended or unexpressed on his part) lines that may be helpful: What “wins out”? His Impeccability? His Omnipotence? His Love? His Justice? His Mercy? His Wrath? What within an Unmoved Singularity moves an Unmoved Singularity wherein Volition is not the “Ocean” or the “Glue” or the “Sky” or the “Ground”, but rather where Volition Is The Whole-Show? It is not the I-AM volitionally amid Mercy here and Justice there. It is instead Wholly Volitional Mercy Himself Who is Wholly Volitional Justice Himself Who is……… ad infinitum. The semantics from here inside of our contingent matrix made up of contingent parts fail over there inside of what just is the Necessary Being. Wholly Free, Wholly Volitional Multiple Perfect Distincts just is the definition of Perfect Freedom.


Divine Simplicity frustrates the Physicalist / Determinist as much as the Triune’s Multiple Perfect Distincts frustrates him as he cannot get his physicalist thinking around that landscape void of the contingent over there in what just is Necessity’s Triune Divine Simplicity – the Singularity Who just is the Perfectly Free Being.


Ought: To the extent that we can see into what Justice “is” and what love “is” we can on some level say of Justice: Justice ought to pay here and deduct here. Or, love ought to give here and endure here and punish here and help here. These Oughts, notice, are not of [God] but of some paradigm which God asserts, circumscribes, fashions within the paradigm that is Man’s possible worlds, which are a reflection of some Perfect-Volition within Him. “Love ought to save” and “Justice ought to punish” are valid in so far as they make claims on their own particular vector, but are invalid if and when they attempt to extend such a claim to the Volitional Whole Himself Who is Wholly Volitional Mercy Himself Who is Wholly Volitional Justice Himself Who is Wholly Volitional Love Himself……… ad infinitum.


The farther we push this the more we begin to see just how it is that God just “cannot” be “under” a kind of compulsion or “beholden” to some form of “ought” for such would demand that He be literally diced up into ontological “volitional slices” all competing with each other, which is nonsense. If that were possible then God could tell a lie for then His Word would not be His-Power which is His-Self which is His……ad infinitum”.


The Physicalist / Determinist cannot fathom Divine Simplicity nor the Triune nor Perfect Love nor Perfect Justice nor Perfect Mercy nor Perfect Wrath nor Perfect Will all as the I, all as the Self, all as the Unmoved Mover. Perfect Freedom just is Perfect Freedom in all directions – whatever “direction” means amid the Part-Less Singularity Who is Perfectly Free. So, the Physicalist / Determinist just denies it on physicalist’s terms: God just must be made of parts and parts must just make Him unfree because…. because…. well physicalism, and because….. well…. because contingency. He speaks of some non-god god only with and in the terms he knows of from here inside of his contingent matrix made up of contingent parts.


We find no obligation in God to avoid lying. Huh? The determinist will rant: “But *god* is not free to lie! He “cannot” lie!”


So?


As if “the” Necessary Being’s “Word” is not His-Self is not His-Will is not His-Power is not His-Justice is not His-Mercy is not Actuality is not Reality is not the Necessary-Being is not Necessity. There inside of what just is the Singularity that just is Triune Divine Simplicity that is precisely what Word just is. There is no “Non-God-Part” which “God” (pause) “has”. From a slightly different direction: To say [Necessity Cannot Lie] is to say Necessity cannot command round squares to exist.


There are things unfree, obligated to move thusly, constrained to do this and not that, only, such are found unfree by contingency, and amid Necessary Multiple Perfect Distincts we cannot find Contingency, nor can we find Imperfection, nor can we find In-Sufficiency, as God just is that Part-Less Singularity that just is that Triune Divine Simplicity. If there is no contingent any-thing there can be no determined any-thing. There is only Freedom and that sort which houses Volitionality through and through just is the definition of Perfect Freedom.


The Critic wants to assert that if there is no contingent any-thing, there is still no freedom, but that is illogical, for a determined motion is so by its contingent-upon-X-status. But no such thing is found inside of the Part-Less Singularity of Triune Divine Simplicity.


Ascribing “God Can’t Do X” when X is some form of absurdity or some degree of In-Sufficiency or some form of Non-Actuality of He Who Is Actuality, Whose Word is His-Self is His-Power is His-Will is Actuality is Reality is Necessity, and so on, all Perfectly-Un-Contingent-Upon-X, all Perfectly Volitional, well……. all of those moves of the determinist fail ipso facto and leave Perfect Freedom untouched, unmoved, unchanged. The Necessary Being is the Perfectly Free Being.

A dive into the Abyss:

To say of the Necessary Being that He “has” “a” Nature is to ascribe a part to God, as in, there is God and there is some some-thing, some Part that “He” (pause) “has”. But the semantics here just do not work for the Necessary Being as He is not made of parts. The Necessary Being does not “have” “an” “X”. Many thus say of God that He does not “have a nature” in the sense that we tend to think of such semantics from here within our contingent matrix/universe. In The Necessary Being there is no such some-thing as a motion that is contingent-upon-X. The Physicalist will not like that – because all of his thinking is housed within a physical universe, a contingent world made up of contingent parts. Thus, he just keeps employing the only semantics he knows – that of parts, that of contingent-upon-X-motions. But “not liking” the fact that the Necessary Being is the Perfectly Free Being is not a defeater of any sort and grants the determinist no ability to ascribe Obligation, Duty, Have-To, Can-Not, and so on to the Singularity Who just is the Necessary-Being Who just is Triune-Divine-Simplicity Who just is Word Who just is Actuality.

Greg has noted the key difference in our understanding of why deistic thought is inadequate in framing God's essence.

Now as to the heart of Greg's opinion: "Does God owe His creation anything? Do parents owe their children anything?" I appreciate Greg's addressing of the weakness of this comparison, but I would offer another.

Is a house-builder, once he has committed to the building of a house, pledged to the integrity of his house and obligated to its maintenance?

Immutable Love creates.

Why?

It seems His Means therein are His Ends therein, which are - each - Immutable Love.

Such Means, such Ends, is where Man finds his Why, his How, his A, his Z.

The comments to this entry are closed.