Thomas Aquinas's proofs-Multiple Gods?

[SeekingCatholic]

I kind of get what your saying but to me the first and second propositions are self-evident.

Well Aquinas disagrees - he says the existence of God is not self-evident.

Existence began somewhere.

No, it didn’t. God’s existence did not “begin somewhere”. What you really mean is “everything’s existence except God began somewhere” which is special pleading and begging the question, sneaking the conclusion of the argument into one of the premises.

An infinite regress is logically impossible. Nothing potential actualizes itself.

Merely claiming that this entails a purely actual being doesn’t make it so. One has to actually show, via logic, why it is so. Again I’ve shown before this hinges on an equivocation on what “something potential” means. Just because something is potential with respect to quality G and actual with respect to quality F doesn’t mean it had to have been actualized with respect to quality F.

If Thomas Aquinus’ model is wrong then logic itself is an illusion developed by men.

No, it simply means Aquinas made a mistake in logic.

 

[holy_wood]

Well Aquinas disagrees - he says the existence of God is not self-evident.

No one can mentally %between% admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition “God is” %between% can be mentally admitted: ***“The fool ***said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident…Therefore, it happens, as Boethius%between% says (Hebdom., the title of which is: “Whether all that is, is good”), “that there are some mental%between% concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances%between% are not in space %between%.” Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident.

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

No, it didn’t. God’s existence did not “begin somewhere”. What you really mean is “everything’s existence except God began somewhere” which is special pleading and begging the question, sneaking the conclusion of the argument into one of the premises.

A part cannot be greater than the whole. Our universe is finite, therefore it proceeds from something infinite.

Merely claiming that this entails a purely actual being doesn’t make it so. One has to actually show, via logic, why it is so. Again I’ve shown before this hinges on an equivocation on what “something potential” means. Just because something is potential with respect to quality G and actual with respect to quality F doesn’t mean it had to have been actualized with respect to quality F.

What can bring itself into existence? Something has to be eternal and uncaused. Do you agree with the previous statement or not?

No, it simply means Aquinas made a mistake in logic.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

No one can mentally %between% admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition “God is” %between% can be mentally admitted: ***“The fool ***said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident…Therefore, it happens, as Boethius%between% says (Hebdom., the title of which is: “Whether all that is, is good”), “that there are some mental%between% concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances%between% are not in space %between%.” Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident.

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

To Aquinas yes, the existence of God of itself is self-evident but requires demonstration to be known by humans.

A part cannot be greater than the whole. Our universe is finite, therefore it proceeds from something infinite.

A non sequitur. You’re presuming the universe is the “part” and not the “whole” without argument.

What can bring itself into existence? Something has to be eternal and uncaused. Do you agree with the previous statement or not?

I agree. Now you need to prove that “something” needs to be a purely actual being.

 

[holy_wood]

To Aquinas yes, the existence of God of itself is self-evident but requires demonstration to be known by humans.

Explain to me what “of itself” means. I interpreted that passage to mean that the unlearned are the ones who cannlot percieve the existence of God. And Aquinus does proceed to demonstrate that God exist.

A non sequitur. You’re presuming the universe is the “part” and not the “whole” without argument.

My argument rest on the Big Bang theory which states that space, matter, energy, and time had its origins in one singularity. Some external force willed that singularity into expansion (and possibly into existence) and this external force needed to be unbound by space or time to do this because space and time were not yet in existence. This force had to be eternal, ect., ect. thus the argument for God develops. Even if you don’t accept that the argument for God does in fact develop you at least must accept the fact that the universe is a “part” and not the “whole”

I agree. Now you need to prove that “something” needs to be a purely actual being.

I don’t know what your looking for. The only thing from newadvent.org that somewhat addresses your question is the following…

[…

GodGodindividualitypersonalityGodconditionsGodexistenceGod’sknowledgehappinessmannaturespeculationGodprovedGod’s attributesomnipotenceknowledge](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm)
newadvent.org/cathen/08004a.htm

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Explain to me what “of itself” means. I interpreted that passage to mean that the unlearned are the ones who cannlot percieve the existence of God. And Aquinus does proceed to demonstrate that God exist.

Oh puh-leese. You “interpreted” that passage to mean that because that is what you **wanted **it to mean, which would have been quickly dispelled had you actually bothered to read the entire passage. “Self-evident of itself” means the essence of the subject includes the predicate. Since God’s existence is His essence (in classical theism), that “God exists” is self-evident. But we do not know, a priori, the essence of God, hence His existence is not self-evident to us.

The passage, in its entirety (without your very carefully chosen ellipses), reads as follows:

On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition “God is” can be mentally admitted: “The fool said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident.

I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as “Man is an animal,” for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: “Whether all that is, is good”), “that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space.” Therefore I say that this proposition, “God exists,” of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (3, 4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects.

My argument rest on the Big Bang theory which states that space, matter, energy, and time had its origins in one singularity.

Then it’s on very shaky ground. In the first place, basing an alleged metaphysical proof on a scientific theory (which can never be proven to metaphysical certitude) is a non-starter. In the second place, to the best of our knowledge the sum-total of matter-energy in the universe is zero, making it problematic to say matter-energy “originated” at the Big Bang - particle-antiparticle pairs arise from “nothing” or the quantum vacuum. In the third place, some modern cosmological theories do away with the singularity altogether.

Some external force willed that singularity into expansion (and possibly into existence) and this external force needed to be unbound by space or time to do this because space and time were not yet in existence.

You haven’t proved this metaphysically using the Big Bang. But even accepting it arguendo (for this is not my main objection, I do in fact accept extra-our-universe existence),

This force had to be eternal, ect., ect. thus the argument for God develops. Even if you don’t accept that the argument for God does in fact develop you at least must accept the fact that the universe is a “part” and not the “whole”.

Then the universe plus the external force (which you haven’t shown to be infinite or God) constitutes the “whole”. The “whole” still could be finite. You haven’t shown it to be infinite.

I don’t know what your looking for. The only thing from newadvent.org that somewhat addresses your question is the following…

God is the self-existing, uncreated Being whose entire explanation must be in Himself, in Whom there can be no trace of chance;

So, what does “chance” mean here and why can it not exist in a self-existing, uncreated Being? It appears “chance” means contingency?

but it would be mere chance if God possessed only a finite degree of perfection, for however high that degree might be, everything in the uncreated Being – His perfections, His individuality, His personality – admit the possibility of His possessing a still higher degree of entirety.

OK, “chance” here means contingency. If God possessed only a finite degree of perfection, He would not be a necessary being, but only a contingent one - there existing in another possible world another God with greater perfections. No problem here.

From outside Himself, God cannot be limited, because, being uncreated, He is absolutely independent of external causes and conditions.

External causes and conditions don’t determine the nature of an uncreated being. No problem here either.

Limitation would be chance; the more so because we can maintain not only that any given finite degree of perfection may be surpassed, but also, in a positive way, that an infinite being is possible.

Limitation would be contingency. Already agreed.

The argument goes, God (by definition) is a necessary being, if He were limited He would be only contingent, therefore He must be infinite. OK so far.

But where’s the proof a self-existing, uncreated being is in fact this necessary being? Why couldn’t a self-existing, uncreated being in fact be a contingent being?

Again, put in modal logic, the proposition

Necessarily, (at least one) self-existing, uncreated being exists

does not entail

Necessarily, a particular self-existing, uncreated being exists necessarily

There was one other argument made: that of God’s entire “explanation” being in Himself. That I frankly admit I don’t understand. What’s that saying, God is the way He is because He is the way He is?

Moreover, if God were finite, the existence of other gods, His equals or even His superiors in perfection would be possible, and it would be mere chance if they did not exist. Of such gods, no trace can be found…

Ridiculous argument. If God does not exist (but gods do) obviously there must be one who is the greatest in each particular respect. Being able to pick the greatest of the gods proves nothing, which is all this argument “shows”.

…while on the other hand, God’s infinity is suggested by various data of experience, and in particular by our unbounded longing after knowledge and happiness.

Oh, really. A finite creature cannot possibly have an “unbounded” longing for anything.

 

[Contarini]

Oh, really. A finite creature cannot possibly have an “unbounded” longing for anything.

I disagree. A “longing” is not an actual thing but rather an expression of potentiality. Potentiality is unlimited–one can have a desire for what is infinite and an infinite potential for receiving what one desires, without ever becoming infinite. (In mathematical terms, one can go on adding to a finite number infinitely, but the number will never become infinite.)

Edwin

 

[mfbukowski]

Most of this thread is over my head as I’ve never studied philosophy but I am interested to know why you as a Mormon believe that God is a changeable being where other denominations do not.

I have a hard time imagining God as unchangable too but it may be that I’m not understanding what that is supposed to mean.

For instance, when God brought the universe into existence, wouldn’t that have changed Him, in that He was no longer the only thing in existence and now had something other than Himself to relate to? And wouldn’t the act of deciding to bring the universe into existence be a change in God’s state of mind, from not doing so to deciding to do so?

Are these the sorts of questions that make you come to those conclusions? Or are they more theologically based?

I think you are running into the same problems I am having, and I think it is more based on the fact that our world has changed so much since Aquinas that it becomes hard to accept his central premises, considering that Thomists BELIEVE that the existence of God can be proven logically. The modern world has largely discounted this, and accepts that matters of faith cannot be proven logically. Certainly logic is crucial in discussing matters of faith, but ultimately faith is faith, and cannot be proven.

It appears that most on this thread accept his premises, and will not discuss them. My attempt to discuss this lead to someone telling me to go back and read Aquinas. I can understand how this happens. Many times one gets so deep into a discussion that “newbies” in a thread like this appear so “off the wall” that a response is not worthwhile. Maybe we are in this category.
But reading Aquinas to me is like reading Lord of the Rings. It is an interesting read, but I cannot accept it as having anything to do with “reality” as I perceive it. Or perhaps it is more like an interesting logic puzzle which is very engaging, but again not linked to reality.

Our concept of God is different because we believe it is a restoration of the original Christian understanding of God. We believe that God has a bodily nature, like Jesus, as a resurrected being. I believe that these folks would see that as a limitation on the Father, but have not addressed why it is not a limitation on the Son.

I think your question about God’s changing is right on the money.

We believe that we were with him, as his spirit children before we came to this earth. We had spirit natures, but could never be resurrected to be like him, because we had no bodies.

Earth was created so that we would have a place to come to receive bodies, and be tested. Those who “pass the test” with the “highest grade” (I am speaking in analogies we are all familiar with-- it is far more complicated than I am explaining, but the concept is illustrative) will return to His presence. Others will also be happy in the afterlife, but may or may not be in God’s full presence. Incidentally, we do not believe you have to be Mormon in this life to receive the highest reward.

But you are right in that God’s interaction with His children is one of the key ways in which He changes. John 17 tells us that He will share his glory with us, and that we will be able to sit in His throne with both the Savior and Him. I find it hard to understand how this kind of interraction would NOT change Him.

Those on this post will find this anthropomorphic and primitive.

But what if God really IS our father as Jesus said he was? I think the scriptural evidence is in our favor. I will take that above Aquinas any day.

 

[1holycatholic]

I think you are running into the same problems I am having, and I think it is more based on the fact that our world has changed so much since Aquinas that it becomes hard to accept his central premises, considering that Thomists BELIEVE that the existence of God can be proven logically. The modern world has largely discounted this, and accepts that matters of faith cannot be proven logically. Certainly logic is crucial in discussing matters of faith, but ultimately faith is faith, and cannot be proven.

Perennial truths do not change.

It appears that most on this thread accept his premises, and will not discuss them. My attempt to discuss this lead to someone telling me to go back and read Aquinas. I can understand how this happens. Many times one gets so deep into a discussion that “newbies” in a thread like this appear so “off the wall” that a response is not worthwhile. Maybe we are in this category.
But reading Aquinas to me is like reading Lord of the Rings. It is an interesting read, but I cannot accept it as having anything to do with “reality” as I perceive it. Or perhaps it is more like an interesting logic puzzle which is very engaging, but again not linked to reality.

You simply aren’t prepared to discuss these topics. The forum rules prohibit citing large portions of a work. The Summa Theologica was written for beginners. You need to spend some time and effort learning philosophy.

Our concept of God is different because we believe it is a restoration of the original Christian understanding of God. We believe that God has a bodily nature, like Jesus, as a resurrected being. I believe that these folks would see that as a limitation on the Father, but have not addressed why it is not a limitation on the Son.

This has been adequately explained by others in this thread. It is logically impossible for more than one God to exist.

I think your question about God’s changing is right on the money.

We believe that we were with him, as his spirit children before we came to this earth. We had spirit natures, but could never be resurrected to be like him, because we had no bodies.

Earth was created so that we would have a place to come to receive bodies, and be tested. Those who “pass the test” with the “highest grade” (I am speaking in analogies we are all familiar with-- it is far more complicated than I am explaining, but the concept is illustrative) will return to His presence. Others will also be happy in the afterlife, but may or may not be in God’s full presence. Incidentally, we do not believe you have to be Mormon in this life to receive the highest reward.

But you are right in that God’s interaction with His children is one of the key ways in which He changes. John 17 tells us that He will share his glory with us, and that we will be able to sit in His throne with both the Savior and Him. I find it hard to understand how this kind of interraction would NOT change Him.

Those on this post will find this anthropomorphic and primitive.

The immutability of God has also been proven.

Mormons do not hold the original Christian understanding of God. Christianity is and always has been monotheistic. Mormons are polytheists and are not Christian, in spite of “Jesus Christ” being part of their name. Scripture, Tradition, history, philosophy etc. indicate that the LDS faith is not the faith of the early Church.

But what if God really IS our father as Jesus said he was? I think the scriptural evidence is in our favor. I will take that above Aquinas any day.

There is no evidence of any kind in favor of Mormonism.

You should start a thread in non-Christian religions since you are deviating from philosophy.

 

[mfbukowski]

Perennial truths do not change.

You simply aren’t prepared to discuss these topics. The forum rules prohibit citing large portions of a work. The Summa Theologica was written for beginners. You need to spend some time and effort learning philosophy.

This has been adequately explained by others in this thread. It is logically impossible for more than one God to exist.

The immutability of God has also been proven.

Mormons do not hold the original Christian understanding of God. Christianity is and always has been monotheistic. Mormons are polytheists and are not Christian, in spite of “Jesus Christ” being part of their name. Scripture, Tradition, history, philosophy etc. indicate that the LDS faith is not the faith of the early Church.

There is no evidence of any kind in favor of Mormonism.

You should start a thread in non-Christian religions since you are deviating from philosophy.

I have done graduate work in philosophy, and my degree is from UCLA, with a 3.5 GPA. I think my professors would disagree with you. You notice it was NOT from a Thomist university. Let’s discuss Witttgenstein or the pragmatists. I am not pretending to know Aquinas well.

I certainly know enough about the subject to know the difference between what and what cannot be “proven” and what is and is not based on faith.

You still have not answered my question about whether or not Jesus having a body “limits” him according to Aquinas.

I am not interested in discussing the merits of Mormonism on this thread, but will do so if questions are asked. (as they have been)

I think my question is directly on point for this thread.

I began to read Aquinas section on the Trinity, but the first discussion was about “procession” which as far as I could tell, he leaves undefined, at least in that section.

I think you are avoiding the issue, because you know you are on thin ice.

 

[1holycatholic]

I have done graduate work in philosophy, and my degree is from UCLA, with a 3.5 GPA. I think my professors would disagree with you. You notice it was NOT from a Thomist university. Let’s discuss Witttgenstein or the pragmatists. I am not pretending to know Aquinas well.

I certainly know enough about the subject to know the difference between what and what cannot be “proven” and what is and is not based on faith.

You still have not answered my question about whether or not Jesus having a body “limits” him according to Aquinas.

I am not interested in discussing the merits of Mormonism on this thread, but will do so if questions are asked. (as they have been)

I think my question is directly on point for this thread.

I began to read Aquinas section on the Trinity, but the first discussion was about “procession” which as far as I could tell, he leaves undefined, at least in that section.

I think you are avoiding the issue, because you know you are on thin ice.

It isn’t limiting because God is one ousia yet three hypostases. That isn’t from St. Thomas Aquinas in case you were curious.

 

[mfbukowski]

It isn’t limiting because God is one ousia yet three hypostases. That isn’t from St. Thomas Aquinas in case you were curious.

No, it’s 4th century and is the same old “substance” and “essence” stuff you read in Aquinas that makes no sense either.

Do you want to discuss it or insist I am not qualified, and avoid it?

How about a first century answer?

 

[mfbukowski]

It isn’t limiting because God is one ousia yet three hypostases. That isn’t from St. Thomas Aquinas in case you were curious.

Let me give you a first century example that illustrates my point, I think perfectly. Here is the King James: (use any translation you like). This was written BEFORE the philosophies of men (greeks)were absorbed into Christianity.

Hebrews 1:
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

The word translated as “person” here is a form of “hypostases”.

It says “the express image of his person”. In plain English what is being said is that there are 2 persons, one of which is the express image of the other, and one is at the right hand of the other. Two beings existing in space together, looking identical and in a spatial relationship to the other – to the right of and to the left of eachother.

No essences, no substances, no proceeding. Just 2 persons.

Incidentally, it also says he made “worlds”. Plural.

This is found in other new testament references also.

Here as well: “Per omnia saecula saeculorum” = literally, “through all the world of the worlds”, idiomatically translated “forever and ever”, but look at the literal translation.

Eternity is understood as a “world of worlds”

What are the implications of this for the “unchanging God” hypothesis?

 

[1holycatholic]

Let me give you a first century example that illustrates my point, I think perfectly. Here is the King James: (use any translation you like). This was written BEFORE the philosophies of men (greeks)were absorbed into Christianity.

Hebrews 1:
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

The word translated as “person” here is a form of “hypostases”.

It says “the express image of his person”. In plain English what is being said is that there are 2 persons, one of which is the express image of the other, and one is at the right hand of the other. Two beings existing in space together, looking identical and in a spatial relationship to the other – to the right of and to the left of eachother.

No essences, no substances, no proceeding. Just 2 persons.

Incidentally, it also says he made “worlds”. Plural.

This is found in other new testament references also.

Here as well: “Per omnia saecula saeculorum” = literally, “through all the world of the worlds”, idiomatically translated “forever and ever”, but look at the literal translation.

Eternity is understood as a “world of worlds”

What are the implications of this for the “unchanging God” hypothesis?

John 10:30
The Father and I are one.

John 8:57-58
So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.”

There isn’t a need to quote anything further. The Bible is, after all, a Catholic book and nothing in it contradicts the Catholic faith.

 

[punkforchrist]

This a logical fallacy. To put it in the terms of modal logic, you proceed from

Necessarily, there exists some being which is unchanging to

Necessarily, there exists a being which is necessarily unchanging

without any logical justification whatsoever.

My contention is that the regularity of motion is necessarily unchanging, so long as there exist some potential beings. Would you say it’s possible for potential beings to not be in motion?

 

[SeekingCatholic]

My contention is that the regularity of motion is necessarily unchanging, so long as there exist some potential beings.

But it is not necessary that any potential beings exist. Hence any proposition predicated on the existence of potential beings cannot be necessary.

Would you say it’s possible for potential beings to not be in motion?

Of course it’s possible. What about a potential being necessitates it being in motion?

 

[punkforchrist]

But it is not necessary that any potential beings exist. Hence any proposition predicated on the existence of potential beings cannot be necessary.

If something exists, but no potential being exists, then he only thing left would be purely actual. It is the fact that we find potential beings actualized makes God metaphysically necessary.

Of course it’s possible. What about a potential being necessitates it being in motion?

I didn’t say it was logically necessary. It’s an inference we can draw based on observation.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

If something exists, but no potential being exists, then he only thing left would be purely actual.

Look, you argue for regularity of motion as being something unchanging, as therefore being the necessary being, as being “necessary, as long as there are potential beings”, since anything unchanging must be necessary, according to you. I point out that potential beings aren’t necessary, and hence regularity of motion isn’t necessary. There is no answer to this, obviously. I told you I didn’t like your “regularity of motion” argument and here’s exactly why.

So you argue that if potential beings don’t exist, but something exists, then the only thing left would be purely actual. No problem there. Only, in that case there’s no “regularity of motion” because there’s no motion.

It is the fact that we find potential beings actualized makes God metaphysically necessary.

You continue to reassert this statement without proof, and continue to use the hidden premise that all potential beings were brought from potency to act in those areas in which they are in act. You need to substantiate this assertion, or else the First Way fails.

I didn’t say it was logically necessary. It’s an inference we can draw based on observation.

You can’t make this inference. This is the classic modal fallacy of “if a, then necessarily a”. You can’t argue from observed “regularity of motion” to necessary regularity of motion.

 

[punkforchrist]

SeekingCatholic:

So you argue that if potential beings don’t exist, but something exists, then the only thing left would be purely actual. No problem there. Only, in that case there’s no “regularity of motion” because there’s no motion.

All that would entail is that what is purely actual does not will anything potential, and hence no motion occurs. We don’t get rid of what is purely actual by removing what is potential.

You continue to reassert this statement without proof, and continue to use the hidden premise that all potential beings were brought from potency to act in those areas in which they are in act. You need to substantiate this assertion, or else the First Way fails.

As I’ve already pointed out, beings with diverse attributes still participate in the act-of-being, which is what is under consideration.

You can’t make this inference. This is the classic modal fallacy of “if a, then necessarily a”. You can’t argue from observed “regularity of motion” to necessary regularity of motion.

It’s an inductive argument. I think it’s highly plausible (much more so than its negation) that potential beings are regularly in motion. We have every reason to believe this premise, and no reason whatsoever to believe its contrary.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

All that would entail is that what is purely actual does not will anything potential, and hence no motion occurs. We don’t get rid of what is purely actual by removing what is potential.

You’ve got to do better than the affirming the consequent fallacy. You can’t just show that a purely actual being is an explanation for what we see, you need to show it is the only explanation.

As I’ve already pointed out, beings with diverse attributes still participate in the act-of-being, which is what is under consideration.

And as I’ve already pointed out, all this says is that those beings exist, which is a tautology.

It’s an inductive argument. I think it’s highly plausible (much more so than its negation) that potential beings are regularly in motion. We have every reason to believe this premise, and no reason whatsoever to believe its contrary.

Then it’s not a metaphysical proof. It would help though if the meaning of “regularly” in motion were better defined.

 

[mfbukowski]

John 10:30
The Father and I are one.

John 8:57-58
So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.”

There isn’t a need to quote anything further. The Bible is, after all, a Catholic book and nothing in it contradicts the Catholic faith.

This of course does not answer my question. I can give you similar quotes from the Book of Mormon. You have very little understanding of our theology to try and criticize it:

"2Nephi 31:21

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Mosiah 15: 1-5
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people."

There are many others as well.

Because we speculate on the nature of God and our destiny, does not make us “polytheists”

“One ousia and 3 hypostases” obviously doesn’t answer the issue either. The meanings of those terms changed so much between the 1st and the 4th century!

Your assertion that we have no “evidence” that our church is true betrays an alarming lack of understanding of the philosophy of history. I would love to discuss the truth value of historical statements with you. I would wonder what gives you such confidence that your church has this “evidence” which we lack.

How is your “evidence” different from say, Moslem “historic evidence” that their church is true? They also had some brilliant Aristotilian scholars discussing the nature of Allah. I even took a course on these from an arab catholic priest. Quite interesting.

How would we decide between the two claims? (Moslem and Catholic?) They also have tradition, what they consider revelation and scriptures, including many scriptures we hold in common. What’s your “evidence” you are right? How would you “prove” it?

And you still have not explained why the bodily nature of the resurrected savior, existing in space and time, is not a limitation for Aquinas. What I am looking for is an answer in plain modern English which does not rely on special definitions of terms to make it true. Jargon just makes things less clear.

Please explain it to me, since you are the expert on Thomism.