Aquinus's five reasons that prove god

[dimentichisimai]

Yes. What did he come to see during that Mass he celebrated a few months before his death?

As you and others have said throughout this thread, he had a vision of the divine, like many other saints over the ages.

But St. Thomas never up and denied or discarded all of theology and philosophy. In fact, as far as I know, he died on his way to a conference that was meant to settle the disagreements between the West and the East. He wrote another work called On the Greeks in which he tries to lay a theological bridge for reunification. Unfortunately, he died along the way, but that shows that he didn’t just give up theology because he was given some “Higher Knowledge” only available to a select few that blows all other knowledge up. Such notions are Gnostic and have been condemned since the early early Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ claim that his Summa was “straw” was tantamount to someone that studied chocolate chip cookie recipes their whole lives, wrote numerous recipes, then finally one day actually ate a chocolate chip cookie. The recipes are straw compared to the pleasure of eating the cookie, but that doesn’t make the recipes wrong.

 

[Gaber]

As you and others have said throughout this thread, he had a vision of the divine, like many other saints over the ages.

But St. Thomas never up and denied or discarded all of theology and philosophy. In fact, as far as I know, he died on his way to a conference that was meant to settle the disagreements between the West and the East. He wrote another work called On the Greeks in which he tries to lay a theological bridge for reunification. Unfortunately, he died along the way, but that shows that he didn’t just give up theology because he was given some “Higher Knowledge” only available to a select few that blows all other knowledge up. Such notions are Gnostic and have been condemned since the early early Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ claim that his Summa was “straw” was tantamount to someone that studied chocolate chip cookie recipes their whole lives, wrote numerous recipes, then finally one day actually ate a chocolate chip cookie. The recipes are straw compared to the pleasure of eating the cookie, but that doesn’t make the recipes wrong.

Wow. Wow. You are the first person I’ve posted with who has said what happened clearly and meaningfully. How cool is that? The cookie thing is brilliant, and imo precisely accurate as far as I can tell.

Thanks for your response.

 

[ReapReason]

Reason can lead us to God or it can lead us away from God, depending on how it is used and what our motive is for using it. For every proof for the existence of God, there is an argument against the validity of that proof. If you want to approach God, the logic will seem valid. If you want to flee god, the logic will seem invalid. But it’s not a slam dunk either way. That is, the proofs are always conditionally “true” or “false” depending upon our willingness to accept certain assumptions.

That’s not true. They are not conditional arguments; at least not in the sense that they can be rationally denied. The underlying metaphysical basis of Aquinas’ arguments are as such that you would be denying existence entirely if you were to deny those core elements that make the 5 ways correct, Once properly understood, you will realise that you cannot deny their validity without denying rationality itself.

 

[Crescentinus]

I’ve seen many have attacked the Dumb Ox, with similar results.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

As you and others have said throughout this thread, he had a vision of the divine, like many other saints over the ages.

But St. Thomas never up and denied or discarded all of theology and philosophy. In fact, as far as I know, he died on his way to a conference that was meant to settle the disagreements between the West and the East. He wrote another work called On the Greeks in which he tries to lay a theological bridge for reunification. Unfortunately, he died along the way, but that shows that he didn’t just give up theology because he was given some “Higher Knowledge” only available to a select few that blows all other knowledge up. Such notions are Gnostic and have been condemned since the early early Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ claim that his Summa was “straw” was tantamount to someone that studied chocolate chip cookie recipes their whole lives, wrote numerous recipes, then finally one day actually ate a chocolate chip cookie. The recipes are straw compared to the pleasure of eating the cookie, but that doesn’t make the recipes wrong.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is really for all the faithful. Get a copy of The Philosophy of God and the Philosophy of Being by Henri Renard S.J… You can get old copies on line at a reasonable price. He is the only one I know who was able to explain Thomas’ " proofs " to my satisfaction and was absolutely convinced that the God Thomas concluded to was the God of Revelation. And he did it briefly, concisely, and convincingly. I would also recommend A Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy ( Vols 2 and 1 ) by Cardinal Mercier ( early Louvain school), which can be read on line through Google Books and Archive.org. He is also convinced but isn’t quite as straight forward as Renard and is more wordy. But the advantage is that he is through and its free to read.

I get the feeling that some members taking part in these forums have not actually read or studied systematic philosophy but are just paraphrasing something they have read in an article or heard in a talk or seminar somewhere. That won’t do, you have to get into the thing and mull it over, without searching for " talking points." That is just a general comment and not directed at anyone in particular. Pax Dominus sit vobiscum.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’d recommend Dr. Edward Feser (who also has an excellent blog-edwardfeser.blogspot.com).

He actually made Thomism understandable to me.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’d recommend Dr. Edward Feser (who also has an excellent blog-edwardfeser.blogspot.com).

He actually made Thomism understandable to me.

Excellent blog. Lot’s of good resources there. Haven’t read his book yet. Nothing easy about Thomas, he didn’t think of himself as a philosopher so you have to dig his philosophy out of his work. Some great men have done that for us.

 

[cc42]

Atheistgirl:

I think that there a number of convincing proofs that if a person is honest and open to the evidence they will see that God exists. But even if that is not the case I think that we all innately know that God exists and that people are never justified in not believing. We in fact are morally obligated to acknoledge God’s existence and worship Him.

 

[Gaber]

Atheistgirl:

I think that there a number of convincing proofs that if a person is honest and open to the evidence they will see that God exists. But even if that is not the case I think that we all innately know that God exists and that people are never justified in not believing. We in fact are morally obligated to acknoledge God’s existence and worship Him.

Yes, but the point is that those points are convincing only when you already believe, or there would be no atheists, as there are no people who think that 2+2 is other than four.

It might help you to see what I mean if you go to Can science REALLY explain Reality? and read from post #876 on through the next few.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Yes, but the point is that those points are convincing only when you already believe, or there would be no atheists, as there are no people who think that 2+2 is other than four.

The proofs are far more complex than “2+2=4” though.

For example, not everybody believes .9 repeating is 1 (I STILL don’t get how that makes sense… ), and yet it is.

And the theory of evolution is obviously true but we still have people who don’t believe it.

Not to mention I can think of several people who were converted from atheists to theists through St. Thomas’s proofs or variations of them-Edward Feser being one example.

 

[Gaber]

The proofs are far more complex than “2+2=4” though.

For example, not everybody believes .9 repeating is 1 (I STILL don’t get how that makes sense… ), and yet it is.

And the theory of evolution is obviously true but we still have people who don’t believe it.

Not to mention I can think of several people who were converted from atheists to theists through St. Thomas’s proofs or variations of them-Edward Feser being one example.

I’m not saying that they aren’t wonderful, or that they are simple or simplistic. I’m only saying that in general, in the sense of math being absolutely convincing, they don’t have the convincing power of math, even with the wonderful bit about .9 repeating. (Thanks!)

But even if they did, we live in an age and a Country where opinion has equal weight with research and reason. People can and do dismiss science and its overwhelming indications with a wave and a poo-pooh. It is no wonder that we are 27th in the world in math and about 20>29 in other measures of cultural, scientific, and social competence and are drowning in a plutocracy that is being given legal primacy over individuals. the thre things this Country is actually first in are military spending, more than the next 17 to 21 nations, including allies, combined, percentage of our population in prison, higher by far than any industrialized nation, and how much we spend on health care, that being about twice the next most expensive country, with our average age declining and infant mortality going up, excluding abortions. Go figure how we are so wonderful and why people don’t get things.

But I’m not dismissing the proofs, only qualifying them.

 

[ReapReason]

I’m not saying that they aren’t wonderful, or that they are simple or simplistic. I’m only saying that in general, in the sense of math being absolutely convincing, they don’t have the convincing power of math, even with the wonderful bit about .9 repeating. (Thanks!)

But even if they did, we live in an age and a Country where opinion has equal weight with research and reason. People can and do dismiss science and its overwhelming indications with a wave and a poo-pooh. It is no wonder that we are 27th in the world in math and about 20>29 in other measures of cultural, scientific, and social competence and are drowning in a plutocracy that is being given legal primacy over individuals.

But I’m not dismissing the proofs, only qualifying them.

Its easy to understand why 2+2 = 4. The underlying concepts are simple. However the underlying metaphysical grounds or concepts that justify the 5 proofs as being evidence of God are not so simple or easy to comprehend. Neither can the five proofs of Aquinas be understood in isolation from the body of metaphysics upon which the arguments are based. It is simply a mistake to look at the 5 ways and pretend to understand them without first having a thorough understanding of metaphysics and its epistemological basis.

Many people have claimed along with Richard Dawkins that the 5 ways fail; but it is often evident to the professional Thomist that these perceptions of failure are due to a flawed understanding of the arguments, a straw-man. In any case many philosophers don’t have a problem with the internal logic of the arguments, but rather their problem is epistemological. They perceive the arguments as tautological. Again, this is due to a failure to understand the epistemological authority of the arguments. Some people simply refuse to recognise the validity of any inferential rational argument outside the scientific method. Even when people do recognise the metaphysical grounds of the argument, it is often my experience that they will go as far as to question logic itself in-order to avoid the necessary rational conclusions that follow from a metaphysical understanding of reality.

Now you could say that many mathematical equations are very difficult to grasp; and i would agree. But my failure to grasp a particular level of mathematical genius is hardly evidence in itself that the equations are false. I simply accept that their level of mathematics produces truth; largely because mathematics has many applications that produce visible technologies, and I trust that mathematicians would not lie to me. Metaphysics on the hand has a Limited application. There is no visible indirect product outside of its immediate context that demonstrates its rational power; and so it is easy for age old prejudices to obscure its relevance in terms of objective truth. Science and math has the convenience of being popular in some shape or form without being entirely understood by a great many people.

While Aquinas argued that he could know God by his effects, I don’t believe that Aquinas expected a great many people to grasp the truth of those arguments.

The point is, the question of whether or not the five ways succeed as valid arguments cannot reasonably be judged by comparing them to the success of other methods of knowledge.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Its easy to understand why 2+2 = 4. The underlying concepts are simple. However the underlying metaphysical grounds or concepts that justify the 5 proofs as being evidence of God are not so simple or easy to comprehend. Neither can the five proofs of Aquinas be understood in isolation from the body of metaphysics upon which the arguments are based. It is simply a mistake to look at the 5 ways and pretend to understand them without first having a thorough understanding of metaphysics and its epistemological basis.

Many people have claimed along with Richard Dawkins that the 5 ways fail; but it is often evident to the professional Thomist that these perceptions of failure are due to a flawed understanding of the arguments, a straw-man. In any case many philosophers don’t have a problem with the internal logic of the arguments, but rather their problem is epistemological. They perceive the arguments as tautological. Again, this is due to a failure to understand the epistemological authority of the arguments. Some people simply refuse to recognise the validity of any inferential rational argument outside the scientific method. Even when people do recognise the metaphysical grounds of the argument, it is often my experience that they will go as far as to question logic itself in-order to avoid the necessary rational conclusions that follow from a metaphysical understanding of reality.

Now you could say that many mathematical equations are very difficult to grasp; and i would agree. But my failure to grasp a particular level of mathematical genius is hardly evidence in itself that the equations are false. I simply accept that their level of mathematics produces truth; largely because mathematics has many applications that produce visible technologies, and I trust that mathematicians would not lie to me. Metaphysics on the hand has a Limited application. There is no visible indirect product outside of its immediate context that demonstrates its rational power; and so it is easy for age old prejudices to obscure its relevance in terms of objective truth. Science and math has the convenience of being popular in some shape or form without being entirely understood by a great many people.

While Aquinas argued that he could know God by his effects, I don’t believe that Aquinas expected a great many people to grasp the truth of those arguments.

The point is, the question of whether or not the five ways succeed as valid arguments cannot reasonably be judged by comparing them to the success of other methods of knowledge.

It took me a bit to sort through the philosophyese but I think I get what you’re saying and I agree.

To summarize: Most people who reject the five proofs reject them because they’re only arguing against straw men (Dawkins doesn’t even put in the actual five proofs, just ridiculous pseudo-proofs he claims are the five proofs). And a lot of people who reject them don’t understand the underlying metaphysics. Once they learn the underlying metaphysics they’re forced to deny common sense concepts about the world, like simple cause and effect.

Of course, if you believe your reasons for denying the metaphysical constructs are good, then an interesting and legitimate debate can be had. But there’s no denying that if you accept the underlying metaphysics the arguments ARE valid.

Did I interpret you correctly?

 

[ReapReason]

It took me a bit to sort through the philosophyese but I think I get what you’re saying and I agree.

To summarize: Most people who reject the five proofs reject them because they’re only arguing against straw men (Dawkins doesn’t even put in the actual five proofs, just ridiculous pseudo-proofs he claims are the five proofs). And a lot of people who reject them don’t understand the underlying metaphysics. Once they learn the underlying metaphysics they’re forced to deny common sense concepts about the world, like simple cause and effect.

Of course, if you believe your reasons for denying the metaphysical constructs are good, then an interesting and legitimate debate can be had. But there’s no denying that if you accept the underlying metaphysics the arguments ARE valid.

Did I interpret you correctly?

 

[cc42]

Gaber:

I know I have discussed this with you before but I think that the proofs are convincing. They may not be convincing in the way of something like 2 + 2 = 4 because people cannot logically see a way around that, but more complicated mathematics they could convince themselves out of; of course real mathematicians would have to recognize any proof but if recognizing validity meant they had to accept something that they are completely opposed to then perhaps not.

Of course proofs for the existence of God are not mathematical in the sense that they are conceptually necessary logically speaking, but that is because people’s minds don’t hit a wall because the proof isn’t build around an accepted system like mathematics but a proof for 1 + 1 really does equal 2 is extremely complicated. If people excepted Aristotelian metapysics the way they accepted modern mathematics then I think people would have to accept the proof of God’s existence, to deny arguments like the prime mover is a denial of an obvious metaphysical proof, but there are some people who don’t want to accept that system and they don’t want to accept that God’s existence can be proven.

 

[Gaber]

Gaber:

I know I have discussed this with you before but I think that the proofs are convincing. They may not be convincing in the way of something like 2 + 2 = 4 because people cannot logically see a way around that, but more complicated mathematics they could convince themselves out of; of course real mathematicians would have to recognize any proof but if recognizing validity meant they had to accept something that they are completely opposed to then perhaps not.

That is well said. Especially in our culture where opinion is given primacy over science and fact.

Of course proofs for the existence of God are not mathematical in the sense that they are conceptually necessary logically speaking, but that is because people’s minds don’t hit a wall because the proof isn’t build around an accepted system like mathematics but a proof for 1 + 1 really does equal 2 is extremely complicated. If people excepted Aristotelian metapysics the way they accepted modern mathematics then I think people would have to accept the proof of God’s existence, to deny arguments like the prime mover is a denial of an obvious metaphysical proof, but there are some people who don’t want to accept that system and they don’t want to accept that God’s existence can be proven.

That is for sure. We have moved on from Aristotle through Newton, and even past Einstein. As one writer put it, Null A, N, and E. We are as well publicly more aware of states that are not reasoned into, being discoveries, primarily, but can be subjected to reason analytically in distinguishing between information and identity in the quales of the discursive mind, dropping the discursive mind, and uniting them both. I am prejudicially in favor of the latter. An excellent discourse on these ideas can be found in Franklin Merell-Wolff’s The Philosophy of Consciousness Without and Object. If it is necessary for you to have a a Catholic spin on it, then I recommend as well Bernadette Robert’s The Expereince of No Self and the trilogy that is part of.

 

[ReapReason]

We have moved on from Aristotle through Newton, and even past Einstein. As one writer put it, Null A, N, and E.

In the context of science, we have moved on from Aristotelian “physics”. There is a difference. You along with many people have evidently fail to see this difference given the fact that you rival two ways of measuring reality that essentially operate through two different systems of epistemology and have two different kinds of object. Metaphysics deals with being as being, and science deals with particular “kinds of beings”. Metaphysics properly understood does not conflict with any scientific theory because they deal with different aspects of what we call real; approaching reality from two different epistemological contexts. On the other-hand Metaphysics does tend to conflict in many important respects with the philosophical systems we call Naturalism and Scientism. Metaphysics does not conflict with Science. Metaphysics is either ignored or mistaken for something it is not.

 

[Gaber]

In the context of science, we have moved on from Aristotelian “physics”. There is a difference. You along with many people have evidently fail to see this difference given the fact that you rival two ways of measuring reality that essentially operate through two different systems of epistemology and have two different kinds of object. Metaphysics deals with being as being, and science deals with particular “kinds of beings”. Metaphysics properly understood does not conflict with any scientific theory because they deal with different aspects of what we call real; approaching reality from two different epistemological contexts. On the other-hand Metaphysics does tend to conflict in many important respects with the philosophical systems we call Naturalism and Scientism. Metaphysics does not conflict with Science. Metaphysics is either ignored or mistaken for something it is not.

Yes, thanks. I get the distinction you are making. My engagement with metaphysics has been a little different, however useful that distinction might be. For me, metaphysics is training the mind by feeding it absolutes. E.g., the test of reality is, “Does it change?” If it does, it may have existence, but is not real in an absolute sense. This is useful in the practice of discovery by negation. “Am I this?” “Am I that?”

Gradually the mind learns to discriminate between what constitutes “me” that changes, and “I” that does not. Very practical. And pretty simple, no?

 

[ReapReason]

Gradually the mind learns to discriminate between what constitutes “me” that changes, and “I” that does not. Very practical. And pretty simple, no?

Perhaps the question of identity can be a part of metaphysics in the context of essence, form, change, and being.

Are you the same person you was a second ago?