Aquinas, Logic & The First Cause. (Thread 1)

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr.Bonnette said:
Dear Leela,

You ask: “Having studied the Aquinas arguments extensively, do you find any of them in and of themselves to be proof of God’s existence?”

This is a tricky question to answer. I would not blame anyone reading the Five Ways in the Summa Theologiae not being convinced by them. They are mere summaries of age old arguments St. Thomas was giving to his students. But HIS students were not like students today. These were people already very well formed in philosophy. Before studying theology, students at that time had already worked their way through the Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, a massive philosophical work. They were already trained philosophers. So, what St. Thomas was doing was merely giving his own little “twists” or versions of these five arguments that originated in Aristotle and had been restated by philosophers down through the centuries.

Do the arguments work? Well, yes, IF you know a lot of philosophy already and know how to elaborate all the detailed twists and turns inherent in these very brief summaries. That is why you need to read a full book explaining the arguments properly, and that means by someone in the TRADITION of Thomism. I say that because outside critics simply do not have the background to explain the proofs properly, and often misconstrue key logical and metaphysical steps. I would recommend especially Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s two volume set: God, His Existence, and His Nature. Or, you might try my own Aquinas’ Proofs for God’s Existence. The first two Ways are probably the easiest to grasp and work as a proof, provided you see their force and grasp that they are talking in terms of the metaphysics of being at every turn! The Third Way is most difficult to interpret correctly, and scholars have long debated what exactly St. Thomas MEANT by it! The Fourth Way is decisive, but only if you grasp that it is based on the transcendental nature of being and really resolves into a proof from finite, composite, limited being through causality back to a First Cause. The Fifth Way also works, but you have to understand the nature of finality in metaphysical terms often lacking to most students. Finally, none of them lead to the God of Revelation, but only fulfill the nominal definition of God. That is, he says “…and this is what all men call God,” meaning that what it concludes to IS God, but you have yet to prove that as such – something he does several questions later in the Summa.

Note also that Lagrange spends two thirds of volume one of his work explaining and defending the epistemological and metaphysical validity of the first principles, such as identity, non-contradiction, sufficient reason, causality, and finality, which are presupposed by the Five Ways.

See what a can of worms you have opened?

Dr. Bonnette
Click to expand...
I don’t want to open the worm can. I just want to know whether, as a professional philosopher, you can tell me whether the existence of God is a proven fact and whether any or each of Aquinas’ “proofs” taken alone are really considered to be proof of God’s existence among the professional philosophical community (people who “know a lot of philosophy”). You seem to be saying “yes,” but I can’t tell how much you are hedging when you say that someone has to be in the tradition of Thomism to think that they are proof. It sounds like you are saying that only people who believe they are proofs believe they are proofs. Or that anyone who does not believe they are proofs doesn’t understand them.

Best,
Leela
 
Dear Leela,

You write: “I don’t want to open the worm can. I just want to know whether, as a professional philosopher, you can tell me whether the existence of God is a proven fact and whether any or each of Aquinas’ “proofs” taken alone are really considered to be proof of God’s existence among the professional philosophical community (people who “know a lot of philosophy”). You seem to be saying “yes,” but I can’t tell how much you are hedging when you say that someone has to be in the tradition of Thomism to think that they are proof. It sounds like you are saying that only people who believe they are proofs believe they are proofs. Or that anyone who does not believe they are proofs doesn’t understand them.”

You will have no proof of anything except that which you yourself can understand to be true. The fact that I may tell you that a proof is valid does not make it a proof for you, since then you are merely taking my word for it and believing in my authority. That is not reasoning for yourself. There are many “professional philosophers” who reject St. Thomas’ and all other proofs for God’s existence. Many think Immanuel Kant “proved” that no proof is possible. So you will have to do a lot of studying yourself to know for yourself what the truth is. I am convinced that a proper understanding of the Five Ways can enable a person to know with metaphysical certitude that God exists, provided you do that little bit more or reasoning that St. Thomas does a bit later to show that the Being which the Five Ways leads to is in fact and in truth the God men believe in as God. Indeed, there are many ways to prove God’s existence, a number of which are found in OTHER places in St. Thomas. I have published a couple of my own, and in my book, Origin of the Human Species, there is one given by me at the end of Chapter Six wherein I prove the human soul’s spiritual character and divine origin. I know that such proofs exist and are valid, but that only means that I am convinced by them. Others are not convinced. You will know who is right only when you understand the arguments for yourself. Until then you are merely believing in the authority of someone else.

Aristotle tells us that scientific knowledge is had when you know that something is true, why it is true, and why it cannot be otherwise. This is not experimental science, but the philosophical science which existed long before modern experimental science did, and many of whose principles and tenets are logically presupposed by modern science.
 
Leela,

An added point: It is an article of Catholic Faith (dogma) that the existence of God can be known by the light of natural reason, from the things that He has made (Denziger 1806). This does not say that one must know how to prove God’s existence in order to be Catholic, but merely that a Catholic must believe that it is possible to come to a knowledge of God’s existence through natural reason.
 
Regarding using the “Proofs of St. Thomas Aquinas” to prove the existence of God.
This was my teenage logic.😉

The following is taken from my “Letter to the Editor” This Rock

"Fifty plus years ago, smack-dab in the middle of a retreat at my Catholic girls’ high school, it was five proofs/ways (probably St. Thomas’s) from a book, perhaps by Frank Sheed, that saved my wandering soul. The truth be told, in a moment of frightening doubt, I couldn’t remember them exactly. I said to myself, “It’s now or never. I need to know if God is really real.”

"I needed to know, on the spot, that the book’s “proofs,” although hazy in my mind, were valid. How? By recalling the author’s intensity and love that flowed through his writing. He so believed what he was saying that I believed it. So I said to God, “Okay, I believe You exist. As for the rest—that is, Your Son Jesus and the Catholic Church—I’ll deal with that later.”

“Apparently, “proving God” is still important. That being the case, I hope readers realize that whether there are five or 500 ways, there will never be the all-perfect rational proof. What is essential is that the soul is touched with the power to say yes. It’s not always our elegant brains that convert. Sometimes belief in God comes from a loving smile or a kind touch of the hand. Or in my case, knowing that someone loved God so much that he expended huge effort writing about His existence. My soul knew that this author knew God. And I figured that someday I could really get to know God personally and lots more about His Son and His Church, because I, too, knew God existed.”
 
Dr.Bonnette said:
Dear Leela,
You will have no proof of anything except that which you yourself can understand to be true. The fact that I may tell you that a proof is valid does not make it a proof for you, since then you are merely taking my word for it and believing in my authority. That is not reasoning for yourself.
Click to expand...
But I acceot that Fermat’s last theorem has been proven though I could not hope to understand the proof. I wonder what you mean when you say that a proof is valid. You seem to be using proof to mean a convincing argument, while I think proof is generally understood to be more than that. Proof is an argument or evidence that is so convincing that it literally compells belief. Maybe we agree that by that standard, we don’t have proof of anything. The issue is never really proof but whether we have good reason to believe. You find the five ways convincing and I don’t. I have no problem with that. What concerns me are the claims that God has been proven and anyone who is not convinced simply does not understand Aquinas.
Dr.Bonnette said:
There are many “professional philosophers” who reject St. Thomas’ and all other proofs for God’s existence. Many think Immanuel Kant “proved” that no proof is possible.
Click to expand...
What would you say is the consensus among the philosophical community with regard to Thomistic proofs or the proof of the existence of God in general?
Dr.Bonnette said:
So you will have to do a lot of studying yourself to know for yourself what the truth is. I am convinced that a proper understanding of the Five Ways can enable a person to know with metaphysical certitude that God exists, provided you do that little bit more or reasoning that St. Thomas does a bit later to show that the Being which the Five Ways leads to is in fact and in truth the God men believe in as God.
Click to expand...
You seem to be taking a position that is typical of proponents of the Five Ways, which is that taken together and with additional reasoning one can find them convincing of the existence of God. What I find so strange is that the proponents of the five proofs on this forum seem to hold that each of the five proofs taken by itself is a definitive proof of God’s existence. To that I have resonded that if any of these really were definitive proof, the matter of the existence of God would be as settled in academia as the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem.

Thanks for the dialogue, Doc. It’s good to have a voice of reason among the believers in this forum.

Best,
Leela
 
Hi Dr Bonnette,

What do you think of the validity of Gasking’s take on the greatest conceivable being…

1.The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

Best,
Leela
 
Dear Leela,

Please note that Denziger 1806 does not say that the existence of God can be proven, but that it can be known. As Gabriel Marcel (who struck me a the nicest of gentlemen when I met him in New Orleans in 1965) points out, “proving to another” amounts to getting the other person to, as it were, step into your own mind and see the world as you see it. That is not easily done. All the Church is saying is that some people can come to a knowledge of God’s existence by seeing the world that He has made and reasoning back to its cause. See Romans 1:20. I am not saying that not-Thomistic philosophers embrace the Five Ways. Clearly they do not. And not all Thomists do either, for various reasons. I am saying that I find them convincing, and that if you really want to understand them in the tradition of St. Thomas you have to read their exposition in the form written by a solid Thomist. But it is important to note that St. Thomas’ philosophy has always been the one preferred and recommended by the Church. But you don’t have to be a Thomist philosopher and you don’t have to accept the Five Ways in order to be a good Catholic. All that is necessary is the belief that someone can know God’s existence through natural reasoning.

You write: “You seem to be taking a position that is typical of proponents of the Five Ways, which is that taken together and with additional reasoning one can find them convincing of the existence of God. What I find so strange is that the proponents of the five proofs on this forum seem to hold that each of the five proofs taken by itself is a definitive proof of God’s existence. To that I have resonded that if any of these really were definitive proof, the matter of the existence of God would be as settled in academia as the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem.”

No, each separate Way is a proof (recall what I said above about proof) that some Primary Cause exists in the order of that proof, i.e., a Prime Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, etc. The Five Ways each stand as independent proofs of “that which all men call God,” but recall that is a nominal definition of God. That is it names the Being that de facto turns out to be the God of revelation, but it is not yet evident at the point of conclusion of each demonstration. Each of the Five Ways tells us something new about God, i.e., that He is the First Mover, that he is the First Cause, that He is the Necessary Being, that He is the Most Perfect Being, that He is the Supreme Governor of creation. But only when you reach that point in a later question in the Summa does St. Thomas make the claim that this is one and the same Being who is He Who Is, the very God of Abraham and the God embraced by Christianity.

As to Gasking’s argument:
  1. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
  2. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
  3. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
One can dance with these logical games forever, and to little point. They play with words more than with being. Being is always the object of genuine metaphysics. Point 3 is utter nonsense. It is not the disability of the creator that make creation an infinitely impressive achievement, but the fact that creation presupposes no preexisting subject matter out of which things are made. Gasking commits the metaphysical fallacy of thinking of non-existence as if it were a positive quality. You can find thousands of such “arguments” on atheistic blogs. A little common sense goes a long way.

Good talking with you.

Dr. Bonnette
 
Hi Doc,

I posted Gasking’s “proof” because Aquinas’s sound like the same sorts of word games to me. As for non-existing not being a quality, I agree. But then I can’t see existence as a quality, either, as in the most perfect being argument.

Best,
Leela
 
Dear Leela,

Words are supposed to represent things. Non-existence is nothing. Being is something.

Metaphysics is the study of being precisely considered as being. Over the years it has become more and more evident to me that contingent, changeable, finite being makes no sense at all except in terms of the existence of the Infinite Being, God.

Buffalo’s citation on his entries to the effect that if God does not exist all is insanity is spot on!
 
Dr.Bonnette said:
Words are supposed to represent things. Non-existence is nothing.
Click to expand...
What thing is the word “nothing” supposed to represent? What thing is the word “good” supposed to represent?

As a pragmatist and radical empiricist, I don’t see words so much as representations but as tools.
Dr.Bonnette said:
Metaphysics is the study of being precisely considered as being. Over the years it has become more and more evident to me that contingent, changeable, finite being makes no sense at all except in terms of the existence of the Infinite Being, God.

Buffalo’s citation on his entries to the effect that if God does not exist all is insanity is spot on!
Click to expand...
I can see how people of other philosphical persuasions, especially those who treat truth and goodness as essences, could come to that conclusion.

Best,
Leela
 
Leela,

Goodness and truth are not essences in Aristotelean-Thomistic metaphysics. They are transcendentals, names for being viewed from the standpoint of its desirability (the good) and from the standpoint of its relation to an intellect (the true).

You write: What thing is the word “nothing” supposed to represent? What thing is the word “good” supposed to represent?

As a pragmatist and radical empiricist, I don’t see words so much as representations but as tools.

The word “nothing” is a philosophical embarrassment of sorts! It is not a proper concept (a concept taken from the essence of a real thing). Rather, the mind conceives of what being is and what negation is, and predicates the latter of the former, without thereby affirming any extramental reality. The word “good” as I said above is simply another aspect of being itself. Thus, the Fourth Way, should be read as taking various grades of being as a starting point. Since they come in various grades, none is being itself, but a kind of participation in being – a received being. If it is received, it is caused. Since nothing can give what it does not possess, the cause of participated being must be either another participated being or Unparticipated Being. Since an infinite regress of received being is impossible, there must exist an Unparticipated Being, that is a Being whose very essence is “to be,” that is, God. Yes, there are multiple steps here and each requires more elucidation. I am just trying to show the outline of the argument, and how the “good” plays the role of being in it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top