tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post115369828725484183..comments2023-10-12T10:09:54.121-04:00Comments on Believing is Knowing: God's Will Part 1 - Can God have will?David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-1153894503179404702006-07-26T02:15:00.000-04:002006-07-26T02:15:00.000-04:00Once again, you've given me much to digest.Once again, you've given me much to digest.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13441809988487585009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-1153763768857704372006-07-24T13:56:00.000-04:002006-07-24T13:56:00.000-04:00I have been looking for the original hebrew for ye...<I>I have been looking for the original hebrew for years</I><BR/><BR/>Here it is:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.teachittome.com/seforim2/seforim/milchamos_hashem.pdf" REL="nofollow">http://www.teachittome.com/seforim2/seforim/milchamos_hashem.pdf</A><BR/><BR/>You can print it out and take it to kinkos where they will happily bind it for you. I often do this with text that are no longer available in the book stores.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13441809988487585009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-1153753257486994322006-07-24T11:00:00.000-04:002006-07-24T11:00:00.000-04:00Some Guy, Come to think of it I do have one volume...Some Guy, Come to think of it I do have one volume at home prfobably the one you refer to. i'll check tonight.<BR/><BR/>I have been looking for the original hebrew for years. I think there was a scholarly edition in the 60's but I cannot get my hand on it.David Guttmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-1153751764106778152006-07-24T10:36:00.000-04:002006-07-24T10:36:00.000-04:00I don't know whether the translation is available ...I don't know whether the translation is available online. The quote comes out of <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0827602758/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/102-9433438-1726557?ie=UTF8" REL="nofollow">volume 2</A>, which is available on Amazon (used copies as well). There, it is on p.110. If you want to find it in the Hebrew, it would be in Chapter 3 of Book 3, "Divine Knowledge." <BR/><BR/>My reading of Ralbag is that he is unhappy with the entire idea of absolute equivocation. Rather, when we use terms to describe attributes of God, these terms <B>must</B> mean the same thing with respect to us and with respect to God. That is not to say that God's "knowledge" is identical as our "knowledge," but nevertheless, the term "knowledge" must mean the same thing in both cases. He goes into a discussion of primary and secondary attribution (i.e., attributes are predicated of God primarily, and his creatures secondarily), which I believe is intended to provide a resolution to his critique of Maimonides. I'm not sure I completely understand what he is trying to say here, though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-1153728803681968052006-07-24T04:13:00.000-04:002006-07-24T04:13:00.000-04:00Some guy, Thank you for your quote. Is Feldman's t...Some guy, Thank you for your quote. Is Feldman's translation available on line? (I have the Milchamot in Hebrew downloaded from Seforim.org - could you please give me the reference for your quote?)<BR/><BR/>The way I read the Ralbag ultimately we do not understand the term of the attribute as it applies to God. His argument is that for example movable, it could apply to God even if he is not a body, because it would have another meaning. It comes down to semantics. Ultimately God is unknowable.Correct me if I am wrong.David Guttmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-1153705533112826442006-07-23T21:45:00.000-04:002006-07-23T21:45:00.000-04:00I believe "b. spinoza" above is referencing Gerson...I believe "<B>b. spinoza</B>" above is referencing Gersonides' objection to absolute equivocation. I find Gersonides' argument to be completely convincing, but his solution less so. Here is some of the objection, from Feldman's translation:<BR/><BR/><I>...since it is clear when we deny attributes of God that are found in us that such attributes are not completely equivocal with respect to God (may he be blessed) and us, the same is true when we affirm of God predicates that are true of us. For example, we say that God is immovable, since if He were movable He would be a body, for all movable objects [are bodies]. Now it is evident that in this proposition the term "movable" is not completely equivocal with respect to the term "movable" when it is applied to nondivine things. For if it were, there would be no proof that God is not movable, since the movable object that must be a body is that which is movable in the domain of human phenomena, whereas the term "movable" (in the completely equivocal sense) would not imply that it is a body. Hence, since it is evident that the predicates we deny of God are not absolutely equivocal, neither are the terms that we affirm of Him. <B>In general, if the terms used in affirming predicates of Him were absolutely equivocal, there would be no term applicable to things in our world that would be more appropriate to deny than to affirm of God or [more appropriate] to affirm that to deny of Him.</B> For example, someone could say "God is a body" but not mean by the term "body," "a magnitude"; rather he would mean something that is completely equivocal with the term "body" as we usually use it. Similarly, someone could say "God does not have knowledge," since the term knowledge would not [on this view] have the same meaning for him in this statement as it does for us. (v.2 p.110)</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-1153703948476868772006-07-23T21:19:00.000-04:002006-07-23T21:19:00.000-04:00>That's not fair. Aristotle was referring to the c...>That's not fair. Aristotle was referring to the concept which we human's call will.<BR/><BR/>That is correct. But Rambam shows that although Aristotle seems to have been aware that God's will is totally different, he chose to ignore it.rambam feels that he was playing with and being disengenious. read Moreh 2:15.David Guttmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-1153703192925826912006-07-23T21:06:00.000-04:002006-07-23T21:06:00.000-04:00>In other words Aristotle’s position is not only t...>In other words Aristotle’s position is not only that God has no will but also that it is impossible that He should have any.<BR/><BR/>And you say you disagree with Aristotle who says that God can't possibly have Will. But then say that when you say God has will is something altogether different from what we call will. That's not fair. Aristotle was referring to the concept which we human's call will.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13441809988487585009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-1153702119530656052006-07-23T20:48:00.000-04:002006-07-23T20:48:00.000-04:00Irviner, please read my post again carefully. Will...Irviner, please read my post again carefully. Will is only a term used by man to describe the impulse that urges him to do something. It is therefore used in describing what we would imagine God would need to act, knowing full well that it is something else altogether.David Guttmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-1153701616277388522006-07-23T20:40:00.000-04:002006-07-23T20:40:00.000-04:00Will Also needs to be defined better.Its common to...Will Also needs to be defined better.<BR/><BR/>Its common to say that animals have will, but it is not so common to say that a commet hurling through space has will, or that water has will.<BR/><BR/>But on some level, those things do have a will. Its jut not a free will in any sense of the word, there is no choice whatsoever.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13441809988487585009noreply@blogger.com