The Perplexed Mosses Maimonides Disposition Of God

In the Guide to the perplexed Mosses Maimonides posits the idea that God can only be described only through his effects. To support his argument, he analyzes the five ways in which a thing can be described.
The first way is through the use of a full definition of the subject. Here Maimonides asserts that in order for a subject to be given a definition there must first be previous causes that constitute the definition. In relation to God, this way proves to be incompatible. God is eternal, making it impossible for there to be something prior to him. Moving forward, he addresses the second way which is essentially, a contraction of the first way. Instead of using the full definition, this way only uses a piece of the definition to describe the
subject. Not only is this way insufficient for the same reason as the first way (that being the inability to define God), even if God where definable, this way would still be subject to error, because God’s definition would not be composed of parts necessary for the function of the second way.
Unlike the first two ways the third way pertains to description through the use of qualities.
Maimonides describes four different types of quality that can be used to describe a subject: disposition, physical quality, passive quality, and quantity. Disposition is quality that is a manifested result of their choices of a subject (e.g. doctor, addict, priest). Physical qualities are established by the subject’s physical properties (e.g. firm, coarse, soft). Passive qualities are qualities are the result of external forces (e.g. emotion, temperature, pain). Quantities are qualities which measure a subject’s shape (e.g. length, curve, degree). Although, these qualities are frequently used to describe subjects, they are all inadequate when describing God. All qualities are accidental and do not pertain to the essence of a subject. Though this is true, even if qualities did describe a subject’s essence, they would not aid men in describing God, since God cannot have any qualities ascribed to him. Qualities of disposition cannot be ascribed, due to Gods already eternal presence omnipotence and knowledge. Therefore, he has no choices to make or end to move towards. Physical qualities can’t be assigned either because God is immaterial not material. Passive qualities don’t work due to there being no external forces acting upon God. Lastly, due to Gods infinitude he cannot be
quantified.
The fourth way is through the relation of one subject to another subject. In this way another subject that is in in the same class as the subject being described can be used to describe the subject. For example, an orange could be used to describe an apple because they both belong to the class of fruit. It would seem intuitive that God could be known through this way, even if the classes used where extremely broad. However, Maimonides asserts that this way is not sufficient because “the characteristic of two objects correlative to each other is the equality of their reciprocal relation. Now as God has absolute existence, while all other beings have only possible existence… there consequently cannot be any correlation.” (pg. 81). Essentially what is meant here is that despite, God being the creator of the world, the world has no relation to him because its existence was contingent upon his necessity. Maimonides holds this difference to be so profound that it would be like comparing intellect and sight. Thought the initial point made in Maimonides’s description of this way he does fortify his position by granting the initial point to be false for the sake of argument. If there was a relation made possible by this way, any attributes applied to God would be perverted. This would occur because known attributes are human constructs and can only be used in relation to the divine (i.e. they could be used analogously, but not literally).
Maimonides believes that God can be described through the fifth way. The fifth way is description by examination of a subject’s action. More specifically a subject can be known through its creations. For example an artist can be described by their created works. Similarly, God is believed to have created the world, therefore by examining the world knowledge can be gained such that broad descriptions can be given about God (e.g. God is powerful). Having summarized, Maimonides’s argument for negative theology I will analyze the validity of the argument and the effect it has had on my thinking and beliefs about God.
I have no quarrel with the first three ways; their logic is sound. The fourth way the however, causes me to hesitate. He argues that the material world cannot belong to the same class as God, and consequently the fourth way of description cannot be used. To an extent I can see his point, but the formal distinction he makes between necessary and possible existence lacks weight when examined. How can something that exists out of necessity create something unnecessary? Wouldn’t anything created by something necessary also be included in the necessity of the original things existence? It could be that I’m just hung up on a semantic argument that holds necessity to be synonyms with determined. Even so, if he is wrong about there being an unbridgeable gap between necessary and possible existence, the door is then open for description through the use of analogy. Beyond this though, the reason I choose to do my reflection on this reading is that his arguments are quite sound. If what was said is true I have wasted quite a bit of time on attempting to gain some sort of logical understanding of the divine. Even more so, I am left with faith alone to answer my questions. However, there is hope. Many of the claims made by Maimonides are contingent upon descriptions held in classical theism, most importantly the idea
that God created the world. If this proposition is removed the fifth way no longer holds weight. Furthermore, its absence would mean that our world existed co-eternally with God, allowing for the use of way four as a vessel for analogical descriptions of God. Although it may appear drastic to just remove the proposition that God created the world, Maimonides offers no real logical explanation for in this or any of his works.
In conclusion, the survival of most theological study hinges on the refutation of Maimonides’s proposition in way four. I have presented two solutions both of which seem plausible, but are likely false. Nonetheless, Aquinas offers strong arguments for analogical reasoning, these along with my convoluted ideas give my string bear beliefs some stability.