Am I wrong in this debate about Thomas Aquinas?

[SpeakKindly]

I was having a discussion about Thomas Aquinas recently. I claimed that to seek God, one might read his arguments for the existence of God. However, I mentioned that his arguments are only able to prove the existence of a god (with the understanding that the logic of his arguments would lead to the God that Christians acknowledge).

The reason I said this was because the arguments make a case for an intelligent, first cause, and personal being as the reason for existence, but it doesn’t name this being. I understand that the arguments are to show that a god existing is logical, and required.

The person arguing against me pretty much claimed that the arguments only argue for the God who Christians believe in, and then they insulted me later on in the discussion for not reading anyone they’d hold as a credible source.

This was an important discussion, because my point was that natural reasoning could take us so far in finding God, but it is God who confirms our search by revealing Himself to us.

The arguments cannot confirm the search, just help it.

Right?

 

[St_Francis]

It is my understanding that you are correct.

I would also like to suggest that part of the problem is that Aquinas’s arguments are often presented by Protestants (don’t know about Catholics) in a way that seems they think they have proven the existence of The God Whom we know because of what He has revealed.

At least, this is what I concluded after having been presented with these arguments when I was a “practical atheist” and then reading the arguments after I returned to the Church.

When I present the Proofs, I first point out that they are Aristotle’s, not Aquinas’s. Aristotle of course lived before Christ and was not Jewish, so he had no acquaintance with Revelation; despite this ignorance, he was able to think through his natural knowledge to this understanding of a Creator.

 

[TomD123]

The arguments demonstrate the existence of an ultimate being. They basically all converge to the same being, namely the being who’s essence is existence. From here, Aquinas argues that certain attributes must follow including that this being must be: unique, immaterial, unchangeable, intelligent, all-powerful, simple (non-composite), good, perfect, etc.

These attributes fit nicely into the Christian Tradition. For instance, the idea that God is His nature fits nicely into St. John’s epistle where it says “God is love.” Or that God is the unrestricted act of existence fits nicely into God calling Himself “I am who I am” in the Old Testament.

However, the arguments are not necessarily Catholic or even Christian. The arguments would work whether or not Christ is God, a Trinity exists, the Church was established by God, etc.

 

[bzkoss236]

The person arguing against me pretty much claimed that the arguments only argue for the God who Christians believe in

Are we supposed to argue for the existence of pagan gods too? Is that what he is expecting? If that were the case, then we’d be pagan and not Christian…

And the Jewish God and Muslim God are the same God as the Christian God. There is only one. And if you’re a Christian, of course you are going to argue for the existence of the Christian God. It wouldn’t make sense to do otherwise.

 

[AdesteFideles]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

35 Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.1 Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

1 In this footnote, Denzinger 3015 (1795) is cited, which reads:

The twofold order of knowledge] By enduring agreement the Catholic Church has held and holds that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only in principle but also in object: (1) in principle, indeed, because we know in one way by natural reason, in another by divine faith; (2) in object, however, because, in addition to things to which natural reason can attain, mysteries hidden in God are proposed to us for belief which, had they not been divinely revealed, could not become known [can. 1]. Wherefore, the Apostle, who testifies that God was known to the Gentiles “by the things that are made” [Rom. 1:20], nevertheless, when discoursing about grace and truth which “was made through Jesus Christ” [cf.John 1:17] proclaims: “We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory, which none of the princes of this world know. . . . But to us God hath revealed them by His Spirit For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God” 1 Cor. 2:7,8,10]. And the Only-begotten Himself “confesses to the Father, because He hath hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hath revealed them to little ones” [cf.Matt. 11:25 ]