Jay’s Analysis – Eastern Theology Versus Latin Theology

April 3, 2013 2 Comments

What are the central differences between Latin and Eastern theology? Is there are common thread of difference that gives rise to two different approaches to divinity, knowledge, revelation and eschatology? Yes, I argue. I discuss Augustine, Aquinas, absolute divine simplicity as borrowed from Aristotle and Plato, the Logos, the Greek triad, I Am as “pure being,” Anselm, the analogia entis/chain of being, apophatic theology, theosis, created grace, divine energies, divine ideas, and the supposed ‘beatific vision.’

For the WMA audio file, right click

and “save as”

“By accepting the teachings of Plato on unchangeable species and identifying these with the Divine Essence, Augustine established the analogy between created and Uncreated, based on which he and the Franco-latins would research the Divine Essence through the in-world created icons of the uncreated archetypal species in God.” -Fr John Romanides, Dogmatic and Symbolic Theology of the Orthodox Catholic Church I, p. 382

Filed under Audio/mp3, Bible, Esoteric/Speculation, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology/Sociology, The Jay Show, Theology, Video Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Some Problems for the Ontological Argument: Metaphysical, Epistemic and Theological

May 7, 2011 5 Comments

 

The great chain of being.

By: Jay

(c) copyright 

The ontological argument of Anselm of Canterbury has long since captivated the minds of many philosophers and apologists. Not long after Anselm published his Proslogion, his devotional apologetic was criticized by Gaunilo, yet Anselm’s argument was taken up by many of the West’s most prominent thinkers, such as Descartes and Leibniz, both giving their own versions. One of the strongest arguments against Anselm would be Immanuel Kant’s, who centered his objection around the notion that “being” is not a predicate.1 The purpose of this paper will be to analyze other problems, particularly theological, metaphysical and epistemological problems in the classical Anselmian formulation.

Anselm’s argument simply stated is as follows:

And certainly this being so truly exists that it cannot even be thought not to exist. For something can be thought to exist that cannot be thought not to exist, and this is greater than that which cannot be thought not to exist. Hence, if that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought can be thought not to exist, then that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought is not the same as that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought, which is absurd. Something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists so truly then, that it cannot be even thought not to exist. And you, Lord our God, are this being.2

 

Plantinga gives the form of the argument as follows, arguing it is best formulated as a reductio ad absurdum argument:

 

  1. God exists in the understanding, but not in reality. (assumption for reductio)

  2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (premise)

  3. A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (premise)

  4. A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality is greater than God. (from 1 and 2)

  5. A being greater than God cannot be conceived. (3,4)

  6. It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived. (by definition of ‘God.’)

  7. Hence it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (1-6 reductio ad absurdum).3 Read more of this post

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Books/Literature, History, Philosophy, Religion, Theology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 155 other followers