St. Thomas Aquinas - is "necessary being" the ultimate argument of his for the existence of God?

[thegrons]

This was exactly the problem Aquinas saw with Anselm’s famous argument. That which nothing greater can be thought of is merely a logical concept, not a really existing one.

This is what is so attractive about Aquinas – he was an honest thinker. Perhaps the most honest there ever was. I find it appalling that he is not required reading in philosophy 101 courses simply because he has been branded a “theologian” and therefore partisan. He is the cleanest thinker I’ve ever encountered, i.e. following things where they led rather than to predetermined ends. Moderns could learn so much from him if they’d merely listen. Sadly, it’s only Catholics who seem to take him seriously.

Jumping on an old thread; Anselm’s argument has a punch that is not so evident. I too thought it was silly at first…until I tried to conceive of a square circle! I may say I can conceive of one but I really can’t. In fact it is impossible because squares and circles are analytically true and logic precludes me from ever being able to conceive of a square circle. I think this is what Anselm was getting at in that when you by definition have “The greatest being” in mind, it is analytically impossible to find one greater. Though this doesn’t sound too persuasive it does carry more philosophical punch after first blush. When you combine this with his views of this God being ontologically necessary if sort of rounds out the argument for God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Something cannot be moved, caused, gradated or purposeful if it is not necessary (or possible) in the first place? Would that be an accurate description of how Aquinas’ argument from necessity is his ultimate argument?

See this thread The First Way Explained on this Forum, pg 1.

Linus2nd

 

[thegrons]

Thanks I will review this weekend. When Aristotle and Aquinas used unmoved did they mean immutable in potential since pure being simply “is” as God told Moses “I am”? I think the thread you pointed me to will explain that and I will respond if I have any questions. I do believe that most of us myself included are missing something in Anselm;s argument because what we see as a silly argument could not have had so much impact if it were merely, someone’s ability to conceive of a God means there is a God… I have recently begun to explore the issues of ontological and logical necessity of God and find it fascinating. So much that I am convinced that if anything exists; something had to exist eternally (or else we are in a logical bind of P and -P) or else things just popped into existence from nothing which is impossible. And when you realize that an effect cannot have more “stuff” than its cause, we can very easily see that an unmoved mover who is eternal with the power of self existence is logically and ontologically necessary and cannot be avoided. This seems to be why people in physics are postulating such unreasonable views such as electrons pop out of nowhere and theories of spontaneous creation, they know that creation is the cornerstone of theism and if one accepts this they of necessity have to accept a God.

Thanks!

 

[thegrons]

I do recall though listening to RC Sproul discuss philosophy through the ages from Thales to Russell. Sproul is a big fan of Thomas, and he said that the pre-Socartes were concerned with reconciling the one and the many hence we get the term uni-verse(inity and diversity), and Plato and Aristotle and Parmenides were concerned with motion and being, so Sproul teaches that Aristotle’s unmoved mover does move in causality and if one accepts that matter was inert before the big bang, then some outside force had to act upon this matter to create movement and God is the only being in the universe with the power of movement and even we don’t have that direct power. So Paul also wrote about these themes when he told the Epicureans on Mars Hill “didn’t your philosophers say in Him we live and move and have our being”. I believe that Aquinas was somewhat Aristotelian in his philosophy and may have meant causal movement in his writings? Oh well I guess I am just rambling…

 

[polytropos]

Thanks I will review this weekend. When Aristotle and Aquinas used unmoved did they mean immutable in potential since pure being simply “is” as God told Moses “I am”? I think the thread you pointed me to will explain that and I will respond if I have any questions. I do believe that most of us myself included are missing something in Anselm;s argument because what we see as a silly argument could not have had so much impact if it were merely, someone’s ability to conceive of a God means there is a God…
Thanks!

If you are interested in Anselm’s ontological argument, you might find this blog post interesting. The author does not think it is successful, but he puts it in context.

 

[thegrons]

Thanks I will take a look

 

[thegrons]

Very good article thanks for sharing I enjoyed reading it. I would only comment that I am not sure if our only knowledge of God is limited to our senses. I believe but cannot prove philosophically that God reveals himself in a mystical way through the Holy Spirit. I do know that Aquinas in his days was combating mysticism and did a very good job of teaching natural theology and conjoining reason and faith! But without reading his entire rebuttal of Anselm; at first glance I would make this comment. And Thomas was writing as a philosopher here and not so much the theologian – but who am I to critique Thomas Aquinas?

Thank you again,

Jack

 

[Gospel_of_Chaos]

I am subbing because I am interested and do not fully understand this myself.

 

[polytropos]

Very good article thanks for sharing I enjoyed reading it. I would only comment that I am not sure if our only knowledge of God is limited to our senses. I believe but cannot prove philosophically that God reveals himself in a mystical way through the Holy Spirit. I do know that Aquinas in his days was combating mysticism and did a very good job of teaching natural theology and conjoining reason and faith! But without reading his entire rebuttal of Anselm; at first glance I would make this comment. And Thomas was writing as a philosopher here and not so much the theologian – but who am I to critique Thomas Aquinas?

Thank you again,

Jack

I would agree (and I think so would Aquinas) that we can obtain knowledge of God through grace. But that is not knowledge that we would use in a proof of God’s existence, since presumably, if we obtain knowledge of God through spiritual experience, His existence is thereby confirmed. In a proof, we want to show that a proof follows even if we try to resist it. If we have knowledge of God already, then we are not really in need of a proof.