Proof of God's Existence in Comic Format

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Linusthe2nd said:
Found this on New Advent today. The author calls it a Cosmological argument for the existence of God. That is incorrect, it is actually the same argument Thomas uses in Existence and Essence. I thought it original enough to bring it here. Follow the link.

sweetheartsseekingsanctity.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-god-exists-rational-proof.html

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Wow. Started off good, but the end was a huge letdown. They built up to the actual argument, started fleshing it out, and just when they started to describe how “being itself” must have the attributes traditionally ascribed to God, they pulled out the rug and said “trust me, they all work, but I don’t want to explain how. Instead, look here, God calls himself ‘I Am. Ooooooh.’”

Disappointing way to leave it.
 
KnowtheSilence said:
Wow. Started off good, but the end was a huge letdown. They built up to the actual argument, started fleshing it out, and just when they started to describe how “being itself” must have the attributes traditionally ascribed to God, they pulled out the rug and said “trust me, they all work, but I don’t want to explain how. Instead, look here, God calls himself ‘I Am. Ooooooh.’”

Disappointing way to leave it.
Click to expand...
I AM WHO AM = “I am existence itself”

The rest is all logical derivation.

I like the booklet. I’m going to print it and leave it laying around, where certain “I don’t want to be bothered with God” young 20-somethings in my family will find it.

Open a crack.
Plant a seed.
Add some water.
Apply sunshine.
Wait for faith to sprout.
 
KnowtheSilence said:
Wow. Started off good, but the end was a huge letdown. They built up to the actual argument, started fleshing it out, and just when they started to describe how “being itself” must have the attributes traditionally ascribed to God, they pulled out the rug and said “trust me, they all work, but I don’t want to explain how. Instead, look here, God calls himself ‘I Am. Ooooooh.’”

Disappointing way to leave it.
Click to expand...
I think you should read it again. It based on Aquinas’ argument fourd in Existence and Essence.:

Thomas Aquinas wrote a rather long essay entitled Ente et Essentia, Existence and Essence. In the essay he has a " proof " for the existence of God that isn’t often seen. Most people interested in God’s existence are familiar with his Five Ways, but not many are familiar with his argument based on the act of existence.

First, the preamble to the argument.
  1. Whatever is not of the understood content of an essence or quality is something which comes from without and makes a composition with the essence, because no essence can be understood without the things which are parts of it. Now, every essence or quiddity can be understood without anything being understood about its existence. For I can understand what a man is, or what a phoenix is, and yet not know whether they have existence in the real world. It is clear, therefore, that existence is other than essence or quiddity, unless perhaps there exists a thing whose quiddity is its existence.
  2. And there can be but one such thing, the First Thing, because it is impossible to plurify a thing except: (1) by the addition of some difference, as the nature of the genus is multiplied in its species, or (2) by the reception of a form into diverse matters, as the nature of the species is multiplied in diverse individuals, or (3) by this: that one is absolute and the other is received into something; for example, if there were a separated heat, it would by virtue of its very separation be other than heat which is not separated. Now, if we posit a thing which is existence alone, such that this existence is subsistent, this existence will not receive the addition of a difference because it would no longer be existence alone, but existence plus some form. And much less will it receive the addition of matter because it would no longer be a subsistent existence, but a material existence. Whence it remains that such a thing, which is its own existence, cannot be but one.
  3. Whence it is necessary, that in every thing other than this one its existence be other than its quiddity, or its nature, or its form. Whence it is necessary that existence in the intelligences be something besides the form, and this is why it was said that an intelligence is form and existence
The argument.
  1. Now, whatever belongs to a thing is either caused by the principles of its nature, as the ability to laugh in man, or comes to it from some extrinsic principle, as light in the air from the influence of the sun. But it cannot be that the existence of a thing is caused by the form or quiddity of that thing ─ I say caused as by an efficient cause ─ because then something would be its own cause, and would bring itself into existence, which is impossible. It is therefore necessary that every such thing, the existence of which is other than its nature, have its existence from some other thing. And because every thing which exists by virtue of another is led back, as to its first cause, to that which exists by virtue of itself, it is necessary that there be some thing which is the cause of the existence of all things because it is existence alone. Otherwise, there would be an infinite regress among causes, since every thing which is not existence alone has a cause of its existence, as has been said. It is clear, therefore, that an intelligence is form and existence, and that it has existence from the First Being, which is existence alone. And this is the First Cause, which is God.
dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEnte&Essentia.htm

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I think you should read it again.
Click to expand...
I’m not at all sure I should. The majority of it (talking about the misconceptions about medieval times, the importance of metaphysics) is stuff I already knew and am on board with. I’m familiar with arguments in favor of a first cause and “being itself,” but I’ve found explanations to fall flat when it comes to saying why “being itself” is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent personal being with intelligence, personality, creativity, will, etc. Right when it looked like this comic was going to give it a shot, in tossed out a definition of “all-powerful” that doesn’t quite map onto what most believers seem to be talking about when they talk about God, and then didn’t bother to explain any others. It just asserted that it worked.

It was disappointing.
 
Hi. I made the comic. Its point is that a certain kind of being has to exist and hey, crazy: it matches exactly with what traditional theistic religions have always defined as God. In fact, it’s what God defined Himself as, long before the proof that this kind of being exists was discovered.

That the traditional attributes of God follow from His nature as Being Itself is important too, of course. But it’s not the scope of the comic. It’s out there if you want to look, though. Just look for Aquinas on the nature of God. Here’s a very quick and dirty breakdown:

If God is the Ultimate Cause, Being Itself, who depends on nothing but on whom everything else depends, then He is also:
  • One. There can only be one Final Cause, because you can’t have two Ultimate, Final explanations for all things.
  • Simple. God must be absolutely unified or simple; He can’t have parts. If He had parts, he would have to do things by having one part move the other, in which case in which case he would not be free from causation. An Aristotelian or Thomist would say that if God had parts he would have potentiality (one part potentially and then actually moving another), and if He had potentiality He would not be uncaused. (It might be worth finding and reading an explanation of what is meant by potentiality and actuality. But make sure it’s by someone who understands it, not someone trying to dismiss it. Maybe Ed Feser’s blog. Or Peter Kreeft.) God can’t have parts if he is going to be the Unmoved Mover. So God is an absolute unity with no parts whatsoever. This is what simplicity means.
  • Immutable. For the same reason as the above, God does not and cannot change. This is also why He is:
  • Pure Act. Being Itself must be pure actuality, with no potentiality, or it would not be Being Itself. God’s very essence, His very nature, is the same as His existence. Existence Itself is always actual, never potential.
  • Infinite. God is unbounded and unlimited (infinite), because if there were anything that bound or limited God in any respect He would not be the Ultimate and Uncaused Being.
  • Necessary. God is necessary, that is, He HAS to be. If it were possible that God not be, then there would be a reason why He is rather than is not, which would mean He wouldn’t be the Ultimate Explanation: instead, whatever made Him be rather than not be would.
  • Omnipresent. As the Ultimate Cause causing all things and all change, God is intimately present to every part of the universe at every moment. He is omnipresent in His power, for instance, because nothing exists without His making it be. So His power is intimately present in everything that exists and happens. This, incidentally, rules out Deism (the belief that God made the universe, but it is self-sufficient and carries on without Him).
  • Omnipotent. God is all powerful, because everything that is and everything that happens (every single natural cause and effect included) relies on Him for its existence. Nothing happens without Him. So whatever power there is, God has it, and whatever power other things have came from Him.
  • Good. God is omnibenevolent: all good. Being = goodness. Evil is not a thing in itself, but a lack in something, like a hole. A disease is a lack of something proper to an organism, for instance, and, similarly, a moral evil is a lack as well. This is why we call evil people inhuman. Their behavior puts a hole, so to speak, in their nature as it is intended to be. Existence, being, is good. All that is, all that exists, is therefore good. So God, being Being Himself, is also Goodness Himself.
  • Perfect. Perfection is completeness of being. There is nothing incomplete about God. If He were incomplete, he would not be the most fundamental thing.
  • Eternal. God is independent of time. His actions don’t take place in time: they happen all at once. Not simultaneously, but wholly and completely realized with no coming to be and no going away. It is not as if God didn’t act, came to act, and then had acted. No, he just acts. God is outside of time.
  • Independent. Everything depends on God, but nothing He depends on nothing (or else He would not be Absolute Cause).
  • Transcendent. God is beyond nature and totally separate and different from it. This is what distinguishes Theism from pantheism (the belief that God is identical to the universe). God permeates the universe, making not only the universe as a whole be, but making every part of it be. But God is independent of it, as well.
Others can explain these things better than I can. Try Ed Feser’s blog. Or try Peter Kreeft’s “Summa of the Summa.”
 
iBookworm said:
Hi. I made the comic. Its point is that a certain kind of being has to exist and hey, crazy: it matches exactly with what traditional theistic religions have always defined as God. In fact, it’s what God defined Himself as, long before the proof that this kind of being exists was discovered.

That the traditional attributes of God follow from His nature as Being Itself is important too, of course. But it’s not the scope of the comic. It’s out there if you want to look, though. Just look for Aquinas on the nature of God. Here’s a very quick and dirty breakdown:

If God is the Ultimate Cause, Being Itself, who depends on nothing but on whom everything else depends, then He is also:
  • One. There can only be one Final Cause, because you can’t have two Ultimate, Final explanations for all things.
  • Simple. God must be absolutely unified or simple; He can’t have parts. If He had parts, he would have to do things by having one part move the other, in which case in which case he would not be free from causation. An Aristotelian or Thomist would say that if God had parts he would have potentiality (one part potentially and then actually moving another), and if He had potentiality He would not be uncaused. (It might be worth finding and reading an explanation of what is meant by potentiality and actuality. But make sure it’s by someone who understands it, not someone trying to dismiss it. Maybe Ed Feser’s blog. Or Peter Kreeft.) God can’t have parts if he is going to be the Unmoved Mover. So God is an absolute unity with no parts whatsoever. This is what simplicity means.
  • Immutable. For the same reason as the above, God does not and cannot change. This is also why He is:
  • Pure Act. Being Itself must be pure actuality, with no potentiality, or it would not be Being Itself. God’s very essence, His very nature, is the same as His existence. Existence Itself is always actual, never potential.
  • Infinite. God is unbounded and unlimited (infinite), because if there were anything that bound or limited God in any respect He would not be the Ultimate and Uncaused Being.
  • Necessary. God is necessary, that is, He HAS to be. If it were possible that God not be, then there would be a reason why He is rather than is not, which would mean He wouldn’t be the Ultimate Explanation: instead, whatever made Him be rather than not be would.
  • Omnipresent. As the Ultimate Cause causing all things and all change, God is intimately present to every part of the universe at every moment. He is omnipresent in His power, for instance, because nothing exists without His making it be. So His power is intimately present in everything that exists and happens. This, incidentally, rules out Deism (the belief that God made the universe, but it is self-sufficient and carries on without Him).
  • Omnipotent. God is all powerful, because everything that is and everything that happens (every single natural cause and effect included) relies on Him for its existence. Nothing happens without Him. So whatever power there is, God has it, and whatever power other things have came from Him.
  • Good. God is omnibenevolent: all good. Being = goodness. Evil is not a thing in itself, but a lack in something, like a hole. A disease is a lack of something proper to an organism, for instance, and, similarly, a moral evil is a lack as well. This is why we call evil people inhuman. Their behavior puts a hole, so to speak, in their nature as it is intended to be. Existence, being, is good. All that is, all that exists, is therefore good. So God, being Being Himself, is also Goodness Himself.
  • Perfect. Perfection is completeness of being. There is nothing incomplete about God. If He were incomplete, he would not be the most fundamental thing.
  • Eternal. God is independent of time. His actions don’t take place in time: they happen all at once. Not simultaneously, but wholly and completely realized with no coming to be and no going away. It is not as if God didn’t act, came to act, and then had acted. No, he just acts. God is outside of time.
  • Independent. Everything depends on God, but nothing He depends on nothing (or else He would not be Absolute Cause).
  • Transcendent. God is beyond nature and totally separate and different from it. This is what distinguishes Theism from pantheism (the belief that God is identical to the universe). God permeates the universe, making not only the universe as a whole be, but making every part of it be. But God is independent of it, as well.
Others can explain these things better than I can. Try Ed Feser’s blog. Or try Peter Kreeft’s “Summa of the Summa.”
Click to expand...
Well, I thought it was fine, not to say most original.

Linus2nd
 
One of the reasons I like this comic is because it DOESN’T go into the depth of arguments iBookworm just laid out. It hits the core argument, then backs off to let the message sink in.

Why do I like this approach? Because I’ve tried explaining to perfectly intelligent devout Catholics - including a man preparing for Diaconate formation - ideas like “God is outside of Time” and “God sees everything simultaneously” and “Evil is the lack of God, not the opposite of God”… and seen their eyes glaze over with incomprehension. I had to walk them through it, very slowly, and it still didn’t quite sink in because they had never considered the idea. (Later on these same folks were spreading around that I was some sort of theological genius, which I’m not.)

The folks this comic is targeted at are (generally) young people whose heads are so stuffed with myths and theological nonsense that they aren’t ready for the full double-barreled shotgun. We want to snare their interest and get the conversation started, not flatten them with a steamroller in our haste.

Great job, iBookworm! I hope you do sequels that do lay out the other attributes of God.

Are you selling your comic somewhere? My church could use a boxful of these.
 
Love it, I also agree that it would be too much to prove every attribute of God in one comment. It would possibly turn into a “TL;DR” for some. But this is good, it gets one’s attention and leaves one asking for more.
 
Nan_S said:
Are you selling your comic somewhere? My church could use a boxful of these.
Click to expand...
Officially selling would be problematic since I don’t own a lot of the art, but I did have Ka-Blam print off 10 copies as for a CCD class once. They turned out very well; they looked and felt just like a “real” comic book. If you wanted to do that I could send you the high-quality TIFF files that Ka-Blam requires. Pricing varies by bulk, but I remember it being rather reasonable.

Or you could just put all the pictures into a single file and print it yourself.
 
iBookworm said:
Officially selling would be problematic since I don’t own a lot of the art, but I did have Ka-Blam print off 10 copies as for a CCD class once. They turned out very well; they looked and felt just like a “real” comic book. If you wanted to do that I could send you the high-quality TIFF files that Ka-Blam requires. Pricing varies by bulk, but I remember it being rather reasonable.

Or you could just put all the pictures into a single file and print it yourself.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. This could present problems with potential copyright violations and/or theft of intellectual property.

Is the art in public domain, or has the artist given permission for the work to be reproduced?
 
It’s public domain and licensed clipart. I can’t profit from it, but no one’s going to come after you if you order prints for yourself.
 
Hi, iBookworm. Thanks for posting.
iBookworm said:
Its point is that a certain kind of being has to exist and hey, crazy: it matches exactly with what traditional theistic religions have always defined as God.
Click to expand...
Except it doesn’t, does it? Certainly not exactly, at least not as put forward in this post or in the comic. The being you’ve described falls short of what theists typically say God is. Theists describe God as a personal being. In the comic and in the descriptions you gave, God’s personhood is asserted but not at all evident. I haven’t seen any reason to think that such a being has intelligence, will, emotions, or a mind (“omniscient” was conspicuously absent from the list).

Also, a number of the descriptions that were given didn’t match what theists (at least the ones I’ve spoken to) have meant when they talk about them in relation to God. Omnipotence, for instance; I’ve most commonly heard God described as omnipotent in the sense that he can do all things that are logically possible (I’ve also run into a few who think that being omnipotent means that he can do things that aren’t logically possible, like create square circles, but I think those people are confused, so we don’t need to go there). In their view, God can perform miracles such as raising the dead or, say, causing an animal to spontaneously appear out of thin air. By the definition that you give, if the power to raise the dead or cause a fully-developed animal to spontaneously manifest isn’t a power that actually exists, God would not be able to do these things but would still be able to be called omnipotent.

Similarly, God being good in the sense of having “fullness of being” doesn’t quite get us to the type of being that we often hear described. Calling God a loving father or a benevolent master or a just ruler can only be metaphors (and strained ones at that) if all that is meant by “God is good” is that God has “fullness of being.” That isn’t to say that the view of God’s goodness that you presented here is a poor definition; I actually think it makes a lot of sense. It’s just that it’s not quite the same thing that people seem to be talking about when they talk about God being morally good.

I really have no issues with the idea of “being itself.” I’m probably going to raise some eyebrows, but I can actually see such a thing being conceived of in an atheistic framework, provided that it remains a non-personal, unintelligent sort of being. I think the philosophical arguments go a long way in establishing such a thing, but the arguments (as I’ve seen them) don’t go far enough to say that “being itself” is a person. And they definitely can’t bridge the gap between philosophy and theology by telling us that this being is a particular person (YHWH, Allah, Shiva, etc.), although many try to make them.
 
Very briefly, a thing cannot give that which it does not have. Ergo, reason and free will, being a feature of reality, must be a part of the source or ground of all reality.

God being the Creator at every moment of all that is, yes, he could indeed cause a cow to spontaneously appear, if he so chose. His act of creation is necessarily ex nihilo, from nothing. But yes, he cannot make a square circle. I think Lewis had the best response to that: a square circle is a contradiction and therefore meaningless, so saying God can’t make one is not saying anything about God’s power, anymore than saying “God can’t pfdoifjdkhf” says something about it.

Goodness and being are synonymous. A wound is a lack of being, and therefore a lack of goodness, in the person with the wound. Moral evil is a lack of goodness in being as well. A thing is good and complete according to its nature: an oak tree, for instance, is a good oak tree when it grows, spreads its leaves to catch the sun, enacts photosynthesis, brings in water from its roots, etc. An oak tree that is stunted, that cannot photosynthesize or make acorns or pull in water well, is a bad oak tree. An animal is a more complex organism, involving also such things as locomotion. An animal that is lame is, in that sense, a bad animal, or an animal afflicted by an evil, a lack in its nature. A human is more complex yet: our nature involves also intellect and free will. If these are not directed towards their proper ends, namely truth and the good, then we too have a lack in the being we are meant to have. So moral goodness is, also, a fullness of being, and moral evil the opposite.

It is true that the cosmological argument does not argue for a personalIST conception of God, but that does not mean He is not a person. Much more detail about these things here: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/classical-theism-roundup.html

The comic and my brief explication of the predicates of God are by no means exhaustive of the topic. The stuff is out there, though, if you care to look.
 
iBookworm said:
Goodness and being are synonymous.
Click to expand...
Important qualification: goodness and being are convertible, not synonymous. They differ in sense, so they do not mean the same thing as they would if they were synonymous. The reason why God’s being pure being implies God’s being pure goodness is that goodness and being are identical in referent.

I am somewhat sympathetic to KnowtheSilence here. Apologetics does not give enough attention to omniscience. Many atheists will feel comfortable with a cosmological argument if they think it can’t be shown that the entity in question is intelligent. Tragically some think that theists have not even considered addressing the question and just make an unwarranted leap out of pure giddiness. And in some cases I’m afraid they’re warranted.

I would disagree with this:
iBookworm said:
Very briefly, a thing cannot give that which it does not have. Ergo, reason and free will, being a feature of reality, must be a part of the source or ground of all reality.
Click to expand...
There is a chance that this argument could be heavily qualified to achieve the desired result, but right now it is invalid because God also causes material beings to exist, but God is not material.

However, it is from the bolded statement that an argument to God’s omniscience can be constructed, by qualifying that what is given must exist formally, eminently, or virtually in the sum of all its causes (ie. the principle of proportionate causality). What you seem to be arguing is that reason and will are possessed formally by creatures, so they must be possessed by God, but in that restricted sense the principle is not true. (In a sense your argument is valid, but the sense of “a part of the source” that would be true here will not help one to conclude that God essentially has intellect or will, just that intellect and will are eminently or virtually contained in him, in the same sense that blueness is eminently or virtually contained in him.*)

God’s intelligence lies in the fact that, in order to cause the world to be, God possesses the forms of all that exists (and whatever other forms could possibly be instantiated) eminently or virtually, and this mode of possessing forms is what is essential to intelligence on Aquinas’s philosophy of mind. (source in ST)

Will follows from intelligence. And KnowtheSilence is right that without these, there is not a compelling case for God’s moral goodness, even if there is one for his goodness. This is because prior to the 16th-17th centuries, people tended not to talk about “morality.” The closest thing had to do with ethics, whereby what we call “moral goodness” was a species of goodness (which can be predicated of every being) in specifically rational beings. (A tree can be good, but can’t be ethical, because it cannot apply principles of right reason to achieving its ends, even though it has ends.) So without a case for God’s intelligence and will, the argument for goodness will be unsatisfying as well.

*Forgive me. I honestly don’t remember the difference between these terms.

I don’t take this to be a fault of your comic. It doesn’t purport to argue all of the divine attributes. But I sympathize with atheists who will finish it and feel content.
 
Thanks, I thought this was very good 👍.

Here’s a similar tract for the same argument, but a little more straightforward (still very simply and well explained in laymen’s terms), in case the style of the one in the OP is not your thing. This one also addresses the other attributes of God that can be deduced.

imgur.com/LiNjE?utm_content=buffer67571&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

As an aside, these concepts relating to essence and existence are at the root of the Church’s positions on which religions acknowledge the one true God and which do not (which are sometimes controversial on these boards).
 
Genesis315 said:
Thanks, I thought this was very good 👍.

Here’s a similar tract for the same argument, but a little more straightforward (still very simply and well explained in laymen’s terms), in case the style of the one in the OP is not your thing. This one also addresses the other attributes of God that can be deduced.

imgur.com/LiNjE?utm_content=buffer67571&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

As an aside, these concepts relating to essence and existence are at the root of the Church’s positions on which religions acknowledge the one true God and which do not (which are sometimes controversial on these boards).
Click to expand...
Yes, that was very good. However it is a different argument. Did you register on that sight? I was wondering if it would be worth while. By the way, you can download and save this presentation.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Yes, that was very good. However it is a different argument. Did you register on that sight? I was wondering if it would be worth while. By the way, you can download and save this presentation.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Someone else had sent me that, so no, I hadn’t registered, sorry.

My apologies if it was not the same argument–it used the same train analogy and everything! :o
 
iBookworm said:
Very briefly, a thing cannot give that which it does not have. Ergo, reason and free will, being a feature of reality, must be a part of the source or ground of all reality.
Click to expand...
I’m really not with you on this one. I’m a metaphysical naturalist, so I think that in is much as things like “reason” and “free will” have been explained, they’ve been explained in terms of natural, physical processes within a brain. So, while I’d agree for the sake of discussion that reason, free will, etc., have their source in the ground of all reality, saying that that means Being Itself is a person doesn’t make sense to me. It’s like saying that God/Being Itself is burning and rusty since fire and oxidization also are features in reality.
iBookworm said:
God being the Creator at every moment of all that is, yes, he could indeed cause a cow to spontaneously appear, if he so chose. His act of creation is necessarily ex nihilo, from nothing. But yes, he cannot make a square circle. I think Lewis had the best response to that: a square circle is a contradiction and therefore meaningless, so saying God can’t make one is not saying anything about God’s power, anymore than saying “God can’t pfdoifjdkhf” says something about it.
Click to expand...
The idea that God/Being Itself must have all power that exists, as far as I can tell, does follow from first cause arguments. The idea that God/Being Itself can have the power to do anything conceivable, as far as I can tell, is not supported by those arguments.

Sticking with the definition of omnipotence that you provided earlier, I don’t see any way of knowing what kind of power God/Being Itself actually has unless we have seen that power exercised in some way. We know that God/Being Itself can make a cow…through a long, intensely complex chain of physical processes. We don’t know that God/Being Itself can simply poof a cow into existence right in front of us. I don’t think that kind of power has been observed and I don’t think it’s supported by the kind of first cause arguments we’ve been talking about here.
iBookworm said:
Goodness and being are synonymous. A wound is a lack of being, and therefore a lack of goodness, in the person with the wound. Moral evil is a lack of goodness in being as well. A thing is good and complete according to its nature: an oak tree, for instance, is a good oak tree when it grows, spreads its leaves to catch the sun, enacts photosynthesis, brings in water from its roots, etc. An oak tree that is stunted, that cannot photosynthesize or make acorns or pull in water well, is a bad oak tree. An animal is a more complex organism, involving also such things as locomotion. An animal that is lame is, in that sense, a bad animal, or an animal afflicted by an evil, a lack in its nature. A human is more complex yet: our nature involves also intellect and free will. If these are not directed towards their proper ends, namely truth and the good, then we too have a lack in the being we are meant to have. So moral goodness is, also, a fullness of being, and moral evil the opposite.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with anything here, but it doesn’t really address the point I was trying (and probably failing) to make. Dan Fincke does a better job of it here if you’re interested: On God As The Source Of Being But Not Of Evil.
iBookworm said:
It is true that the cosmological argument does not argue for a personalIST conception of God, but that does not mean He is not a person. Much more detail about these things here: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/classical-theism-roundup.html
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. I’ll spend some time looking through this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top