Thomas Aquinas's proofs-Multiple Gods?

[punkforchrist]

SeekingCatholic:

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.

The ‘regularity of motion’ argument is abductive - an argument to the best explanation. The traditional version, however, does just what you ask. No potentiality can actualize itself, so there must be some pure actuality.

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

“Power exists”, “knowledge exists”, etc., are not tautological (you already agree with that). Yet, in order for each of them to have any union (i.e. within human beings), they must have some inherent relation. If they didn’t participate in God, who is purely actual, then they simply wouldn’t exist.

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

There’s no reason metaphysical proofs cannot be based on induction. Richard Swinburne’s inductive cosmological argument is just such an example of the contrary.

 

[1holycatholic]

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

LDS writings claiming God is immutable:
Moroni 8:18

For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.
Book of Mormon 9:10
And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles.​

But wait, there’s more! God is, in fact, changing since he evolved from man! Chuck the previously immutable God out of the window!
King Follett Discourse

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.​

And one more thing (actually many):
"Joseph Smith:

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.[2]

Three Gods is more that one God, even for very small values of three. Mormons are 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?

Islam, being monotheist, is closer to Christianity than Mormonism. Both are heresies drawing from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

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.

Jesus is God. Fully human and full divine joined in a hypostatic union. The divinity of Jesus is not limited by His humanity.

Jesus Christ, God and Man by Fr. William G. Most
He is one Person, a Divine Person, having two natures, divine and human, in such a way that these two natures remain distinct after the union in the one Person. We call this union “hypostatic union” from the Greek “hypostasis” which means person - two natures joined in one Person.

His human nature is the same as ours, for he had a human body and a human soul. He was like us in all things except that He was without sin, even though He was tempted as we are (Hebrews 4:15). However, this does not mean that He had within Him disorderly passions. The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 defined this truth against “impious Theodore of Mopsuestia”.

His divine nature is the same as that of the Father. The Council of Nicea in 325 defined that He is “one in substance [homoousios] with the Father”.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

The ‘regularity of motion’ argument is abductive - an argument to the best explanation.

OK. It’s not a metaphysical proof, then.

The traditional version, however, does just what you ask. No potentiality can actualize itself, so there must be some pure actuality.

No, as I have continually pointed out, this is a non sequitur. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. What does follow is that there must be eternally existing actuality, e.g., actuality that never was in potentiality. It doesn’t prove that the various respects of eternally existing actuality are all concentrated in the same being. I’m still waiting for you to provide the proof for this.

“Power exists”, “knowledge exists”, etc., are not tautological (you already agree with that). Yet, in order for each of them to have any union (i.e. within human beings), they must have some inherent relation. If they didn’t participate in God, who is purely actual, then they simply wouldn’t exist.

Geez. Another logical leap the size of the Grand Canyon. Ontological entities have inherent relation to each other; ergo, God exists.

There’s no reason metaphysical proofs cannot be based on induction. Richard Swinburne’s inductive cosmological argument is just such an example of the contrary.

Hardly. Swinburne only concludes that the balance of probability favors the truth of theism, based on the evidence. This is not a metaphysical proof, only an evidential argument.

 

[punkforchrist]

SeekingCatholic:

Geez. Another logical leap the size of the Grand Canyon. Ontological entities have inherent relation to each other; ergo, God exists.

Think of it this way. The world is composed of different actualities - diverse things. Now, whenever diverse things come together, they have an ordered unity. Unity, however, is better explained by one orderer than many. Likewise, the diversity and unity of actualities is better explained by a pure actuality rather than a plurality of full actualities.

Hardly. Swinburne only concludes that the balance of probability favors the truth of theism, based on the evidence. This is not a metaphysical proof, only an evidential argument.

Why would this not be metaphysical? I see no reason why one cannot appeal to evidences and induction in order to arrive at a metaphysical conclusion. Now, if by ‘proof’ you mean absolute certainty, then of course that’s not what I mean.

 

[punkforchrist]

holy_wood:

It appears to me that God is changing all the time. He gets pleased, angry, sad, vengeful, ect. Are these not changes in a purely actual being? I mean he moved from one state of mind to another.

It is important to note that the Bible is not always communicating a literal message. Sometimes it speaks in metaphors, and other times in a phenomenological manner. Here’s how Thomas Aquinas addresses this question:

“These things are said of God in Scripture metaphorically. For as the sun is said to enter a house, or to go out, according as its rays reach the house, so God is said to approach to us, or to recede from us, when we receive the influx of His goodness, or decline from Him.” (newadvent.org/summa/1009.htm)

God does not change, but His relationship to creation does change, since we (as His creatures) undergo change.

Furthermore, what about animal sacrifices. Why was that a sign of repentance in the OT but was replaced by Christ sacrifice in the NT?

A common theme in the Bible emphasizes both God’s justice and His mercy. When we sin, God’s righteousness demands justice. Sacrificing animals entailed giving up a part of one’s possessions (keep in mind this wasn’t a capitalistic society). However, these sacrifices, being finite, were imperfect. Only a perfect sacrifice could appease God’s justice. This is the beauty of the incarnation - God taking on human flesh. It appeases God’s justice and fulfills His infinite mercy.

Also, why did he only reveal himself to the Jews and not everyone else?

The Bible teaches that God did reveal Himself to everyone. Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

This is an example of what is know as ‘general revelation’. Now, God only revealed Himself to the Jews via ‘special revelation’ (which is found in the Bible and Tradition) at first. Why did God specifically choose the Jews? I’m honestly not sure. What we do know is that it is through the offspring of Abraham (Jesus) that even the Gentiles find God (Romans 4:12).

Again, I don’t expect blow away answers. Just “sound-bite” answers that will appease my atheist and agnostic friends when they bring up these issues.

That’s fine, but you may want to invest in some books of Christian apologetics. I highly recommend Norman Geisler’s Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal. Anything by William Lane Craig is good, too (i.e. Reasonable Faith).

I kind of reasoned that God’s will is that all be saved but in order for people to be saved people must exercise there free-will and choose God. This means acknowledgment of ones offenses against God and repenting. From reading verses like Malachi 1:1-11 I get the impression that the repentance shown to God was a hallow one. And since we changed God for our benefit revealed a better way for our salvation.

I am on the right track or not?

I think you’re heading in the right direction. I would agree with what you wrote above.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Think of it this way. The world is composed of different actualities - diverse things. Now, whenever diverse things come together, they have an ordered unity. Unity, however, is better explained by one orderer than many. Likewise, the diversity and unity of actualities is better explained by a pure actuality rather than a plurality of full actualities.

Oh, so you’re just making an argument by inference to the best explanation. I have no problem with that.

Why would this not be metaphysical? I see no reason why one cannot appeal to evidences and induction in order to arrive at a metaphysical conclusion. Now, if by ‘proof’ you mean absolute certainty, then of course that’s not what I mean.

‘Metaphysical proof’ usually refers to the method of proof, with absolute certainty, gained using absolutely certain truths of metaphysics; not merely about the fact that the ‘proof’ is concerning something metaphysical.

For instance, no Thomist would ever accept that the “Five Ways” are mere arguments to the best explanation, or mere probabilities.

 

[punkforchrist]

SeekingCatholic:

Oh, so you’re just making an argument by inference to the best explanation. I have no problem with that.

Cool. I suppose I could have made that explicit to begin with. Sometimes I take it for granted that others understand I’m not talking about absolute certainty.

‘Metaphysical proof’ usually refers to the method of proof, with absolute certainty, gained using absolutely certain truths of metaphysics; not merely about the fact that the ‘proof’ is concerning something metaphysical.

This I’m not so sure about. However, that’s why I’m hesitant to use the word ‘proof’. I prefer ‘demonstration’.

For instance, no Thomist would ever accept that the “Five Ways” are mere arguments to the best explanation, or mere probabilities.

They are based on observations. There’s no absolute certainty that things are in motion, so in a sense I would think that they are inductive (even if they are put into deductive syllogistic form).