A question that has been bugging me about Aquinas's 5 Proofs

[Sacred_Heart_1]

There is a question that has been bothering me lately and it seems to turn the 5 proofs from 'Proof" to only “Possibility”

Now logically these make sense and it would be illogical to disagree with them.

BUT…there is a doubt in my mind that keeps saying this:

"Just because we can’t logically fathom something, doesn’t mean it’s false.

So basically just because some of the arguments made against the 5 proofs are logically impossible for US logically, doesn’t mean the arguments aren’t true outside of human logic.

Is there a way to get rid of this doubt?

Remember, these are supposed to be Proofs, as in it is verified and can’t be proven false, not just strong logical possibilities.

How can we Prove the 5 proofs even against the above doubt?

Don’t put your faith in logic. Just because something is logical doesn’t mean its true. I think you’re equating logic and truth. That’s the mistake a lot of philosophers make.

The Truth does not have to be logical. The Truth has to be faithful. If we try to derive logic from truth then it becomes impossible for the truth to exist. The Truth about God defies logic because with God anything is possible, even the illogical–that is why logic should not be part of your reasoning for God. Human logic always falls short of a supreme being. The logic that anyone contrives in this universe is always subject to the physical law of said universe. God is not subject to the laws of this universe–that is why the illogical can be manifested by his Spirit. There is nothing that subjects God. His Spirit goes beyond subjection.

 

[Anthony_V]

Don’t put your faith in logic. Just because something is logical doesn’t mean its true. I think you’re equating logic and truth. That’s the mistake a lot of philosophers make.

The Truth does not have to be logical. The Truth has to be faithful. If we try to derive logic from truth then it becomes impossible for the truth to exist. The Truth about God defies logic because with God anything is possible, even the illogical–that is why logic should not be part of your reasoning for God. Human logic always falls short of a supreme being. The logic that anyone contrives in this universe is always subject to the physical law of said universe. God is not subject to the laws of this universe–that is why the illogical can be manifested by his Spirit. There is nothing that subjects God. His Spirit goes beyond subjection.

There are a lot of assumptions in what you’re saying. Do you realize that Vatican I issued the following (infallible) canon:

1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

There are certain things about God we can know from natural reason alone, e.g. that He exists, that He is the only God, that He is the creator, that He is uncomposed of parts, etc. This has traditionally been called “natural theology.”

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

There are a lot of assumptions in what you’re saying. Do you realize that Vatican I issued the following (infallible) canon:

There are certain things about God we can know from natural reason alone, e.g. that He exists, that He is the only God, that He is the creator, that He is uncomposed of parts, etc. This has traditionally been called “natural theology.”

Are you saying that what is ineffable about God can be known through basic human experience? Do you say that you ponder the mind of God? Logic is not through and through with knowing God. Logic is not the valid point. If something is ineffable to a human being then it cannot be uttered through logical proofs of God. Logic only takes you so far into the Truth. Faith takes you the rest of the way. Faith is not bound by logic because faith is something manifested by God’s spirit, his Omniscience and Omnipotence. He is not bound in spirit by logic, he decides the truth according to his Holy Spirit. What makes sense in human logic may not be according to God’s Truth. Human logic becomes invalid.

 

[Anthony_V]

Are you saying that what is ineffable about God can be known through basic human experience?

No, I’m saying what is effable about God can be known through basic human experience – among other things, that God exists.

Do you say that you ponder the mind of God?

That’s quite a vague sentence you’ve provided us with.

Logic is not through and through with knowing God.

I never said that logic/natural human reason allows us to know God through and through. I said it allows us to know some things about God – among other things, that He exists.

For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. Romans 1:19-21

Logic is not the valid point.

I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean.

If something is ineffable to a human being then it cannot be uttered through logical proofs of God.

I agree. I have not suggested we can give proofs for things that we don’t understand.

Logic only takes you so far into the Truth.

I agree. And among those places logic can take you, the existence of God is one of them.

Faith takes you the rest of the way.

The rest of the way to what? To knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation, granted. But that faith is necessary for knowing things which can be known by natural reason – such as God’s existence – denied.

Faith is not bound by logic because faith is something manifested by God’s spirit, his Omniscience and Omnipotence. He is not bound in spirit by logic, he decides the truth according to his Holy Spirit.

That’s false. You’re under the assumption that God would be limited by the principle of non-contradiction if He could not contradict Himself; that somehow it makes Him less powerful. That is not something I could agree with in good conscience. I agree that God’s wisdom goes beyond human capacity – inasmuch as God knows things which cannot be known by human reason alone – but that doesn’t mean whatever He knows by His wisdom contradicts what we know by natural reason.

What makes sense in human logic may not be according to God’s Truth. Human logic becomes invalid.

Are you saying that Truth contradicts itself? Natural truths and supernatural truths are both truths. If natural truths are contradicted by supernatural truths, then there is contradiction in Truth. God is Truth. Are you saying that there is contradiction in God? You would effectively be calling God a liar.

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor as the son of man, that he should be changed. Hath he said then, and will he not do? hath he spoken, and will he not fulfill?
Num 23:19

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

No, I’m saying what is effable about God can be known through basic human experience – among other things, that God exists.

That’s quite a vague sentence you’ve provided us with.

I never said that logic/natural human reason allows us to know God through and through. I said it allows us to know some things about God – among other things, that He exists.

I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean.

I agree. I have not suggested we can give proofs for things that we don’t understand.

I agree. And among those places logic can take you, the existence of God is one of them.

The rest of the way to what? To knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation, granted. But that faith is necessary for knowing things which can be known by natural reason – such as God’s existence – denied.

That’s false. You’re under the assumption that God would be limited by the principle of non-contradiction if He could not contradict Himself; that somehow it makes Him less powerful. That is not something I could agree with in good conscience. I agree that God’s wisdom goes beyond human capacity – inasmuch as God knows things which cannot be known by human reason alone – but that doesn’t mean whatever He knows by His wisdom contradicts what we know by natural reason.

Are you saying that Truth contradicts itself? Natural truths and supernatural truths are both truths. If natural truths are contradicted by supernatural truths, then there is contradiction in Truth. God is Truth. Are you saying that there is contradiction in God? You would effectively be calling God a liar.

There is no contradiction in God. What I’m saying is logic is not the master of God. God is master in himself; and what becomes impossible in human logic becomes possible with God. That’s what it means to be ineffable. You cannot utter through human logic certain truths about God. Only God can explain them using logic because what seems impossible to us is possible to God alone. You cannot equate logic with truth because what is impossible in human logic is possible to God alone. Logic is not the master of God, God goes beyond all human comprehension. You cannot make logical proofs about God’s Omnipotence, Omniscience or Omnibenevelence because there is no understanding of what these things actually are. You can say that these things are God in faith, however, you cannot comprehend what it means; and therefore logical proofs of how God exists is just silly notions made up by pretend philosophers who pour all there inadequacy into their arguments.

 

[LethalMouse]

BUT…there is a doubt in my mind that keeps saying this:

"Just because we can’t logically fathom something, doesn’t mean it’s false.

Is there a way to get rid of this doubt?

Not so much on Aquinas specifically but on doubt.

If you meet me tomorrow in person and shake my hand, that is about as proof positive that I am real as it gets right?

But is it not possible that I was never there? That you had a mental break? Is it not possible the last random person you spoke to was a hallucination?

Now let’s assume you met me for 5 mins randomly. 2 days later I would like you to do something without me ever being on the internet again… Prove that you met me.

Go ahead make it so air tight proof when all you have is the sensory image of meeting me, no picture, no witnesses and no comment from me ever. How could you ever PROVE 100% without a shadow of a doubt that you met LM in person for 5 mins once 2 days ago?

With that said, I have met plenty a atheist who also say they have seen an angel, demon, ghost etc… they have no doubts of their exoerience and will talk of it with a certainty in one breath and of how none exist in another.

As in this case we have a conditioning to place more doubt on meeting God or such than on meeting a person.

I saw with another person 2 angels once… I later became and atheist and said to myself “well clearly we must have been temporarily crazy inexplicably and then went back to normal…”

Truly in some cases doubt might just sound crazier than not

 

[Tomdstone]

… logical proofs of how God exists is just silly notions made up by pretend philosophers who pour all there inadequacy into their arguments.

This idea seems to be somewhat at odds with Catholic thinking that God can be known by reason.

 

[Anthony_V]

There is no contradiction in God. What I’m saying is logic is not the master of God. God is master in himself; and what becomes impossible in human logic becomes possible with God. That’s what it means to be ineffable. You cannot utter through human logic certain truths about God. Only God can explain them using logic because what seems impossible to us is possible to God alone. You cannot equate logic with truth because what is impossible in human logic is possible to God alone. Logic is not the master of God, God goes beyond all human comprehension. You cannot make logical proofs about God’s Omnipotence, Omniscience or Omnibenevelence because there is no understanding of what these things actually are. You can say that these things are God in faith, however, you cannot comprehend what it means; and therefore logical proofs of how God exists is just silly notions made up by pretend philosophers who pour all there inadequacy into their arguments.

Sacred_Heart, you’re beating up straw men. I never said that logic is the master of God. Why are you under that assumption? Do you think that if God chooses to reveal anything of Himself using the natural order, that it somehow makes Him less powerful, or less supernatural? You’re going to have to defend that assertion, but it’s an assertion which is contrary to faith itself – the very same “faith” you’re trying to magnify and make more majestic by making God naturally unknowable – as I’ve quoted from both scripture and the conciliar magisterium (neither of which can be rejected without rejecting the faith). Therefore, in the interest of holding to the faith, I would suggest that you must accept that God can be known by natural reason.

Moreover, it would seem to make God less powerful and less wise if He couldn’t create a rational being such that the being would have the capacity to know something of Him in at least some ways. I am entirely in favor of saying that we cannot know everything about God using natural reason alone. But the Church has expressed herself in these matters as well, as I quoted above. What I am not in favor of is saying that we would all be atheists and/or agnostics without the gift of faith. Atheism and agnosticism is not, in the Catholic view, something natural or integral to human nature.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

This idea seems to be somewhat at odds with Catholic thinking that God can be known by reason.

Omniscience, Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence can be known by reason?

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

Sacred_Heart, you’re beating up straw men. I never said that logic is the master of God. Why are you under that assumption? Do you think that if God chooses to reveal anything of Himself using the natural order, that it somehow makes Him less powerful, or less supernatural? You’re going to have to defend that assertion, but it’s an assertion which is contrary to faith itself – the very same “faith” you’re trying to magnify and make more majestic by making God naturally unknowable – as I’ve quoted from both scripture and the conciliar magisterium (neither of which can be rejected without rejecting the faith). Therefore, in the interest of holding to the faith, I would suggest that you must accept that God can be known by natural reason.

Moreover, it would seem to make God less powerful and less wise if He couldn’t create a rational being such that the being would have the capacity to know something of Him in at least some ways. I am entirely in favor of saying that we cannot know everything about God using natural reason alone. But the Church has expressed herself in these matters as well, as I quoted above. What I am not in favor of is saying that we would all be atheists and/or agnostics without the gift of faith. Atheism and agnosticism is not, in the Catholic view, something natural or integral to human nature.

I think we agree that a little can be known by God through human reason. However, I prostrate myself before the Lord because I do not know him in fullness of Spirit. I think you can agree with that. My point is that men delude themselves by thinking that human logic can convey supernatural meaning. It’s really not the same thing.