What is god?

[Andrew_Baalman]

Article 3. Whether God exists?
Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: “I am Who am.” (Exodus 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

 

[Andrew_Baalman]

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article." St. Thomas Aquinas Summa of Theologica

 

[James_S_Saint]

I asked of you a simple question. I ask of the possible good or bad that might come from your next actions that would lead to mine. :banghead:

You seem to not respect your situation and the consequences of your actions. :tsktsk:

But now you have made it too easy for me to avoid seeing how easily I could totally shred Thomas’ reasoning. :dts:

Now it is up to me to instigate forgiveness for your sin of presumption…

…or not. :hey_bud:

 

[shoewindow3000]

You will learn to if you keep asking the right questions and honestly look past the unintentional ignorance of those trying to help you.

In every large organization, there are far more people who misunderstand the organization than the relatively few who truly understand it. .

And *you *do?

 

[jen_fla]

james s saint,

please, by all means start a new thread and “totally shred” St Thomas’ reasoning.

 

[James_S_Saint]

And *you *do?

There are also a much greater number of people who believe they understand when they don’t. But they can only go by what they believe. You have to filter through it all. I suggest serious humility is the place to begin if you really want to get there. But is your choice of course.

 

[James_S_Saint]

james s saint,

please, by all means start a new thread and “totally shred” St Thomas’ reasoning.

And just what do you believe the consequences of me doing that would be?

Even if I merely believed for myself that I had, what would be the probable consequences?

Is this the way of the Catholic, “Ready, FIRE!, aim”…?

 

[jen_fla]

And just what do you believe the consequences of me doing that would be?

i think if you actually could disprove him, you would cause many people to lose faith in the Catholic Church. seeing that the CC is the oldest institution in the world and that She guides so many, the effects would be enormous and negative. however, that is all moot since i do not think you can do it, but i think there is value in watching you try.

Even if I merely believed for myself that I had, what would be the probable consequences?

you’d pat yourself on your delusional shoulder and say “good job!”.

Is this the way of the Catholic, “Ready, FIRE!, aim”…?

no it is not.

 

[James_S_Saint]

i think if you actually could disprove him, you would cause many people to lose faith in the Catholic Church. seeing that the CC is the oldest institution in the world and that She guides so many, the effects would be enormous and negative. however, that is all moot since i do not think you can do it, but i think there is value in watching you try.

When weighing a decision, one must look at 3 fundamental things;

1. What is the reward for path A versus path B?
2. What is the probability of accomplishing path A versus path B?
3. What is the cost for path A versus path B?

Many people don’t take the time to evaluate the cost of losing because they don’t want to bother as they are certain (100%) that the cost will not have to be paid. It is called “lust” and “presumption”.

God has been known to act a bit negatively toward such behavior.

you’d pat yourself on your delusional shoulder and say “good job!”.

But in my second question, the issue is more, “what to I care if the idiot thinks Catholics are full of it?”

But then I guess that goes along with the lack of concern for the potential for all of those OTHER people at risk.

 

[James_S_Saint]

So is it the consensus of opinion that I should attempt to throw the Great Catholic Church into the fire because you each believe that a man like me can’t move such a mountain? :ehh:

 

[shoewindow3000]

It is just that you come off as arrogant, as “holier than thou.”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The “five ways” of Aquinas are not a foundation of faith. There are certainly many philosophical holes that can be poked in them, although – as with all metaphysics – it is hard to be sure that the criticism is more valid than the argument. At any rate, disposing of Aquinas’ ways shouldn’t make a Christian question anything.

It is a work of apologetics, unnecessary to those who know God.

As for the conversation here, I think *clarity * is the thing most needed. You guys are talking past each other, which is quite frustrating.

 

[fhansen]

So is it the consensus of opinion that I should attempt to throw the Great Catholic Church into the fire because you each believe that a man like me can’t move such a mountain? :ehh:

James, we’re doing a great service for mankind anytime we help eliminate falsehood. Truth is never something to be feared. Go for it.

 

[James_S_Saint]

James, we’re doing a great service for mankind anytime we help eliminate falsehood. Truth is never something to be feared. Go for it.

Let me ask you this;

A young man goes to pick up his date at her home. He sees that obviously she has dolled herself up as she greets him with a shy smile. But he knows it is the tradition in her house to “meet the father”, so they talk a little in the parlor while waiting.

He comments on her dress and her hair. She thanks him but diverts her eyes and mentions that she found this really perfect blemish cream. He realizes what she just tried to *not * say about his complexion.

As he smiles at her knowing her best intentions, he ponders, “should I mention the pimple on her forehead?”

 

[fhansen]

Let me ask you this;

A young man goes to pick up his date at her home. He sees that obviously she has dolled herself up as she greets him with a shy smile. But he knows it is the tradition in her house to “meet the father”, so they talk a little in the parlor while waiting.

He comments on her dress and her hair. She thanks him but diverts her eyes and mentions that she found this really perfect blemish cream. He realizes what she just tried to *not * say about his complexion.

As he smiles at her knowing her best intentions, he ponders, “should I mention the pimple on her forehead?”

James, if you have something of value to offer, say it. Concern over offending someone can have its place but most here don’t mind a challenge-especially in the philosophy forum.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Dearest Thomas,

Recently I have been asked to give a public critical review of your fine works. I want to let you know that I did not rush in to do such a thing. Although I know that accuracy in life (wisdom, desire, and action) is certainly paramount to avoiding sin, I also know that the wine in life, the joy, is paramount as well and comes when one lets go of scrutiny so as to allow for the present moment to be all it can be, to play in the pond as a child. I remember someone once mentioned that man does not live by bread alone.

We both know that chess masters certainly enjoy challenging each other, but I would have to wonder how I would feel if a man came to my home, before my children, brothers and sisters and exposed the certain limits of my abilities. Who would want his works to be held up to God for comparison but perhaps in private?

Of course if a man is making a nuisance of himself and spreading falsehoods, some degree of correction to accuracy might be necessary. Although you have certainly made a splash , I can’t say that doing so within your own pond could be seen as a nuisance. That is, unless the complaint comes from those of his own house.

Please don’t misunderstand, I have not received complaint of your works from your own family, but something quite different, a proud boasting and even a challenge. Of course, we both are well aware that such boasting doesn’t come from a humble and pure heart. You and I certainly know not to test God and challenge the Devil.

Normally, I would ignore such behavior. But the very nature and topic of your works seems to be to teach, to teach of God, sin and accuracy, to teach concerning that very behavior. This leaves me in an awkward position.

In love, I must ask, “What would God have me do?”

{{and thank you again Prodigal_Son for your “higher perspective” }}

 

[fhansen]

Dearest Thomas,

Recently I have been asked to give a public critical review of your fine works. I want to let you know that I did not rush in to do such a thing. Although I know that accuracy in life (wisdom, desire, and action) is certainly paramount to avoiding sin, I also know that the wine in life, the joy, is paramount as well and comes when one lets go of scrutiny so as to allow for the present moment to be all it can be, to play in the pond as a child. I remember someone once mentioned that man does not live by bread alone.

We both know that chess masters certainly enjoy challenging each other, but I would have to wonder how I would feel if a man came to my home, before my children, brothers and sisters and exposed the certain limits of my abilities. Who would want his works to be held up to God for comparison but perhaps in private?

Of course if a man is making a nuisance of himself and spreading falsehoods, some degree of correction to accuracy might be necessary. Although you have certainly made a splash , I can’t say that doing so within your own pond could be seen as a nuisance. That is, unless the complaint comes from those of his own house.

Please don’t misunderstand, I have not received complaint of your works from your own family, but something quite different, a proud boasting and even a challenge. Of course, we both are well aware that such boasting doesn’t come from a humble and pure heart. You and I certainly know not to test God and challenge the Devil.

Normally, I would ignore such behavior. But the very nature and topic of your works seems to be to teach, to teach of God, sin and accuracy, to teach concerning that very behavior. This leaves me in an awkward position.

In love, I must ask, “What would God have me do?”

{{and thank you again Prodigal_Son for your “higher perspective” }}

“All truth is God’s truth.”

quote from Saint Augustine, family member

 

[James_S_Saint]

“All truth is God’s truth.”

quote from Saint Augustine, family member

I would think that in all accomplishment, there is order. Such is the case in learning of life. One does not study calculus before algebra and must even ignore one truth even as to hide from it so as to allow another to enter.

Would you have me seek out your shame before your accomplishment?

 

[fhansen]

I would think that in all accomplishment, there is order. Such is the case in learning of life. One does not study calculus before algebra and must even ignore one truth even as to hide from it so as to allow another to enter.

Would you have me seek out your shame before your accomplishment?

It’s up to you.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Perhaps it is your way to enter the house of another and immediately seek out disorder, the dust in the corners, and unfolded clothing, but it isn’t mine.

I have to wonder why I was challenged to do so.