Damascene Ontology – How we know God is love


Some might desire to reject the Trinity for various reasons, but such a rejection would actually be extremely unwise. Since we know via the Damascene Cosmological argument that God is unnecessary and must be an unmoved mover (immutable), many theistic beliefs take for granted the idea that God is love. However, I wish to prove that if God is love then he must be Trinitarian. If we can prove that God is love (or accept the presupposition with reasons to embrace such a presupposition) then we can prove that God is Trinity. Thus, if God is necessary and God is love, then God is necessarily Trinity.

How would we go about proving that God is love? For instance, we could simply have a Deistic God who created all things and simply left them to be, growing disinterested in them or lacking a way to relate to them. How can we call such a God loving? I would argue that it is in the very act of creation that we find proof that God is love, but first we must define what love is.

In our modern Western minds, love is a muddled idea. When we describe sex, we call it “making love.” We use the same term “love” to describe an intense like for something (like ice cream or boating). We also use the word “love” to describe what occurs between a husband and wife. I believe that because we use this word so often, so flippantly, and ascribe so many meanings to it that we have lost a sense of what true love is. I want to look at some of the definitions the world offers as an idea of “true love” and show how all of these definitions are inadequate and how there is only one definition of love that defines true love, a love that all other forms of love flow from. Continue reading

Advertisements

The Cosmological Argument of St. John of Damascus


St. John of Damascus

For those unfamiliar with philosophical terms, “cosmological”  simply means “an explanation of the beginning.” So to say something is a “cosmological argument” merely means, “It’s an argument about why everything exists.”

I have been reading bits and pieces of St. John of Damascus’ book The Orthodox Faith. I’m currently re-working my way through Peter Kreeft’s Socratic Logic mostly so I can read the first part of St. John’s book Fountain of Knowledge (I’m rusty on my terms). In reading over the third chapter of The Orthodox Faith, St. John presents a solid cosmological argument:

All things, that exist, are either created or uncreated. If, then, things are created, it follows that they are also wholly mutable. For things, whose existence originated in change, must also be subject to change, whether it be that they perish or that they become other than they are by act of will. But if things are uncreated they must in all consistency be also wholly immutable. For things which are opposed in the nature of their existence must also be opposed in the mode of their existence, that is to say, must have opposite properties: who, then, will refuse to grant that all existing things, not only such as come within the province of the senses, but even the very angels, are subject to change and transformation and movement of various kinds? For the things appertaining to the rational world, I mean angels and spirits and demons, are subject to changes of will, whether it is a progression or a retrogression in goodness, whether a struggle or a surrender; while the others suffer changes of generation and destruction, of increase and decrease, of quality and of movement in space. Things then that are mutable are also whollycreated. But things that are created must be the work of some maker, and the maker cannot have been created. For if he had been created, he also must surely have been created by some one, and so on till we arrive at something uncreated. TheCreator, then, being uncreated, is also wholly immutable. And what could this be other than Deity?

St. John had a classical education, so he puts the argument in the form of a syllogism. If we were to break that syllogism down it would read something like this:

(1) All things are either created or uncreated
(1a) If they are created then they are changeable
(1b) If they are uncreated then they are unchangeable
(2) All beings that fall within our experience are changeable
(3) All of these things have therefore been created and require a creator
(4) The creator, by logical necessity, would have to be uncreated and therefore unchangeable (we can’t have an infinite regression of “p created q who created r, ad infinitum“).
(5) By definition, such a creator would be called God

Logically, this is a solid argument. The premises follow one another and therefore provide a proper conclusion. If something is changeable, then it is created and requires a creator. If something is unchangeable, then it is not created and therefore does not require a creator.

Though the argument is valid, the question then becomes if the premises and conclusion are true. In a valid argument, the conclusion logically follows the premises, thus if the premises are true and the argument is valid, then the conclusion is also true.

So let us look at the premises:

Continue reading