Only two objections to God's existence? (Aquinas)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neithan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Neithan

Guest
In his *Summa *Aquinas only came up with for the existence of God:

The first objection is the problem of evil.

The second is the explanatory power of natural science, which makes positing the existence of God unnecessary.

It seems to me that “new” atheists now — eight centuries later — still use these two (740-year-old) objections the most, but there are also.

Did St. Thomas just not think of any other arguments or are these simply the only two objections really worth considering?
 
Those are the only two worth considering. In general St Thomas leaves out arguments that were not seriously being proposed by anyone. Had he written the Summa today, he may have included other objections.
 
If you read St. Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of the Word, when he’s explaining the existence of God, those are the only two arguments he can come up with too–a thousand years before Aquinas. I think what it boils down to is that any argument against the existence of God can be shown to be a variation of one of those two things. Both Athanasius and Aquinas treat them both very well, too.

-ACEGC
 
if there’s a winning argument against God, it’s the problem of pain and suffering.
it’s too horrible to have an explanation.

i don’t think you can win against it. just concede and move on.
 
In general all discussions on the existance of God that I’ve seen come down to Faith. Not just for Catholicism, not just for Christianity, but for Theism in general. With Faith, everything can be explained. Without it, no justification is good enough.
 
EviPolevhia said:
In general all discussions on the existance of God that I’ve seen come down to Faith. Not just for Catholicism, not just for Christianity, but for Theism in general. With Faith, everything can be explained. Without it, no justification is good enough.
Click to expand...
I see Faith as necessary for Catholicism, but Monotheism in general? Monotheism is demonstrable, for example, see Aquinas. 🙂
 
Shike said:
I see Faith as necessary for Catholicism, but Monotheism in general? Monotheism is demonstrable, for example, see Aquinas. 🙂
Click to expand...
I have seen Aquinas and I disagree with his conclusions and reasoning. 🙂
 
I have seen Aquinas and I disagree with his conclusions and reasoning. 🙂
Click to expand...
:eek: :banghead::blackeye:

When it comes to the A-team…
Everything has been explained.***
Nothing is understood :crying: :takethat:
 
itullian said:
if there’s a winning argument against God, it’s the problem of pain and suffering.
it’s too horrible to have an explanation.

i don’t think you can win against it. just concede and move on.
Click to expand...
Per St. Thomas’ reply to this objection in the Summa:
Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

-ACEGC
 
I’d be interested to hear those other reasons. However for me, those two are enough evidence even if other reasons are just extensions of them.
 
EviPolevhia said:
I have seen Aquinas and I disagree with his conclusions and reasoning. 🙂
Click to expand...
“Consider the case of two persons of whom one has a more penetrating grasp of a thing by his intellect than, does the other. He who has the superior intellect understands many things that the other cannot grasp at all. Such is the case with a very simple person who cannot at all grasp the subtle speculations of philosophy… it would be the height of folly for a simple person to assert that what a philosopher proposes is false on the ground that he himself cannot understand it, so (and even more so) it is the acme of stupidity for a man to suspect as false what is divinely revealed through the ministry of the angels simply because it cannot be investigated by reason.”

Aquinas, Contra Gentiles Book I Chapter 3
 
Neithan said:
In his *Summa *Aquinas only came up with for the existence of God:

The first objection is the problem of evil.

The second is the explanatory power of natural science, which makes positing the existence of God unnecessary.

It seems to me that “new” atheists now — eight centuries later — still use these two (740-year-old) objections the most, but there are also.

Did St. Thomas just not think of any other arguments or are these simply the only two objections really worth considering?
Click to expand...
He said elsewhere that it is difficult to product errors to refute based on the fact that he was a cradle Catholic and the Doctors of old had a better grasp of refutation because they lived as pagans or heretics and converted. It’s been like that since the beginning of the Church, converts are the best apologists against what they originally believed and Aquinas was happy to say that he stood on the shoulders of giants. But as far as these two objections, I can only imagine that he thought are the only ones worthy of reply or the only objections present at that time.
 
TS_Aquinas said:
“Consider the case of two persons of whom one has a more penetrating grasp of a thing by his intellect than, does the other. He who has the superior intellect understands many things that the other cannot grasp at all. Such is the case with a very simple person who cannot at all grasp the subtle speculations of philosophy… it would be the height of folly for a simple person to assert that what a philosopher proposes is false on the ground that he himself cannot understand it, so (and even more so) it is the acme of stupidity for a man to suspect as false what is divinely revealed through the ministry of the angels simply because it cannot be investigated by reason.”

Aquinas, Contra Gentiles Book I Chapter 3
Click to expand...
Not sure how to address this as it neither shows how he is right or how I am wrong. There are many great Philosophers who hold dissenting views from one another. They cannot all be right, so some great Philosopher must be wrong. Just because he has a ‘more penetrating grasp of a thing by his intellect’ then I do doesn’t make him right by default. And me being a ‘very simple person’ doesn’t make me wrong by default.
 
EviPolevhia said:
I have seen Aquinas and I disagree with his conclusions and reasoning. 🙂
Click to expand...
Most philosophers of any field would agree that Aquinas erred, but more importantly, most philosophers of religion agree. Unfortunately, I think for the most part, when you say something like this here you’ll encounter some kind of conspiratorial explanation for why most philosophers reject Aquinas’ arguments. e.g., they just don’t know what they’re talking about. etc.

I agree with your comments about faith as well. It doesn’t strike me as particularly difficult to enervate theism’s case to a foundation of religious experience.
 
Perplexity said:
t doesn’t strike me as particularly difficult to enervate theism’s case to a foundation of religious experience.
Click to expand...
It’s particularly easy to enervate materialism’s case to a lack of rational foundation for any purposeful experience! 😉
 
EviPolevhia said:
Not sure how to address this as it neither shows how he is right or how I am wrong. There are many great Philosophers who hold dissenting views from one another. They cannot all be right, so some great Philosopher must be wrong. Just because he has a ‘more penetrating grasp of a thing by his intellect’ then I do doesn’t make him right by default. And me being a ‘very simple person’ doesn’t make me wrong by default.
Click to expand...
A specialist who dedicates his life to such matters is rather more likely to be closer to the truth than a novice with no expertise or experience!
 
TS_Aquinas said:
“Consider the case of two persons of whom one has a more penetrating grasp of a thing by his intellect than, does the other. He who has the superior intellect understands many things that the other cannot grasp at all. Such is the case with a very simple person who cannot at all grasp the subtle speculations of philosophy… it would be the height of folly for a simple person to assert that what a philosopher proposes is false on the ground that he himself cannot understand it, so (and even more so) it is the acme of stupidity for a man to suspect as false what is divinely revealed through the ministry of the angels simply because it cannot be investigated by reason.”

Aquinas, Contra Gentiles Book I Chapter 3
Click to expand...
👍 Irrefutable!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top