[1] Why Augustine’s Argument of Love is not Correct. A number of Anti Islamic Objection Makers often attack the Islamic Absolute Unicity Of Deity by using the old objection of Love: The argue that: Love is a Relative Attribute Of God and like all relative attributes it requires three terms. A] Love the Relative Attribute. B] An Agent or an Active Participle. In case of Love it is the Lover or One Who Loveth. C] An Object of the Relative Attribute , the Passive Participle . In case of Love it is the Beloved or One Who Is Loved. Love cannot exist with out the Agent of Love and the Object of love. As God is Love or a Lover there must be an Object Of Love since Eternity. As Divine Attributes are Eternally ascribed to God then this implies that Divine Love is Eternal. Implying an Object. Trinitarians assert that such an Object of the Divine Attribute of Love is the Second Hypostasis in the Per Se Subsistent Divine Essence/Ousia. In the time of Augustine the classifications of Divine Attributes were not so refined and this is a major cause for the error of Augustine . Most of the Christian Theologians agree that the Divine Attributes are Divided into two groups. They are as follow: 1] Absolute Attributes. 2] Relative Attributes. The include Attributes like Asiety , Eternity etc. in the first and Attributes like Mercy, Omniscience,Omnipotence etc. in the second. But the do not argue like Augustine otherwise the consequence is not acceptable to Athanasian Chrisitianity. For example consider the Divine Attribute OF Omniscience or Divine Knowledge. It faces the very same problem . It may be argued that as Divine Knowledge is a Relative Attribute ,three terms are required. 1] Agent of Knowledge i.e Knower 2] Object Of Knowledge i.e Known 3] The Relative Attribute. Applying Augustinian fallacy one may conclude the following results. 1]Now as Creation do not Exist in Eternity God Does not Know things in Eternity. As one of the two terms required for a relative attribute did not exist in Eternity. In more accurate sentences the second of the two terms was absent/existent in Eternity. [1]
[2] 2]Similarly as God Does not Know things that are not. Or the knowledge of God is not of things that are not. This means Divine Knowledge of Creations is not Eternal ,Since they were not in Eternity. Last and not the least that God Does NOT Know His Own Essence and His Own Self. This means God does not Know Himself and His Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia. Since there must be some sort of distinction between the Knower and the Known.
A proper response to such arguments may be given as follow:A]God Does Knoweth all things whatsoever that in any way are. It is possible that things that are not absolutely, should be in some certain senses. For things absolutely are which are actual; whereas things which are not actual, are in the power either of God Himself or of a creature, whether in active power, or passive; whether in power of thought or of imagination, or of any other manner of meaning whatsoever. Whatever therefore can be made, or thought, or said by the creature, as also whatever He Himself can do, all are known to God, although they are not actual. And in so far it can be said that He has knowledge even of things that are not.
1
[ ] A similar answer God Does Loveth all things whatsoever that in any way are. It is possible that things that are not absolutely, should be in some certain senses. For things absolutely are which are actual; whereas things which are not actual, are in the power either of God Himself or of a creature, whether in active power, or passive; whether in power of thought or of imagination, or of any other manner of meaning whatsoever. Whatever therefore can be made, or thought, or said by the creature, as also whatever He Himself can do, all are loved by God, although they are not actual. And in so far it can be said that He has Love even of things that are not. This answer does shew that if the Augustinian argument is stretched to its logical extreme implies that God is Eternally ignorant of things that are not but Also Eternally and Perpetually Knowledgelees about Himself and His Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia.
B] Those things that are not actual are true in so far as they are in potentiality; for it is true that they are
2
in potentiality; and as such they are known by God. [ ] This answer is correct for Divine Knowledge. A similar answer can be provided for the Divine Love ,given belw:=. Those things that are not actual are true in so far as they are in potentiality; for it is true that they are in potentiality; and as such they are loved by God. C] In Question XX Article 2 Summa Theologica one can find an objection which does exposes the fallacy of the Love Argument. Obj 2:[2]
[3] Further the love of God is Eternal. But the things apart from God are not from Eternity Except in God. There fore God Does not Love any thing Escept it exists in itself [God]. But Existing in Him, it is no other then Himself. There fore God does not love any thing other than Himself. Now the answer of Thomas very important. ReplyObj 2:=
3)
Although the creatures have not existed in Eternity , Except in God (
Yet because they have been in Him from Eternity , God Has Known them Eternally, in their proper natures and for that reason Love them , even as we by likeness within us , Known things in themselves. This Reply of Thomas proves that even he considers that God Love things which He Created in Eternity when the did not exist but were just Possibles or Contingents. Now we come to see that If God is Love then He Loveth Created things in the same way He Knoweth them Prior and Anterior to their Creation in the Eternity. This Shews that If God is an Eternal Love and an Eternal Lover , it is sufficient to love the things which He Eternally did Know that He Would Create Either in the Beginning or after the Beginning , and which did not Exist in the Infinite and Absolute Eternity. So even on this standard it is found that such argument is based on a fallacy. The Problem Of Arya Samaj. Generally Arya Samajis believe in the Eternity of the following things:= 1] God, 2] Parmanu [Atoms] and Prarikti [Matter] , 3] Human Spirits/Souls, 4] Shonia Akash [ Space] ,5] Vedas It may be the case that they even held time as Eternal how ever uptill now I did not find it in their works.
Ther are several argument for the Eternity of them one of them is often provided by them is as follow: God is an Eternal Lord. If God is Lord in Eternity then the Lord Ship requires two things, One Who Is the Lord and One of whom the previous Being is Lord of. If any one of them is absent or does not Exist God Ceases to Be Lord. If in Eternity God no thing Existed Except God then There was no thing of Which God was Lord Of. This implies that God was not the Lard in Eternity. God cannot be Lord of Himself sence it is necessary that One Who Has a Lard and One Who is a Lord must not be one and the same but different. So if Human
[3]
[4] souls , Permanu etc. are Not Eternal God is not Lord in Eternity. If God is Lord in Eternity then Eternity thing must Exist of whom God is Lord in Eternity . Although this is the most repeated argument of Arya Samajis and no Arya Samaji denies it, this argument does not require any reference to any particular book since in is the most repeated argument. Sawami Shardanand in his News Paper has Summarized the entire discussion in a sentence but in an abusing language: [If ]The natives of ARABS [Baddus] believe then it is not a new thing who believe God is Ever Lasting and Eternal but with out Matter etc. Lordship [M-lk] was but thing in Lordship [Milkiah] were absent. [Borrowed from Hudus e Veda Sanaullah Amrithsari] page 37 [ https://ia601709.us.archive.org/4/items/HudoosEVed/hudoos-e-ved.pdf ] If Arya Samajis have Existed in the time of Augustine they must have given a very tough time to him using his own argument which he used in an attempt to prove an other Rational Hypostasis beside Father in the Godhead of God , to prove the Eternity of Souls , Atoms, Shonia Akash etc.
But this is not the worst, a similar argument can be made for the Divinity of God which is presented as below:= If the Yahuvah is God since Eternity then there must be things in Eternity of which Yahuvah is God in the Eternity. Since to be God requires three things. 1] A being which is God. 2] A being of which the former mentioned being is God. 3] The relative Attribute of Divinity or Godhood/ Godship. If any one of the three is ABSENT in Eternity The Being Say who is called God ceases to be God, and His Essence or Ousia though Eternal Cannot be called Godhead. So when the Augustine’s argument is followed strictly the ultimate result is that there are Eternal Beings beside God and Hypostases in God and Godhead. In Sathyarath Parakash the Summa Theologica of Arya Samaj cult of Hinduism one may find some words to shew the point of view of Dianand:= 1]"The prakriti, the soul and God, all of them, are uncreated. They are the cause of the whole universe. They have no cause of the whole universe. They have no cause and have been existing eternally. The eternal soul enjoys the eternal matter and is wrapped up in it whilst God neither enjoys it, nor, is He wrapped up in it." SHWETA SHWATER UPNISHAD, 4: 5.
[4]
[5] 2]As "this universe was non-existent" means that it was non-existent as universe in their gross physical and visible form. But it existed in essence or in elementary form as the eternal prakriti. It was not nothing, God and the soul also were existent. Your quotations which begins with "Sarvam khualu" is nothing but a pot-pouri, for, you have taken parts of two verses from two different Upanishads and put them together and formed them into one sentence. "Sarva Khalu", etc., is tiken form the Chhaandogya Upanishad ( chapt III: 14, 1) and Nehanaanaaa, from the Katha Upnishad (chapt. II:4,11).
3] Q. When you hold that the soul and the Prakriti (matter) are eternal and were never created by God, why should He have any control over them, as they are independent? A.~ Just as a king and his subjects live contemporaneously and yet they are subject to him, so are the soul and the prakriti under the control of God. Why should not the soul, with its finite powers and the dead inert matter be subject to His powers when He creates the whole universe, awards souls the fruits of their deeds, protects and sustains all, and possess infinite powers. It is clear, therefore, that the soul is free to act, but is subject to the laws of God in reaping the fruits of its acts, while the Almighty God is the Creator, Protector and Sustainer of, the universe. (
4)
4] When the time of Creation comes, God gathers those extremely subtle particles (called Paramaanus). The first principle that is produced out of the highly subtle elementary prakriti, is called Mahaatatva – the principle of wisdom - which is one degree less subtle than the prakriti. Out of the Mahaatatva is evolved Ahankaara - the principle of individuality - which is still less subtle and in its turn gives rise to the five subtle principles, called Bhuts, besides the five principles of sensation and five principles of action and the principle of attention which are all a little less subtle than the principle of individuality. The five subtle bhuts, by passing through various stages of less subtle conditions of matter, are finally transformed into five least subtle states of matter, such as solids, liquids, etc. From the latter spring up various kinds of trees, plants, etc., which are the source of food, and out of food is produced the reproductive element which is cause of the body. [This paragraph signifies that Time is Pre Existent and Eternal and Uncreated]
5] In question chapter 7 the same author also says:
In the same way, the soul and the material objects can never be separate from God as He pervades them, nor, all, can they be one with Him as they are in nature different from Him as they are in nature different from Him. Before a house is built, the earth, water, iron and other building materials are found to exist in space; after a house is built they will exist in space, and continue to do so even after it is demolished and the material composing it scattered broad-cast; in short, the building material can never be separate from space, nor, can it being different in nature, ever be one with it. [This dogma is if Neither One Nor Separate]
Im question 19 article 3 Thomas answers an objection known as Objection 6 [5]
[6]
Objection 6: Further, whatever God knows, He knows necessarily. But as the divine knowledge is His essence, so is the divine will. Therefore whatever God wills, He wills necessarily. Reply to Objection 6: As the divine essence is necessary of itself, so is the divine will and the divine knowledge; but the divine knowledge has a necessary relation to the thing known; not the divine will to the thing willed. The reason for this is that knowledge is ofthings as they exist in the knower; but the will is directed to things as they exist in themselves. Since then all other things have necessary existence inasmuch as they exist in God; but no absolute necessity so as to be necessary in themselves, inso far as they exist in themselves; it follows that God knows necessarily whatever He wills, but does not will necessarily whatever He wills. This shews that God Knoweth Necessarily what he willeth but the doeth not willeth necessarily what he Knoweth. This does shew that at best if Divine Love is like Divine Will then at best it can be said God Knoweth What he Loveth but the converse is not true. How ever this result may not be according to the views of Aquinas how ever one may consider this at worst and even then this means that Divine Love does not cease to be in Eternity and does not require any Hypostasis. As for Divine Love according to Aquinas Thomas Divine Love is the First Movement of Will.
Also according to Thomas to love a person is to wish that person good. So it is clear that God need not a Hypostasis in order to be love in Eternity. Although one may discuss many things , it is very clear that the argument of Augustine in his book "On the Trinity" [De Trinitate]
did not made a good argument. Even if God has a Hypostasis atleast one in His Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia this argument is incorrect and invalid. [6]
[7] It is hoped that Augustine’s Argument has been proved to be not correct. Differences and Similarities Relative Attributes of Deity may have some mutual differences yet they have one thing common. The Pre Exist with the First term and do not require the second term . Also they are believed to be Divine Essence/Ousia in Christian Theology. For Example Deity Knoweth all that He Willeth but Deity Willeth not All that He Knoweth. This is a strict proof that Divine Relative Attributes cannot have such differences as suggested by Aygustine. Even Augustine did not argue from the Eternity of other relative Attributes. If he had then the number of Hypostases must have gone beyond the number three. An other Divine Attribute is Omnipotence. It must be known that Deity Knowth all Things that are in His Omnipotence but Deity Doeth not Have Omnipotence over all things that are in His Knowledge. Since Contradictions and implied Contradictions etc. are not in Divine Omnipotence but in Divine Omniscience [Knowledge]. Thomas also says:=
I answer that, As was said above (Question 7, Article 2), there does not fall under the scope of God's omnipotence anything that implies a contradiction. Now that the past should not have been implies a contradiction. The reference is quoted as follow: . Reply to Objection 2: As God, in accordance with the perfection of the divine power, can do all things, and yet some things are not subject to His power, because they fall short of being possible; so, also, if we regard the immutability of the divine power, whatever God [7]
[8]
could do, He can do now. Some things, however, at one time were in the nature of possibility, whilst they were yet to be done, which now fall short of the nature of possibility, when they have been done. So is God said not to be able to do them, because they themselves cannot be done. Q7:A2:Reply to obj 2 Thus it is clear that even relative Attributes of Deity differ from Attribute to Attribute yet one this is common to all of them that they do not require the the existence of Object term as suggested incorrectly. So the Divine Love does not makes an exception. The Basic Problem It may be accepted that in Human Beings in particular and in Created Rational Supposita in General things are different yet their IMPERFECTIONS cannot be applied to DEITY . So If a Human Love cannot Love the Very Human or a Human Being cannot Love Himself it is due to the imperfection of Human Love and not due to the impossibility of Loving one Self. Egotism , Egoism, and Egoness It is often said that the love of once one self is Egoism , Egotism or Egoness, etc .it is Certainly incorrect to analogue Divine Love for himself with terms made by human beings for the imperfect attributes of human beings. Thomas says that:
I answer that, Since to love a thing is to will it good, in a twofold way anything may be loved more, or less. In one way on the part of the act of the will itself, which is more or less intense. In this way God does not love some things more than others, because He loves all things by an act of the will that is one, simple, and always the same. Question20, Article 3, In the beginning portion after objections.
[8]
[9]
Thomas also says: Reply to Objection 2: Although God necessarily wills His own goodness, He does not necessarily will things willed on account of His goodness; for it can exist without other things. Question 19 Article 3Reply to objection 2 This shews that Deity can Will His Good and this can be the Divine Love for Himself.
(1) See Summa Thelogica by Aquinas Thomas (2) See Summa Theolica by Aquinas Thomas. (3) The meaning “To be In God� or To Exist in God is also explained By Thomas which may be seen Question:-XVIII Reply Obj#1
Reply to Objection 1: Creatures are said to be in God in a twofold sense. In one way, so far are they are held together and preserved by the divine power; even as we say that things that are in our power are in us. And creatures are thus said to be in God, even as they exist in their own natures. In this sense we must understand the words of the Apostle when he says, "In Him we live, move, and be"; since our being, living, and moving are themselves caused by God. In another sense things are said to be in God, as in Him who knows them, in which sense they are in God through their proper ideas, which in God are not distinct
from the Divine Essence. Hence things as they are in God are the Divine Essence. And since the Divine Essence is life and not movement, it follows that things existing in God in this manner are not movement, but life. 4] http://www.aryasamajjamnagar.org/chaptereight.htm
[9]