Proving the Existence of God

[oldcelt]

Good, you have just confirmed the comments I made. But surely the Deist has some reason for believing in God. By definition it cannot be through Divine Revelation. And if then not through reason either, how does a Deist arrive at the notion of God ? Since it is neither the one nor the other in your case, just how do you arrive at such a notion?

Linus2nd

We don’t necessarily believe in a god, we just do’t preclude the possibility, although with dramatically different characteristics. It is obviously not through divine anything, but by looking st the other system’s claims and recognizing where they have to be wrong. It is observation, reason (although you preclude that) and logic that guide. We expect nothing but realize that it is impossible to prove a negative…the non-existence of a deity.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We don’t necessarily believe in a god, we just do’t preclude the possibility, although with dramatically different characteristics. It is obviously not through divine anything, but by looking st the other system’s claims and recognizing where they have to be wrong. It is observation, reason (although you preclude that) and logic that guide. We expect nothing but realize that it is impossible to prove a negative…the non-existence of a deity.

Seems to me that your position is not Deisitc but agnostic.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

First of all I did not address you.

As I was the only one against the motion, it’s a bit late to act all surprised.

*Secondly, I didn’t insinuate anything. *

Yes you most certainly did. You say the arguments “will never be accepted by certain individuals, some because they cannot follow the arguments, some because they are ideologically opposed to the arguments, or are opposed to them on some other matter of principle”.

You make no argument, you just insinuate that anyone who disagrees with you is too thick or too ideological.

You say “For people of Faith to reject the arguments is inconsistent”.

Again, no argument, just an insinuation that no true Christian would dare disagree with you.

You say “Those Christians who reject the arguments at the intellectual level demonstrate an irrational prejudice of some type or that they simiply cannot follow the arguments. Of course there are always those who appear here, from time to time, who are not who they claim to be.”

Again, no argument, just an attempt to brand anyone who doesn’t agree with you as a deceitful bigot.

You say “Of course there are always those who appear here, from time to time, who are not who they claim to be. I have run into two actual cases of that and those two people have been banned. Other subtrefuges are more difficult to unearth.”

That last sentence is particularly despicable, it is outlawed by the stickies, it ends all attempt at debate, not a good idea for a forum.

And again no argument, just an stunningly cowardly attempt to bully people into keeping quiet or they’ll get banned.

*Thirdly, it is absolutely true. As far as you know I am an Atheist just trying to get everyone all stirred up. But all I said is true. There are only three reasons for rejecting Thomas’ arguments. All were covered in my remarks. You shouldn’t jump to conclusions, that is rash judgment.

I know you think all your objections are perfectly air tight. But that simply is not true at all. Most of them are completely unrelated to the issue, they cannot effect the validity of Thomas’ arguments. Any honest, moderately intelligent high school student can see them for what they are - smoke screens, red herrings, evasions, off the mark, etc.*

Again these are not arguments, just yet more ad hominem fallacies.

Do you imagine Thomas would be pleased with you for your irrationality? Do you think Christ is smiling on you for your lack of charity?

You were obviously in a very bad mood when you wrote that stuff. Might be time to lighten up a little and take ownership for your moods.

 

[inocente]

We seem to be making some progress.

It’s about time.

*From your post #127, you believe that some things about God can be known, but God cannot be, ultimately, FULLY understood.

Excellent.

Now explain HOW the following…

…is ANY DIFFERENT from precisely what you are doing here…

…or here…

Your conclusions about God certainly appear “cut and dried,” “clear and safe,” “safely pinned down” and “proven.” How are YOU not one of those True Christians™? *

Yet again you don’t seem to have twigged that I was illustrating why I thought other arguments were false, they are not my beliefs, please stop implying they are.

*If it is possible for YOU to claim that God can be known to a certain extent but not fully and is ultimately unknowable, for YOU, then why is everyone else who believes God is ultimately unknowable confined to this:

Who are “those” if they do not include you? And if “they” do include you, then why can they NOT make claims about the existence and attributes of God, but YOU CAN make claims about the attributes of God that do NOT always ultimately fail* , i.e…

I keep on having to ask you what you’re on about. Instead of quote mining let’s look at all of what I said: “So my point is that “proofs” of these attributes only function when kept isolated, when put together they generate lots of anomalies. Which is fine for those who say God is ultimately unknowable, but means that attempts to prove the existence and attributes of God must always ultimately fail.”

Thus if we believe God is ultimately unknowable, our knowledge must always remain incomplete and so we expect there to be anomalies, no problem. However, if we believe that absolutely everything about God can be known, the presence of even one anomaly indicates a failure in our knowledge, and that’s a problem.

btw personally I’m in the first group, and I know of no argument by Thomas about God which is universally agreed by all philosophers across all religions.

*And again…

This is what I mean about your inconsistency. You do not hold yourself to the same standard as you hold anyone who makes a point contrary to a statement of yours.*

Yet again you don’t seem to have twigged that I was illustrating why I thought other arguments were false, they are not my beliefs, please stop implying they are.

Would you like me to add that sentence to my sig to remind you so we don’t keep having to waste our time on this?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

As I was the only one against the motion, it’s a bit late to act all surprised.

Yes you most certainly did. You say the arguments “will never be accepted by certain individuals, some because they cannot follow the arguments, some because they are ideologically opposed to the arguments, or are opposed to them on some other matter of principle”.

You make no argument, you just insinuate that anyone who disagrees with you is too thick or too ideological.

You say “For people of Faith to reject the arguments is inconsistent”.

Again, no argument, just an insinuation that no true Christian would dare disagree with you.

You say “Those Christians who reject the arguments at the intellectual level demonstrate an irrational prejudice of some type or that they simiply cannot follow the arguments. Of course there are always those who appear here, from time to time, who are not who they claim to be.”

Again, no argument, just an attempt to brand anyone who doesn’t agree with you as a deceitful bigot.

You say “Of course there are always those who appear here, from time to time, who are not who they claim to be. I have run into two actual cases of that and those two people have been banned. Other subtrefuges are more difficult to unearth.”

That last sentence is particularly despicable, it is outlawed by the stickies, it ends all attempt at debate, not a good idea for a forum.

And again no argument, just an stunningly cowardly attempt to bully people into keeping quiet or they’ll get banned.

Again these are not arguments, just yet more ad hominem fallacies.

Do you imagine Thomas would be pleased with you for your irrationality? Do you think Christ is smiling on you for your lack of charity?

You were obviously in a very bad mood when you wrote that stuff. Might be time to lighten up a little and take ownership for your moods.

A very dark interpretation indeed. I can’t help it if you insist on painting my comments in the darkest possible light. Not worth discussing.

Been stewing for a whole week, hey.

Oh, by the way, when I said, " Of course there are always those who appear here, from time to time, who are not who they claim to be. I have run into two actual cases of that and those two people have been banned. Other subtrefuges are more difficult to unearth. "
Is absolutely true. It is a fact.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

A very dark interpretation indeed. I can’t help it if you insist on painting my comments in the darkest possible light. Not worth discussing.

Been stewing for a whole week, hey.

You might have been stewing for a week, but you posted your stew two days ago. It was definitely not a light comedy.

Oh, by the way, when I said, " Of course there are always those who appear here, from time to time, who are not who they claim to be. I have run into two actual cases of that and those two people have been banned. Other subtrefuges are more difficult to unearth. "
Is absolutely true. It is a fact.

I don’t think you should be speculating on this when you have no way of knowing why the moderators take action.

I’d say it’s against the best interests of CAF to promote an atmosphere of distrust. It’s impossible to have open debate if everyone is constantly imagining conspiracies and deceit. If you suspect something then tell the moderator. It’s never good to engage in witch hunts.

Now your post #126 which started this little spat is at best described as off topic, so for whatever reason you wrote it let’s draw a line. I’m happy to forgive and forget, and never mention it again.

Thomas is still wrong though.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You might have been stewing for a week, but you posted your stew two days ago. It was definitely not a light comedy.

I don’t think you should be speculating on this when you have no way of knowing why the moderators take action.

I’d say it’s against the best interests of CAF to promote an atmosphere of distrust. It’s impossible to have open debate if everyone is constantly imagining conspiracies and deceit. If you suspect something then tell the moderator. It’s never good to engage in witch hunts.

Now your post #126 which started this little spat is at best described as off topic, so for whatever reason you wrote it let’s draw a line. I’m happy to forgive and forget, and never mention it again.

Thomas is still wrong though.

To be absolutely correct, this " spat " began months ago on the thread, " The First Way Explained. " A change in attitude would be most welcome.

I think you could benefit by reading S.T. Part 1, Ques 1, which is Thomas’ introduction to the S.T. Of course it does not excuse any " mistakes " Thomas may have made, but it does place in context his use of philosophy in Theology. The S.T. is meant for " beginners " in Theology, not beginners in philosophy and is not meant as a stand alone answer to non-believers.

You made me burn by toast twice! I wish someone would buy me a new toaster for Christmas!
Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

To be absolutely correct, this " spat " began months ago on the thread, " The First Way Explained. " A change in attitude would be most welcome.

I think you could benefit by reading S.T. Part 1, Ques 1, which is Thomas’ introduction to the S.T. Of course it does not excuse any " mistakes " Thomas may have made, but it does place in context his use of philosophy in Theology. The S.T. is meant for " beginners " in Theology, not beginners in philosophy and is not meant as a stand alone answer to non-believers.

You made me burn by toast twice! I wish someone would buy me a new toaster for Christmas!
Linus2nd

Sadly, even here, or perhaps mainly here, I shout at Thomas. Take ST 1, 1, 1:

“Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation.”

That’s a plain admission that reason alone is not up to the job.

“Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors.”

So it’s possible to construct some reasoning around revelation, which is fine, that’s just saying revelation is not unreasonable. But he goes on to claim that after a long time and with many errors it would be possible to construct the reasoning in the absence of revelation, but there’s no way he can possibly know that.

And since we have revelation, we don’t need to construct the reasoning anyway, so he just put himself out of a job even before he gets started.

Which is an admirable trait in any philosopher.

Toasters are overrated. Simply put the bread on the hood of a Crown Victoria and crank the engine once. They are such gas guzzlers you get perfect toast instantly.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It’s about time.

I keep on having to ask you what you’re on about. Instead of quote mining let’s look at all of what I said: “So my point is that “proofs” of these attributes only function when kept isolated, when put together they generate lots of anomalies. Which is fine for those who say God is ultimately unknowable, but means that attempts to prove the existence and attributes of God must always ultimately fail.”

Thus **if we believe God is ultimately unknowable, our knowledge must always remain incomplete and so we expect there to be anomalies, **no problem. However, if we believe that absolutely everything about God can be known, the presence of even one anomaly indicates a failure in our knowledge, and that’s a problem.

btw personally I’m in the first group, and I know of no argument by Thomas about God which is universally agreed by all philosophers across all religions.

By saying “I’m in the first group,” you mean that you believe “God is ultimately unknowable, our knowledge must always remain incomplete and so we expect there to be anomalies.”

That entails the following claims are or, at least, could be anomalous:

So to know everything, God must be a great library (not simple) or must be able to look when and where (not unchanging) or must be all (but that’s pantheism) or so on.
…
“The wind blows where it will”, i.e. the Spirit interacts with us. If all our thoughts are known then there’s no interaction, the Spirit may as well be a book.

In other words, it could be possible that

1. God could know everything AND still be simple, unchanging and not “all” as entailed by pantheism.
2. Our thoughts could be known and there could be interaction with the Spirit, nonetheless.

Effectively, by saying, “I’m in the first group,” you are placing a disclaimer on these last two claims as being “unlikely to be true.”

So what would be your point in making these two definitive statements about God since they are inconsistent with your perspective from “the first group” that God is “ultimately unknowable, our knowledge must always remain incomplete and so we expect there to be anomalies?”

You can’t, as is said, “Have your cake and eat it, too.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sadly, even here, or perhaps mainly here, I shout at Thomas. Take ST 1, 1, 1:

“Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation.”

That’s a plain admission that reason alone is not up to the job.

Merely because reason cannot attain “certain truths” does not entail all truths are beyond reasoning. So, a conclusion that reason “is not up to the job” is a hasty one, at best.

Without specifying which truths are problematic for Thomas, you have no reason to “shout at him.” There is no “plain admission” involved. Thomas is quite clear about truth claims that can be made and those which are beyond the capacity of reason.

Unless you specify which claims, precisely, are problematic for Thomas, you are doing what I once saw a delusional man do, i.e., wandering the inner core of a city shouting incoherently at no one in particular concerning some delusional fantasy that preoccupied his mind.

There is no argument that can be found in Thomas’ admission that merely because some truths are beyond reason, all truths must be. If you want to shout down Thomas on the grounds that because some truths are beyond reason, all truths must be, I see no difference between you and the delusional man in my story.

“Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors.”

So it’s possible to construct some reasoning around revelation, which is fine, that’s just saying revelation is not unreasonable. But he goes on to claim that after a long time and with many errors it would be possible to construct the reasoning in the absence of revelation, but there’s no way he can possibly know that.

And since we have revelation, we don’t need to construct the reasoning anyway, so he just put himself out of a job even before he gets started.

Which is an admirable trait in any philosopher.

Again, you are demonstrating a less than “admirable” trait by invoking wildly inconsistent reasoning.

Even if truths are revealed, why would that render reasoning about them unnecessary? It seems to me “knowing that” something is true (gravity, for example) is quite a different matter from “knowing why.” What you seem to be saying here is that once we know that the law of gravity is true it renders all other “knowledge” about gravity superfluous and unnecessary.

Regarding revelation, we may come to know by revelation that grace is operative in our lives, but why it is so and why it is even necessary may be quite discoverable by a process of reasoning from the human condition, once we know “that” it is.

Revelation may provide the appropriate and important conclusions for chains of reasoning that may never have even been considered by unaided human thought, but once the conclusion is “seen” or “known” by revelation, how it might function as the logical conclusion from known premises then becomes clear. Thinking “outside” the box is a clear example of beginning with a point outside one’s realm of possibilities and then finding the path of thinking that gets you there.

If I find a map that tells me that Destination A lies 300 km northwest of my current location, I may never have thought to look for Destination A or spent a lifetime stumbling around with no clear view or idea of where I was going because I had no knowledge that Destination A even existed. Revelation can operate to overcome the “…long time and … many errors it would … [require] to construct the reasoning in the absence of revelation…” It is the certainty of the revelation that could be very helpful in guiding reason in the right direction, not as you say to, “put philosophers out of a job.”

 

[inocente]

By saying “I’m in the first group,” you mean that you believe “God is ultimately unknowable, our knowledge must always remain incomplete and so we expect there to be anomalies.”

That entails the following claims are or, at least, could be anomalous:

In other words, it could be possible that

1. God could know everything AND still be simple, unchanging and not “all” as entailed by pantheism.
2. Our thoughts could be known and there could be interaction with the Spirit, nonetheless.

Effectively, by saying, “I’m in the first group,” you are placing a disclaimer on these last two claims as being “unlikely to be true.”

So what would be your point in making these two definitive statements about God since they are inconsistent with your perspective from “the first group” that God is “ultimately unknowable, our knowledge must always remain incomplete and so we expect there to be anomalies?”

You can’t, as is said, “Have your cake and eat it, too.”

I rarely understand your posts anymore.

I am arguing against the claim that God can be completely known through reasoned arguments.

I therefore looked for the weakest point in that claim, which I decided is that in many (perhaps all) cases, the conclusion of one of the arguments about God contradicts the conclusion of another.

I therefore put forward examples of these anomalies, knowing that if those making the claim that God can be completely known fail to deal with them, their claim then fails.

Isn’t this standard debating? Were you out of school the day of that lesson?

 

[inocente]

Merely because reason cannot attain “certain truths” does not entail all truths are beyond reasoning. So, a conclusion that reason “is not up to the job” is a hasty one, at best.

You quoted Thomas yourself but don’t appear to have read it: “Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation”.

There’s no need to go looking for those truths since Thomas says that whatever they may be, they are beyond our powers of reason but necessary for salvation. Therefore he himself, in that statement, concludes that salvation is not possible through reason alone, in my words reason is not up to the job.

By all means argue with Thomas if you think he is wrong and you can be saved by logical argument alone.

Even if truths are revealed, why would that render reasoning about them unnecessary? It seems to me “knowing that” something is true (gravity, for example) is quite a different matter from “knowing why.” What you seem to be saying here is that once we know that the law of gravity is true it renders all other “knowledge” about gravity superfluous and unnecessary.

You know that gravity is true? What’s that even mean?

*Regarding revelation, we may come to know by revelation that grace is operative in our lives, but why it is so and why it is even necessary may be quite discoverable by a process of reasoning from the human condition, once we know “that” it is.

Revelation may provide the appropriate and important conclusions for chains of reasoning that may never have even been considered by unaided human thought, but once the conclusion is “seen” or “known” by revelation, how it might function as the logical conclusion from known premises then becomes clear. Thinking “outside” the box is a clear example of beginning with a point outside one’s realm of possibilities and then finding the path of thinking that gets you there.

If I find a map that tells me that Destination A lies 300 km northwest of my current location, I may never have thought to look for Destination A or spent a lifetime stumbling around with no clear view or idea of where I was going because I had no knowledge that Destination A even existed. Revelation can operate to overcome the “…long time and … many errors it would … [require] to construct the reasoning in the absence of revelation…” It is the certainty of the revelation that could be very helpful in guiding reason in the right direction, not as you say to, “put philosophers out of a job.”*

Again you are arguing against Thomas, as he doesn’t agree that we are taught by reason in this, he explicitly says we are taught by revelation. Argue with him all you want, here he is again: “Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Sadly, even here, or perhaps mainly here, I shout at Thomas. Take ST 1, 1, 1:

“Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation.”

That’s a plain admission that reason alone is not up to the job.

“Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors.”

So it’s possible to construct some reasoning around revelation, which is fine, that’s just saying revelation is not unreasonable. But he goes on to claim that after a long time and with many errors it would be possible to construct the reasoning in the absence of revelation, but there’s no way he can possibly know that.

And since we have revelation, we don’t need to construct the reasoning anyway, so he just put himself out of a job even before he gets started.

Which is an admirable trait in any philosopher.

Toasters are overrated. Simply put the bread on the hood of a Crown Victoria and crank the engine once. They are such gas guzzlers you get perfect toast instantly.

We finally got rid of the C.V. Had a crack in the intake manifold. So, giving its age, we decided to let someone else have it. Of course he knew the complete history of the car, so he wasn’t buying blind.

Read the suggested material, not that difficult. And you are right down to the point where you say that, " therefore it is pointless to study philosophy ( paraphrased ). It is very valuable to Faith and to show the intelligent among skeptics that God reveales Himself through nature as a part of His Divine Revelation and has been doing so from the moment of creation. It is a very consoling study for those who can do it. And, of course, the Church as made good use of it - something you should be aware of.

Have a Blessed Christmas.
Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

We finally got rid of the C.V. Had a crack in the intake manifold. So, giving its age, we decided to let someone else have it. Of course he knew the complete history of the car, so he wasn’t buying blind.

RIP yon lemon.

*Read the suggested material, not that difficult. And you are right down to the point where you say that, " therefore it is pointless to study philosophy ( paraphrased ). *

Oh I read it and you’re spot on, it’s dead easy to find the holes, we just need to keep our eyes open. Like shooting pork-chops in a barrel.

Although I think your paraphrasing went a little awry - studying philosophy is essential to determine honesty in philosophers.

*It is very valuable to Faith and to show the intelligent among skeptics that God reveales Himself through nature as a part of His Divine Revelation and has been doing so from the moment of creation. *

I’m glad you are so astute as to realize that God reveals Himself through nature. Us philosopher types call such knowledge a posteriori, meaning through experience, as in science.

If you’re interested in learning more about philosophy, you might like to read about Hume’s Fork, which is not a utensil but a fundamental in much modern philosophy. We could discuss it on this thread, it argues that it’s not just impossible but pointless to try to prove, well anything really about God.

It is a very consoling study for those who can do it. And, of course, the Church as made good use of it - something you should be aware of.

Yes, you would do well to read more of it, glad you’re getting up to speed.

Have a Blessed Christmas.
Linus2nd

And you. Happy philosophizing!

 

[Peter_Plato]

So it’s possible to construct some reasoning around revelation, which is fine, that’s just saying revelation is not unreasonable. But he goes on to claim that after a long time and with many errors it would be possible to construct the reasoning in the absence of revelation, but there’s no way he can possibly know that.

Of course he can know “that it is possible to construct the reasoning.” If revelation is not unreasonable, given revealed and reasonable conclusions, then we know reason CAN arrive at those same conclusions. That is all that Thomas is claiming. Thomas is only making a claim about the possibility of getting there, he is not saying humans would get there.

To say, “there’s no way he can possibly know that” is simply mistaken. It is a simple inference from the fact that revelation is reasonable. If what is revealed is accessible to reason, i.e. reasonable, then reason given the proper premises MUST be able to get there as a possibility. That’s how he KNOWS it is a possibility.

If a revealed conclusion is reasonable, then reason can lead us to revealed conclusions. Where is the problem? He is not claiming reason will get us there necessarily, only that it can as a possibility.

If I fly by plane to Destination A and then subsequently learn* that it was and is possible to get here by car, then the conclusion follows that I could have come by car. It is not claiming that I had to have come by car, only that it is possible "after a long time and with many errors” because, for example, the maps are unreliable, the roads are a mess and the cars are all Ladas (or Crown Victorias with cracks in the intake manifold).

This is not, in the least, a dubious claim. I am not clear why it should cause you such major consternation.

---

*I could learn from maps found in Destination A or even perhaps, looking down as I fly and notice, as a result of a bird’s eye view, that a labyrinth of roads does in fact lead there.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I rarely understand your posts anymore.

I don’t think you ever did, which is why you continue searching for ways of avoiding directly answering them.

**I am arguing against the claim that God can be completely known through reasoned arguments.
**
I therefore looked for the weakest point in that claim, which I decided is that in many (perhaps all) cases, the conclusion of one of the arguments about God contradicts the conclusion of another.

I therefore put forward examples of these anomalies, knowing that if those making the claim that God can be completely known fail to deal with them, their claim then fails.

Isn’t this standard debating? Were you out of school the day of that lesson?

I know of no one who makes the claim that God can be completely known by human reason and Thomas does NOT claim that everything about God is completely unknowable. There are some things, Thomas would agree, that we can know with certainty about God.

Your bolded statement is a straw man.

Your argument amounts to an attempt at refuting the “some things” that Thomas claims can be known about God by appealing to his claim that not all things can be known about God.

You are ambiguating “God is ultimately unknowable” with “nothing can ultimately be known about God.” That is not what Thomas is claiming. If he implies anything like “God is ultimately unknowable,” what is meant is that some features of God are not knowable and not accessible to human reason, while others are. These “others” are clearly laid out in his writings, otherwise why would he have bothered writing them?

By focusing on anomalies, you are, possibly, pitting assertions that are NOT knowable against those which are and finding only apparent contradictions, but then claiming these apparent contradictions are damning to all knowable assertions.

If X is an unknown or uncertain feature about God and Y is a known or very likely feature of God, we cannot use X to argue against Y and then claim Y is problematic because it is not supported by X.

Furthermore, you are making a claim that since there exist, possibly, an infinite number of features like X that are unknowable, therefore, all Y, or similar, claims are false. I see no reason to accept this.

You likely won’t understand this post either and I anticipate further “instruction” from you.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There’s no need to go looking for those truths since Thomas says that whatever they may be, they are beyond our powers of reason but necessary for salvation. Therefore he himself, in that statement, concludes that salvation is not possible through reason alone, in my words reason is not up to the job.

It’s very true that reason is not up to the job of our discovering all the truths that faith gives us. That is why faith is different from reason. It is consent built upon our best possible reasoning. We believe in the Trinity, for example, not because it appeals to reason, but because it appeals to faith as delivered to us by Christ and the apostles. Faith is necessary for salvation. Reason is an adjunct of faith and at the service of faith. Reason can assist us in the realm of natural theology by looking at nature and seeing elements of design, which powerfully suggest an Intelligent Designer. Or in the case of the Big Bang, by looking at the origins of the universe, seeing that it is not eternal, and deucing that there is a First Cause.

But reason that denies God is a whore who will sell herself to the highest bidder.

These bidders have many names. Fame. Power. Riches. Sex. Etc.

 

[inocente]

Of course he can know “that it is possible to construct the reasoning.” If revelation is not unreasonable, given revealed and reasonable conclusions, then we know reason CAN arrive at those same conclusions. That is all that Thomas is claiming. Thomas is only making a claim about the possibility of getting there, he is not saying humans would get there.

To say, “there’s no way he can possibly know that” is simply mistaken. It is a simple inference from the fact that revelation is reasonable. If what is revealed is accessible to reason, i.e. reasonable, then reason given the proper premises MUST be able to get there as a possibility. That’s how he KNOWS it is a possibility.

If a revealed conclusion is reasonable, then reason can lead us to revealed conclusions. Where is the problem? He is not claiming reason will get us there necessarily, only that it can as a possibility.

If I fly by plane to Destination A and then subsequently learn* that it was and is possible to get here by car, then the conclusion follows that I could have come by car. It is not claiming that I had to have come by car, only that it is possible "after a long time and with many errors” because, for example, the maps are unreliable, the roads are a mess and the cars are all Ladas (or Crown Victorias with cracks in the intake manifold).

This is not, in the least, a dubious claim. I am not clear why it should cause you such major consternation.

---

*I could learn from maps found in Destination A or even perhaps, looking down as I fly and notice, as a result of a bird’s eye view, that a labyrinth of roads does in fact lead there.

Let’s look at the claim that there are truths about God which human reason alone could have discovered. Thomas wrote it around 1250. Though it wouldn’t be called 1250, as without any revelation Christ never lived, and never died for us, or if He did then no one remembers. Nothing which depends on revelation exists: there is no Church, there is no Jewish faith, none of the books of the bible were ever written.

It seems unlikely that human reason alone could substitute for much of that.

But suppose somehow it could, there is a far greater problem. An absence of revelation would mean that God has never spoken, never inspired any writing, never given any sign whatsoever. It would mean He has chosen not to reveal anything of Himself at all. That is something very different about God, something which no amount of human reasoning can change.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Inocente

You said, " But suppose somehow it could, there is a far greater problem. An absence of revelation would mean that God has never spoken, never inspired any writing, never given any sign whatsoever. It would mean He has chosen not to reveal anything of Himself at all. That is something very different about God, something which no amount of human reasoning can change. "

No one here ever suggested that Philosophy could or should replace Revelation. That is why I suggested you read S.T., Part 1, Ques. 1.

Linus2nd

---

 

[inocente]

I don’t think you ever did, which is why you continue searching for ways of avoiding directly answering them.

…]

You likely won’t understand this post either and I anticipate further “instruction” from you.

Except for your constant attacks on my integrity I would not say this, but even if I felt like evading, it would never be even remotely necessary with you. You are by a long way the least challenging of all regular posters, whether or not you think naming yourself after a philosopher and sticking his bust on your posts might work some magic. If you were capable of making good arguments, you wouldn’t need to keep falling back on your ad hominem, would you?

See, I can make uncharitable personal remarks too, I just don’t keep having to do it post after post like you do.

If you edit the uncharitable remarks out and make your post again, I’ll answer it.