St. Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs of the existence of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter RochesterMN
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
An uncaused cause is not contingent by definition. It is uncaused.
Click to expand...
You’re correct, but he is conflating the freedom to choose and the possibility of existing. In other-words he may have the freedom to choose, but that does not mean that his being is uncaused or that he is the cause of his being. He is not an uncaused cause n respect to his existence.
 
Last edited:
You’re conflating “I” your body (on topic) with “I” your free will (off topic). Stick with former. Start another thread on free will if you want
 
Delusioned said:
As Aquinas11 said, I have a mother and a father, therefore I’m caused. But I supposedly have free will, thus my choices aren’t caused. Because if they were, then I couldn’t truly be said to have free will. Which means that as far as my choices are concerned, I’m an uncaused cause.
Click to expand...
Your parents just gave you a body, not mind.
 
Aquinas11 said:
You’re conflating “I” your body (on topic) with “I” your free will (off topic). Stick with former. Start another thread on free will if you want
Click to expand...
Sorry, but we are on topic. Aquinas’ first proof is the uncaused cause. What constitutes an uncaused cause?
 
Delusioned said:
Sorry, but we are on topic. Aquinas’ first proof is the uncaused cause. What constitutes an uncaused cause?
Click to expand...
It’s existence is not caused. So yes you did go of topic when you started talking about freewill.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
No, he didn’t.
Click to expand...
Explain? If we are simply establishing the existence of a being that is not caused and is the cause of beings that contingently real, then what has freewill got to do with establishing that fact?
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
It’s existence is not caused. So yes you did go of topic when you started talking about freewill.
Click to expand...
Okay, then let’s get back on topic.

And I’ll repeat my question.

Why does it create? What causes it to do so? If it has a choice to create, or not to create, what causes it to decide one way or the other?
 
Aquinas11 said:
Aquinas said we cannot know what God IS but rather what God IS NOT

So it’s more what we know the first cause IS NOT. It IS NOT a physical or finite entity as that requires a prior cause (for it to have characteristics X as opposed to say, characteristics Y)
Click to expand...
Still waiting for reply to this
 
Last edited:
Delusioned said:
Why does it create? What causes it to do so? If it has a choice to create, or not to create, what causes it to decide one way or the other?
Click to expand...
There is no point in addressing this question until we establish that a uncaused cause exists, and that the uncaused cause is intelligent.

If you are finding it difficult to accept that an uncaused cause exists, and you find it more reasonable to think that contingent beings can sufficiently explain their own existence, then it’s unlikely that any more good fruit can be gained from the discussion.
 
Last edited:
You didn’t reply yet. You even conceded “I wasn’t aware it was looking for a reply”
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
There is no point in addressing this question until we establish that a uncaused cause exists, and that the uncaused cause is intelligent.
Click to expand...
I accept that an uncaused cause exists, but I don’t accept that it’s intelligent. And in spite of all of your threads to the contrary, I don’t think that you’ve shown that it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top