Have you read what Aquinas says about faith? By that I mean faith in a Creator of all things?
Of course! Nothing I wrote contradicts it.
I stated that Aquinas spent much of his life providing proof for Godās existence. He either did this for the believer or the unbeliever (or possibly both) OR he was completely wasting his time. You are claiming that Aquinas stated that those without faith have no regard for evidence and those without have no use for it.
And if is true that Aquinas felt proof was not useful for either those with faith or those without, help me understand who the audience was for Aquinasās five proofs: the guy without faith or the guy with faith?
Jesus actually lets Thomas down gently, and elevates those who believe but havenāt seen n=RSVCE
Of course, he is blessing those who havenāt seen and have believed
because they already had plenty of proof - the prophesies, the testimony of the apostles, the proof of Christās divinity through his miracles. Are you arguing that those who āhavenāt seenā didnāt have these āproofsā to rely upon?
If you donāt believe this, let me ask if someone who ābelievesā in the god Vishnu, but āhas not seenā him is also blessed?
If not, why not?
this might be quicker to address your points
The First Cause Argument by Peter Kreeft
Wait, what in the world did you think my point was?
Iām not sure how linking to Kreeft addresses my post. According to the pseudo-quote you provided from Aquinas, there is zero need to offer proofs for Godās existence (believers donāt need and them and atheists ignore them), so as a rebuttal of that, you point me in the direction of an author (Kreeft) who spends a lot of time providing proofs and even debating atheists? That seems like a silly thing for Kreeft (and Aquinas) to do if your quote is right, doesnāt it?
So, in short, since you still support this āquoteā from Aquinas, some questions:
Are you still claiming that you used a ādirect quoteā from Aquinas?
By using that quote so often, as you claim to do, are you saying someone with true faith has no need for proof or evidence?
Are you also claiming that anyone who lacks faith is close-minded against all evidence or proof for God?
Who was Aquinasās audience when he wrote his 5 Proofs? Was it for the one without faith (who your quote says would find the proofs insufficient) or the one with faith (who would find them unnecessary)?
Are you in agreement with St. Paul that we should ātest all thingsā?
Did those who ādid not seeā in Thomasās story not already have convincing reasons to believe Christ would rise from the dead as he said he would?
Finally, the Catechism (CCC 143;150) does not not define faith as belief in God without proof, but rather a āpersonal adherence to Godā and an assent to the whole truth he revealed. Are you in agreement with the Catechism on this definition?
Does the Catechism ever say that we can/should believe in God without any evidence at all? If so, please help me locate that.