Does Aquinas' Metaphysics give us certainty of God's existence

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IWantGod

Guest
This is an epistemological question. Does Aquinas’ Metaphysics give us certainty of God’s existence? Or does it only give us a reasonable belief. What degree of knowledge does Aquinas provide in your opinion?

And i ask those who study religious philosophy, does religious philosophy give you certainty of God or does it only make his existence more likely than not.
 
Last edited:
This might give you some assurance

Jesus answered, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him…John 14:23
 
We can’t prove God in the way we can prove a math problem.

We can, however, make an excellent case for His existence.
 
Actually we can by logic. They are the natural ways (not revealed)
 
Last edited:
No actually that is incorrect. We can prove GOD because we can solve problems with Math.
What we cannot do is prove GOD existence with the Scientific Method.
Which relies on Observation, Theory Postulation, Testing of correlation between data (observed facts) and Postulated Theory.
Math on the other hand we use our logic (Reason) to solve a mathematical problem.
How do you know that 2 + 2 = 4 ? Only your intellect informs you your logic will prevent you to say 2 + 2 = 5 or 3 albeit there are some people out there that will say that.

Peace!
 
Last edited:
In the Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas’ main argument for the existence of God is the Aristotelian “first cause,” also known as the “unmoved mover.” Is this the argument you are asking about?
 
This is an epistemological question. Does Aquinas’ Metaphysics give us certainty of God’s existence? Or does it only give us a reasonable belief. What degree of knowledge does Aquinas provide in your opinion?
Personally I have never found convincing Aquinas’ arguments for God’s existence, because his arguments are strongly based on the premises of aristotelian philosophy. As a physicist, I have a totally different vew of the physical reality and I do not find anything meaningful in greek philosophy. I think that Aquinas’ arguments were meaningful in that historical period and they are an expression of the pre-scientific culture.
I think that a rational analysis of our scientific knowledges can provide stronger and more convincing arguments for someone who has a “scientific culture”.
 
Last edited:
How do you know that 2 + 2 = 4 ? Only your intellect informs you your logic will prevent you to say 2 + 2 = 5 or 3 albeit there are some people out there that will say that.
This isn’t really logic, it’s definitional. In our number system one of the characteristics of ‘4’ is that it’s the sum of 2 and 2, and the product of 2 and 2 for that matter. It’s true because it’s part of the number system we defined.
 
In the Summa Contra Gentiles , Aquinas’ main argument for the existence of God is the Aristotelian “first cause,” also known as the “unmoved mover.” Is this the argument you are asking about?
I am asking does his metaphysical system provide us with certainty of God’s existence. But lets go with the unmoved mover argument. Does the argument succeed in either making God more likely to exist or does it give us certainty about his existence. What degree of knowledge does the argument provide.
 
There is no universally accepted Yes or No answer. Some philosophers will say the “unmoved mover” argument was refuted long ago, while others will say it wasn’t and the claim to have refuted the argument is a false claim, albeit made in good faith.

If you’re interested in pursuing the investigation, Copleston’s book in the Penguin Philosophy series might be a good place to start, even though it’s now about sixty years old. Copleston was a Jesuit, so you can guess which side of the argument he’s on.

https://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Intr...Submit.x=22&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=3&dchild=
 
You mean the arguments only succeed at making God’s existence more likely than not?
No verbal explanation “makes God more likely”.

Conversely, if He has decided to hide Himself from our view, it wouldn’t make Him cease to exist.

Mankind looks around. Sees a certain order, and a certain chaos to the Universe. Looks at the stars. Lives blood and birth and death.

Is there something More than our material existence?

Let’s look at the evidence…
 
In a word, yes.

Here’s my own take on it…

You can have the God posited by Thomas (and Aristotle), or you can sacrifice the ability to know anything in general. You simply have to choose. Look closely at the 5 ways… see if you can see why.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top