Problems with Thomas Aquinas aguments for the existence of God

[shunyadragon]

But Thomas' whole method is fundamentally defined by his analogical dialectic between the kataphatic and apophatic. All of his kataphatic language about God is limited analogical speech which is fundamentally unable to touch upon the reality of God as he actually exists. You cannot understand his ways of speaking of God's existence without also acknowledging his insistence that we do not and cannot know God's act of existence but only of his effects upon creation. This is evident from the immediate context of Thomas brief mention of these five ways of speaking of God within the first two Quaestiones of the first part of his [/i]Summa[/i]. This is not really off topic, but is merely trying to understand this text within its immediate context. To try and discuss the brief presentation of the five ways in isolation from its context is to distort their meaning.

The topic of the thread is the five ways and the context as a kataphatic theological proof that the existence of God is Self-Evident in the same context as the reference of the Roman Church uses it. No mater how brief you wish to describe if, it is the topic of this thread. Again I acknowledge that other writings of Aquinas addresses the apophatic unknowable aspects and nature of God and Truth, but that is off topic.

Now if you can cite other parts of his writings that specifically discuss the arguments concerning the existence of God, than fine do so. So far you have offered nothing in the way of references concerning the issue of this thread.

[robrecht]

The topic of the thread is the five ways and the context as a kataphatic theological proof that the existence of God is Self-Evident in the same context as the reference of the Roman Church uses it. No mater how brief you wish to describe if, it is the topic of this thread. Again I acknowledge that other writings of Aquinas addresses the apophatic unknowable aspects and nature of God and Truth, but that is off topic.

Now if you can cite other parts of his writings that specifically discuss the arguments concerning the existence of God, than fine do so. So far you have offered nothing in the way of references concerning the issue of this thread.

But, because you are not understanding Thomas' five ways of speaking about God, neither in their immediate nor larger theological context, you are, in fact, misunderstanding them. For example, here above, once again, you make the very same mistake that you have made over and over again, in claiming that Thomas is supposedly intending to prove that the existence of God is self evident. Here's a few other places where you have made this exact same mistaken claim based on misunderstanding Thomas' five ways out of context:

False, the use of these arguments in the reference cited as demonstrating God's existence is self-evident is most definitely a kataphatic positive case to support the existence of God.

I presented clear reference that Aquinas's arguments represent a clear kataphatic positive argument to demonstrate God's existence is self-evident.

I do not consider Aquinas's works as fundamentally apophatic. I believe his works deal with two aspects of the Divine, the katophatic of that which is self-evident and can be known about God, ie God's existence - his five ways, and the apophatic side where the 'Mystery' of God. ie the ultimate nature of 'Truth,' which cannot be known.

If you would read but the immediately preceding article of this very same Quaestio, you would realize that you have been misreading the five ways as supposedly self-evident, while Thomas clearly says that God’s existence is not self-evident to us. Our knowledge of God’s existence is, for Thomas, based only upon our knowledge of his effects in creation, and to the extent that our knowledge of his effects is not better known, so is our reasoning from such effects to God’s existence less secure. Thus Thomas would be the first to admit that if his presuppositions about final causality in nature are shown to be false, then his way of knowing God through that particular effect is likewise faulty. As such, this is clearly not circular in the narrow sense. That this limited knowledge of God’s existence is fully integrated into Thomas’ apophatic dialectic is also evident from this same article, where Thomas concedes that a proof from God’s effects rather from his essence is necessarily defective since "we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist" and because God’s effects are in no way proportional to God, who, unlike his effects, is infinite. It is always important to understand a text in its immediate context.

[shunyadragon]

But, because you are not understanding Thomas' five ways of speaking about God, neither in their immediate nor larger theological context, you are, in fact, misunderstanding them. For example, here above, once again, you make the very same mistake that you have made over and over again, in claiming that Thomas is supposedly intending to prove that the existence of God is self evident. Here's a few other places where you have made this exact same mistaken claim based on misunderstanding Thomas' five ways out of context:




If you would read but the immediately preceding article of this very same Quaestio, you would realize that you have been misreading the five ways as supposedly self-evident, while Thomas clearly says that God’s existence is not self-evident to us. Our knowledge of God’s existence is, for Thomas, based only upon our knowledge of his effects in creation, and to the extent that our knowledge of his effects is not better known, so is our reasoning from such effects to God’s existence less secure. Thus Thomas would be the first to admit that if his presuppositions about final causality in nature are shown to be false, then his way of knowing God through that particular effect is likewise faulty. As such, this is clearly not circular in the narrow sense. That this limited knowledge of God’s existence is fully integrated into Thomas’ apophatic dialectic is also evident from this same article, where Thomas concedes that a proof from God’s effects rather from his essence is necessarily defective since "we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist" and because God’s effects are in no way proportional to God, who, unlike his effects, is infinite. It is always important to understand a text in its immediate context.

I already addressed the other articles before the one addressing the five ways, and referred the more apophatic view that our knowledge of things like the nature of God and Truth is limited.

I acknowledged this that you cited, "we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist", as our knowledge of God and 'Truth is limited. It is NOT the topic of the thread. Please note highlighted above. In the reference Thomas clearly says the existence of God is clearly self-evident to us. Our other knowledge of God's essence, and Truth is not fully known by us.

You made the claim, but still have failed to directly cite in Aquinas's writings where the existence of God is not self-evident.

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

I already addressed the other articles before the one addressing the five ways, and referred the more apophatic view that our knowledge of things like the nature of God and Truth is limited. It is NOT the topic of the thread. Please note highlighted above.

Your current definition of the topic of this thread is "the five ways and the context as a kataphatic theological proof that the existence of God is Self-Evident", which is not Thomas' own view of his five ways, so you should ask a moderator to change the title of this thread to something like "Problems with shunydragon's misunderstanding of a[r]guments for the existence of God." If you are actually wanting to discuss Thomas' five ways for speaking about God, you would stop claiming that Thomas presents them as self-evident.

[shunyadragon]

Your current definition of the topic of this thread is "the five ways and the context as a kataphatic theological proof that the existence of God is Self-Evident", which is not Thomas' own view of his five ways, so you should ask a moderator to change the title of this thread to something like "Problems with shunydragon's misunderstanding of a[r]guments for the existence of God." If you are actually wanting to discuss Thomas' five ways for speaking about God, you would stop claiming that Thomas presents them as self-evident.

Already answered that in full detail above. I edited the post some since you responded. You are failing to distinguish between Aquinas's arguments for the existence of God, and his apophatic theology of human limits of understanding the nature, essence and Truth of God.

If you are actually wanting to discuss Thomas' five ways for speaking about God, you would stop claiming that Thomas does not present them as self-evident.

Source: Thomas Aquinas

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

... In the reference Thomas clearly says the existence of God is clearly self-evident to us. Our other knowledge of God's essence, and Truth is not fully known by us.

You made the claim, but still have failed to directly cite in Aquinas's writings where the existence of God is not self-evident.

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

© Copyright Original Source

You are misunderstanding this as self-evident. I did cite (but did not quote) where Thomas says God's existence is not self-evident. It is in the immediately preceding article of the same Quaestio that you are trying to discuss. Do you really need me to quote it for you? I would think you would take some responsibility for reading Thomas in context before attempting to criticize his writings. If not out of any obligation of fairness, perhaps out of a desire to avoid making a fool of yourself.

[robrecht]

Already answered that in full detail above. I edited the post some since you responded. You are failing to distinguish between Aquinas's arguments for the existence of God, and his apophatic theology of human limits of understanding the nature, essence and Truth of God.

If you are actually wanting to discuss Thomas' five ways for speaking about God, you would stop claiming that Thomas does not present them as self-evident.

You merely assert that Thomas presents them as self-evident but Thomas actually says in this very context that the existence of God is not self-evident to us. Read the immediate context and get back to me.

[shunyadragon]

You are misunderstanding this as self-evident. I did cite (but did not quote) where Thomas says God's existence is not self-evident. It is in the immediately preceding article of the same Quaestio that you are trying to discuss. Do you really need me to quote it for you? I would think you would take some responsibility for reading Thomas in context before attempting to criticize his writings. If not out of any obligation of fairness, perhaps out of a desire to avoid making a fool of yourself.

NO YOU DID NOT. You cited references concerning apophatic view that the essence of God is unknown to us.

"we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist" and because God’s effects are in no way proportional to God, who, unlike his effects, is infinite. It is always important to understand a text in its immediate context.

Aquinas's writings concerning the apophatic view of God's nature are a separate issue from his proof of God's existence, which is self-evident.

Still waiting . . .

[robrecht]

NO YOU DID NOT. You cited references concerning apophatic view that the essence of God is unknown to us.

I also did that because they also appear in the immediate context. But I most certainly did refer you to the immediately preceding article of this Quaestio, the very first article of this Questio, where Thomas clearly states that the existence of God is not self-evident to us. Go ahead, read it.

[shunyadragon]

I also did that because they also appear in the immediate context. But I most certainly did refer you to the immediately preceding article of this Quaestio, the very first article of this Questio, where Thomas clearly states that the existence of God is not self-evident to us. Go ahead, read it.

NO YOU DID NOT. You cited references concerning apophatic view that the essence of God is unknown to us.

"we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist" and because God’s effects are in no way proportional to God, who, unlike his effects, is infinite. It is always important to understand a text in its immediate context. Aquinas's writings concerning the apophatic view of God's nature are a separate issue from his proof of God's existence, which is self-evident.

Still waiting . . .

[robrecht]

NO YOU DID NOT. You cited references concerning apophatic view that the essence of God is unknown to us.



Still waiting . . .

You are only citing one part of my post. If you will not read Thomas in context, at least read my whole post. I would much prefer that you read Thomas, however.

[robrecht]

Here, read the underlined portion of my post:

But, because you are not understanding Thomas' five ways of speaking about God, neither in their immediate nor larger theological context, you are, in fact, misunderstanding them. For example, here above, once again, you make the very same mistake that you have made over and over again, in claiming that Thomas is supposedly intending to prove that the existence of God is self evident. Here's a few other places where you have made this exact same mistaken claim based on misunderstanding Thomas' five ways out of context: ...

If you would read but the immediately preceding article of this very same Quaestio, you would realize that you have been misreading the five ways as supposedly self-evident, while Thomas clearly says that God’s existence is not self-evident to us. Our knowledge of God’s existence is, for Thomas, based only upon our knowledge of his effects in creation, and to the extent that our knowledge of his effects is not better known, so is our reasoning from such effects to God’s existence less secure. Thus Thomas would be the first to admit that if his presuppositions about final causality in nature are shown to be false, then his way of knowing God through that particular effect is likewise faulty. As such, this is clearly not circular in the narrow sense. That this limited knowledge of God’s existence is fully integrated into Thomas’ apophatic dialectic is also evident from this same article, where Thomas concedes that a proof from God’s effects rather from his essence is necessarily defective since "we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist" and because God’s effects are in no way proportional to God, who, unlike his effects, is infinite. It is always important to understand a text in its immediate context.

[shunyadragon]

You merely assert that Thomas presents them as self-evident but Thomas actually says in this very context that the existence of God is not self-evident to us. Read the immediate context and get back to me.

The self-evident existence of God is clearly considered proven by Aquinas in direct quotes. It is the nature of God that is not. You are indeed a slippery fellow.

[shunyadragon]

Here, read the underlined portion of my post:

I read the underlined in your posts. You are dodging my clear and concise references that the existence of God is indeed claimed to be proven by Aquinas, and self-evident, and he must exist from the human perspective.

[robrecht]

The self-evident existence of God is clearly considered proven by Aquinas in direct quotes. It is the nature of God that is not. You are indeed a slippery fellow.

Just read the immediately preceding article, the initial article, of this same Quaestio, where Thomas clearly argues that the existence of God is not self-evident to us. It only appears slippery to you because you have not read Thomas in context and tried to cite a small part of my post and ignore the much larger, preceding initial point of my post.