2

What are all of the divine attributes, and in which way is each of them predicted of God (univocal, equivocal or analogical way; if in an analogical way, what kind of analogy)?

An answer should be given from the viewpoint of Aquinas (or/and from his faithful commentators).

  • Too broad; you're asking four questions simultaneously. Please ask one question at a time. – Geremia Oct 27 '19 at 5:16
  • 1
    @CharlesMSaunders I think that Spinoza's conception of God is not even the same as Aquinas. If I remember correctly, Spinoza says that God is cause of himself? – Thom Oct 28 '19 at 11:27
  • 1
    @Thom I've seen lots of questions where that only indicates an optional preference, not a requirement. We're all interest in lots of things. Anyways, hope my suggested edit helps. If it is limited to just Aquinas then that means the question isn't too broad because that's a fixed and closed list, no one can go adding to it now that he's dead! – curiousdannii Oct 28 '19 at 13:10
  • 1
    @curiousdannii I can not accept an edit which says "identified by Aquinas". Maybe Aquinas did not identify something explicitly, but it can be deduced from principles that he set forth. – Thom Oct 28 '19 at 13:13
  • 2
    Does Aquinas really say anywhere or imply that we can know or even conceive all of God's attributes ? – Geoffrey Thomas Oct 30 '19 at 9:32
5
+100

God's attributes known negatively

Following St. Damascene (De Fide Orth. i, 4), St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica I q. 2 a. 2 arg. 2):

we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist

This is called apophatic theology; ἀποϕατικός = negative.

This is the manner in which we know the divine attributes by natural reason:

Summa Contra Gentiles I c. 14 "That to know God we must use the way of remotion" (i.e., proceed by saying what God is not):

  1. We have shown that there exists a first being, whom we call God. We must, accordingly, now investigate the properties of this being.

  2. Now, in considering the divine substance, we should especially make use of the method of remotion. For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not. Furthermore, we approach nearer to a knowledge of God according as through our intellect we are able to remove more and more things from Him. For we know each thing more perfectly the more fully we see its differences from other things; for each thing has within itself its own being, distinct from all other things. So, too, in the case of the things whose definitions we know. We locate them in a genus, through which we know in a general way what they are. Then we add differences to each thing, by which it may be distinguished from other things. In this way, a complete knowledge of a substance is built up.

  3. However, in the consideration of the divine substance we cannot take a what as a genus; nor can we derive the distinction of God from things by differences affirmed of God. For this reason, we must derive the distinction of God from other beings by means of negative differences. And just as among affirmative differences one contracts the other, so one negative difference is contracted by another that makes it to differ from many beings. For example, if we say that God is not an accident, we thereby distinguish Him from all accidents. Then, if we add that He is not a body, we shall further distinguish Him from certain substances. And thus, proceeding in order, by such negations God will be distinguished from all that He is not. Finally, there will then be a proper consideration of God’s substance when He will be known as distinct from all things. Yet, this knowledge will not be perfect, since it will not tell us what God is in Himself.

Divine Attributes

God is not

  1. material → divine simplicity (I q. 3; SCG I c. 17)

  2. lacking anything (having passive potentiality) → God is perfect (I q. 4; SCG I c. 16)

  3. limited → infinity of God (I q. 7; SCG I c. 43)

  4. changeable → immutability of God (I q. 9)

  5. bound in time → eternity of God (I q. 10)

  6. multiple/composite → unity of God (I q. 11; SCG I c. 42)

  7. ignorant → knowing (SCG I c. 44)

  8. in a genus (SCG I c. 25)
    etc.

Also, Fr. Hardon, S.J., defines "divine attributes" as

The perfections of God, which, according to a human way of thinking, proceed from and belong to the essence of God. In reality the divine attributes are identical among themselves and with the divine essence. Theology distinguishes the attributes from the essence because they correspond, in human language, to different properties in creatures which reflect, so to speak, the perfections of God.

God known by analogy of proportion, not attribution

Summa Contra Gentiles I c. 34, "That names said of God and creatures are said analogically":

  1. From what we have said, therefore, it remains that the names said of God and creatures are predicated neither univocally nor equivocally but analogically, that is, according to an order or reference to something one.

  2. This can take place in two ways. In one way [analogy of attribution], according as many things have reference to something one. Thus, with reference to one health we say that an animal is healthy as the subject of health, medicine is healthy as its cause, food as its preserver, urine as its sign.

  3. In another way [analogy of proportion], the analogy can obtain according as the order or reference of two things is not to something else but to one of them. Thus, being is said of substance and accident according as an accident has reference to a substance, and not according as substance and accident are referred to a third thing.

  4. Now, the names said of God and things are not said analogically according to the first mode of analogy [of attribution], since we should then have to posit something prior to God, but according to the second mode [analogy of proportion].

  5. In this second mode of analogical predication the order according to the name and according to reality is sometimes found to be the same and sometimes not. For the order of the name follows the order of knowledge, because it is the sign of an intelligible conception. When, therefore, that which is prior in reality is found likewise to be prior in knowledge, the same thing is found to be prior both according to the meaning of the name and according to the nature of the thing. Thus, substance is prior to accident both in nature, in so far as substance is the cause of accident, and in knowledge, in so far as substance is included in the definition of accident. Hence, being is said of substance by priority over accident both according to the nature of the thing and according to the meaning of the name. But when that which is prior in nature is subsequent in our knowledge, then there is not the same order in analogicals according to reality and according to the meaning of the name. Thus, the power to heal, which is found in all health-giving things, is by nature prior to the health that is in the animal, as a cause is prior to an effect; but because we know this healing power through an effect, we likewise name it from its effect. Hence it is that the health-giving is prior in reality, but animal is by priority called healthy according to the meaning of the name.

  6. Thus, therefore, because we come to a knowledge of God from other things, the reality in the names said of God and other things belongs by priority in God according to His mode of being, but the meaning of the name belongs to God by posteriority. And so He is said to be named from His effects.

|improve this answer|||||
  • These attributes which God is not, are all negation of univocal terms? Are there any more of them? – Thom Oct 28 '19 at 22:12
  • Also, by which kind of analogy (attribution or/and proper proportionality) we can know positively some attributes of God, and is there a complete list of those attributes? – Thom Oct 28 '19 at 22:52
  • 1
    @Thom Terms themselves are not analogical, univocal, or equivocal; predications are. – Geremia Oct 29 '19 at 0:20
  • It would seem that we can express perfections via the analogy of attribution. Let us look, for example, two sentences, God is good and Angel is good. Angel really possesses goodness formally, and God has a relation to that because he is a cause of goodness in every creature. That is the same type of speech as it is when we say Animal is healthy and Medicine is healthy and that is the analogy of attribution. Is that correct? – Thom Oct 29 '19 at 11:16
  • 1
    @Thom See: Pohle-Preuss vol. 1 pt. 3 ch. 1 §1 art. 1 §§3 "How the Created Perfections are Contained in God." Also: ibid. pt. 1 ch. 2 §1 art. 2 "The Threefold Mode of Knowing God Here on Earth." – Geremia Jan 5 at 1:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.