Is water wet?

Calvinist · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:08 pm

pax wrote:

GKC wrote:

Calvinist wrote:

Chris G wrote:

pax wrote:

Actually, the real question here is: Can God make dry water?

Yes He can. And He can make so much of it that even He can't lift it up.

No....he really can't. God can't violate his nature. By nature he is omnipotent. So he acts within his nature.

But inquiring minds want to know.....how many angels really CAN dance on the head of a needle?

By the School solution, all of them.

GKC

I agree. Since angels are pure spirits and occupy zero space, and the head of a pin occupies some space, then not only all of them, but an infinite number of them.

Is there an infinite number of them?

pax · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:11 pm

Calvinist wrote:

pax wrote:

GKC wrote:

Calvinist wrote:

how many angels really CAN dance on the head of a needle?

By the School solution, all of them.

GKC

I agree. Since angels are pure spirits and occupy zero space, and the head of a pin occupies some space, then not only all of them, but an infinite number of them.

Is there an infinite number of them?

No.

gherkin · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:20 pm

GKC wrote:

gherkin wrote:

GKC wrote:

By the School solution, all of them.

There is no School solution, since the "question" post-dates the Schools. :fyi:

I trust you on this, though I have read otherwise. So, would you agree all can stand on the head? If not, why not?

If an angel were spatially located in such a way that he could be (metaphorically) described as standing on the head of a pin, his presence there would not prevent the presence of any (or all) other separate substances in that same space. But strictly speaking, the spatial "location" of angels is by way of exercise of their power, and not by way of material presence: the angel does not occupy space. And hence the supposition in the first sentence above is false: angels are not spatially located in such a way that they could be even metaphorically described as standing on the head of a pin. And their presence in a place by their power is definitive: it excludes the presence of another angel there at the same time.

I am summing up in quite an ugly way the contents of this question: http://newadvent.org/summa/1052.htm

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm **Posts:** 19648

pax wrote:

GKC wrote:

Calvinist wrote:

Chris G wrote:

pax wrote:

Actually, the real question here is: Can God make dry water?

Yes He can. And He can make so much of it that even He can't lift it up.

No....he really can't. God can't violate his nature. By nature he is omnipotent. So he acts within his nature.

But inquiring minds want to know.....how many angels really CAN dance on the head of a needle?

By the School solution, all of them.

GKC

I agree. Since angels are pure spirits and occupy zero space, and the head of a pin occupies some space, then not only all of them, but an infinite number of them.

So I understand it. Not extended substance.

GKC

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm **Posts:** 19648

gherkin wrote:

GKC wrote:

gherkin wrote:

GKC wrote:

By the School solution, all of them.

There is no School solution, since the "question" post-dates the Schools. :fyi:

I trust you on this, though I have read otherwise. So, would you agree all can stand on the head? If not, why not?

If an angel were spatially located in such a way that he could be (metaphorically) described as standing on the head of a pin, his presence there would not prevent the presence of any (or all) other separate substances in that same space. But strictly speaking, the spatial "location" of angels is by way of exercise of their power, and not by way of material presence: the angel does not occupy space. And hence the supposition in the first sentence above is false: angels are not spatially located in such a way that they could be even metaphorically described as standing on the head of a pin. And their presence in a place by their power is definitive: it excludes the presence of another angel there at the same time.

I am summing up in quite an ugly way the contents of this question: http://newadvent.org/summa/1052.htm

I am thus instructed. I think I recall a manner to skate around this, but I stand informed, in an area that I don't pretend is one of my hobbies.

GKC

Chris G · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:10 pm

Calvinist wrote:

Chris G wrote:

pax wrote:

Actually, the real question here is: Can God make dry water?

Yes He can. And He can make so much of it that even He can't lift it up.

No....he really can't.

Oh so you think there is something God can't do? With God, all things are possible. Matthew 19:26

pax · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:15 pm

GKC wrote:

gherkin wrote:

GKC wrote:

gherkin wrote:

GKC wrote:

By the School solution, all of them.

There is no School solution, since the "question" post-dates the Schools. :fyi:

I trust you on this, though I have read otherwise. So, would you agree all can stand on the head? If not, why not?

If an angel were spatially located in such a way that he could be (metaphorically) described as standing on the head of a pin, his presence there would not prevent the presence of any (or all) other separate substances in that same space. But strictly speaking, the spatial "location" of angels is by way of exercise of their power, and not by way of material presence: the angel does not occupy space. And hence the supposition in the first sentence above is false: angels are not spatially located in such a way that they could be even metaphorically described as standing on the head of a pin. And their presence in a place by their power is definitive: it excludes the presence of another angel there at the same time.

I am summing up in quite an ugly way the contents of this question: http://newadvent.org/summa/1052.htm

I am thus instructed. I think I recall a manner to skate around this, but I stand informed, in an area that I don't pretend is one of my hobbies.

GKC

O my. That does put a whole new spin on it, doesn't it.

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm **Posts:** 19648

pax wrote:

O my. That does put a whole new spin on it, doesn't it.

It doesn't quite follow what I read once, but reading once is not necessarily knowing/understanding.

GKC

pax · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:12 pm

GKC wrote:

pax wrote:

O my. That does put a whole new spin on it, doesn't it.

It doesn't quite follow what I read once, but reading once is not necessarily knowing/understanding.

GKC

Well, it does make me wonder if our souls, which also occupy no space, will also only be spatially located by the power they exert.

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:27 pm

With respect to the original question, I answer that:

The wetness of water depends on how we define the word wet. Wiktionary offers two relevant definitions of wet. The first is: "Of an object, etc, covered with or impregnated with liquid." By this definition, water itself is not wet formally but only eminently--that is to say, it has the power to cause wetness without itself being wet. The second definition is: "Made up of liquid or moisture." By this definition, water is wet. But even by this second definition, the wetness that water imparts to something else is wetness only by analogy, not univocally.

Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish. :fyi:

pax · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:44 pm

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

With respect to the original question, I answer that:

The wetness of water depends on how we define the word wet. Wiktionary offers two relevant definitions of wet. The first is: "Of an object, etc, covered with or impregnated with liquid." By this definition, water itself is not wet formally but only eminently--that is to say, it has the power to cause wetness without itself being wet. The second definition is: "Made up of liquid or moisture." By this definition, water is wet. But even by this second definition, the wetness that water imparts to something else is wetness only by analogy, not univocally.

Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish. :fyi:

"And," laughed Frodo, "it is also said: Go not to the Jedi for counsel for they will say both yes and no."

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm **Posts:** 19648

pax wrote:

GKC wrote:

[quot,e="pax"]

O my. That does put a whole new spin on it, doesn't it.

It doesn't quite follow what I read once, but reading once is not necessarily knowing/understanding.

GKC

Well, it does make me wonder if our souls, which also occupy no space, will also only be spatially located by the power they exert.[/quote]

I would ( I speak in ignorance) not have assumed souls to possess a spatial location, at all. Glorified bodies, maybe.

This wanders far from WWII and Chesterton.

GKC

Chris G · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:26 pm

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

With respect to the original question, I answer that:

The wetness of water depends on how we define the word wet. Wiktionary offers two relevant definitions of wet. The first is: "Of an object, etc, covered with or impregnated with liquid." By this definition, water itself is not wet formally but only eminently--that is to say, it has the power to cause wetness without itself being wet. The second definition is: "Made up of liquid or moisture." By this definition, water is wet. But even by this second definition, the wetness that water imparts to something else is wetness only by analogy, not univocally.

Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish. :fyi:

That was gonna be my second answer but I got distracted and never got around to posting it.

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:29 pm

I figured, and I wanted to save you the trouble. I'm thoughtful like that. :fyi:

Cyprian · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:52 pm

What I want to know is: when the nearly-infinite number of angels are standing on the head of a pin, will they feel the wetness of dehydrated water when it is added to instant water tablets and secondly: if dehydrated water freezes is it still wet?

pax · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:19 pm

Cyprian wrote:

What I want to know is: when the nearly-infinite number of angels are standing on the head of a pin, will they feel the wetness of dehydrated water when it is added to instant water tablets and secondly: if dehydrated water freezes is it still wet?

I'll get back to you on that.

Chris G · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:25 am

Cyprian wrote:

What I want to know is: when the nearly-infinite number of angels are standing on the head of a pin, will they feel the wetness of dehydrated water when it is added to instant water tablets and secondly: if dehydrated water freezes is it still wet?

How many angels short of infinity are we talking?

gherkin · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:29 am

At least 7. :fyi:

TreeBeard · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:10 am

I bought a box of powdered water, but I didn't know what to add.

DesertSailor · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:35 am

GKC wrote:

Calvinist wrote:

Chris G wrote:

pax wrote:

Actually, the real question here is: Can God make dry water?

Yes He can. And He can make so much of it that even He can't lift it up.

No....he really can't. God can't violate his nature. By nature he is omnipotent. So he acts within his nature.

But inquiring minds want to know.....how many angels really CAN dance on the head of a needle?

By the School solution, all of them.

GKC

St. Thomas Aquinas said only one angel can.

Is water wet?

Who is online