• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Aquinas Prove That God Exists?

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I think there is a misunderstanding here based on vocabulary. By "Scholastic" I do not mean "academic." Scholasticism was a medieval branch of philosophy/theology in the West (Aquinas was probably the most famous Scholastic, or perhaps William of Ockham). I don't mean to say that most modern academics agree with Scholastic ideas or arguments.

Well clarification on your part helps, but in reality I equate 'academic with scholastic.' The reality of the scholastic world the medieval world was dominated by the presuppositions of belief, and the limits of their scientific knowledge.

It's notable, also, that none of the arguments we've reviewed here are premised on what "the Word of God's being valid.

Actually, your post initially addressed brought up the 'Word of God.' Yes, the strong belief in what is the 'Word of God is a presupposition that the apologetic arguments are valid.
 
Last edited:

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Well clarification on your part helps, but in reality I equate 'academic with scholastic.' The reality of the scholastic world the medieval world was dominated by the presuppositions of belief, and the limits of their scientific knowledge.

Isn't that true of pretty much everyone, regardless of their ideology?

If you equate medieval Scholasticism with modern academia, you're going to be confused. Up to you.

Actually, your post initially addressed brought up the 'Word of God.' Yes, the strong belief in what is the 'Word of God is a presupposition that the apologetic arguments are valid.

Someone else brought up "the Word of God," and I replied to them. None of Aquinas' arguments presented thus far mention it.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
St. Thomas Aquinas was a 13th century Italian priest and theologian. He was the first Christian to write a formal, comprehensive systematic theology and he synthesized Aristotle and Christianity (which was quite controversial since Christianity up to that point had been philosophically neo-Platonist). His work has been highly influential throughout Western Christianity on both theological and moral thought. Basically, he was a big deal.

One of the other reasons he was a big deal is because he developed 5 "ways," or arguments, for God's existence. I thought we would walk through them here. Starting with the First Way:



What do you think? Does this prove God exists? Are there any flaws in this argument?

well, to be fair I believe Muslim theologians predated him for what concerns arguments for the existence of God based on the necessity of a first cause.

but of course he did not prove anything because all his arguments are based on assumptions that have been proven to be wrong, or not necessarily true. For starters, the concept of causality, absolute motion and the ontology of time. In other words, they are all based on intuitive physics which has been proven to be wrong.

Not to speak of ontological arguments which are just circular.

ciao

- viole
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
If there is a cycle there is no beginning.
News-Update.png

Oh dear. :(
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Isn't that true of pretty much everyone, regardless of their ideology?

If you equate medieval Scholasticism with modern academia, you're going to be confused. Up to you.

I did not say I equated medieval Scholasticism with modern academia. Please cite me as I stated in the post. I equated 'scholastic with academic.' This is true of medevil 'academic with scholastic.' as there is to contemporary 'academic with scholastic.' They are worlds apart. Again the reality of the scholastic or academic world the medieval world was dominated by the presuppositions of belief, and the limits of their scientific knowledge.

Someone else brought up "the Word of God," and I replied to them. None of Aquinas' arguments presented thus far mention it.

They need not bring them up for Aquinas to believe in the 'Word of God' as a presupposition of belief for his apologetic arguments, which is a fact of his writings and life as was the case fo all Christians of his time.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I did not say I equated medieval Scholasticism with modern academia. Please cite me as I stated in the post. I equated 'scholastic with academic.'
This true of medeivil 'academic with scholastic.' as there is to contemporary 'academic with scholastic.' They are worlds apart. Again the reality of the scholastic or academic world the medieval world was dominated by the presuppositions of belief, and the limits of their scientific knowledge.


And as I just said to you: isn't that true of everyone, regardless of ideology?

They need not bring them up for Aquinas to believe in the 'Word of God' as a presupposition of belief for his apologetic arguments, which is a fact of his writings and life as was the case fo all Christians of his time.

His arguments re: God's existence require no presupposition about what "the Word of God" is or isn't. Earlier, similar versions of his arguments were made by both Muslims and pagans, who obviously disagree with Christians about "the Word of God," if they believe in such a thing at all.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member

And as I just said to you: isn't that true of everyone, regardless of ideology?

It is true for everyone who tries to use these apologetic arguments.

His arguments re: God's existence require no presupposition about what "the Word of God" is or isn't. Earlier, similar versions of his arguments were made by both Muslims and pagans, who obviously disagree with Christians about "the Word of God," if they believe in such a thing at all.

Yes Muslims and pagans make the same presupposition that Aquinas made. That doe not help the phony argument.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
It is true for everyone who tries to use these apologetic arguments.

No one else has presuppositions that inform their beliefs and have views limited by their current scientific knowledge?

Yes Muslims and pagans make the same presupposition that Aquinas made. That doe not help the phony argument.

What presuppositions about the "Word of God" did Aristotle make?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
No one else has presuppositions that inform their beliefs and have views limited by their current scientific knowledge?

Not clear? The ancients did not have the contemporary scientific knowledge. Pretty much all ancient cultures had an ancient mythology of Creation and believed in God or Gods

What presuppositions about the "Word of God" did Aristotle make?

He believed in God,

Not all ancient cultures had scriptures they called the 'Word of God.'.but pretty much all Jes, Christians and Muslims did, and they embraced and further developed the apologetic arguments beyond what Aristotle proposed..

I am not sure where this line of reasoning is going for terribly circular apologetic arguments only meaningful to those that believe.
 
Last edited:

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Not clear? The ancients did not have the contemporary scientific knowledge.

It's not clear if modern people's beliefs are based on presuppositions and the limits of their scientific knowledge? Isn't that completely obvious?

He believed in God.

Yes, which is a world apart from the specifically Christian notion of "the Word of God." And the whole point of the argument is that it doesn't assume a God exists. If we assume something we don't need an argument for it.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It's not clear if modern people's beliefs are based on presuppositions and the limits of their scientific knowledge? Isn't that completely obvious?

Miss quoting me again . . . The contemporary apologists in part base their argument by rejecting the contemporary knowledge of science.



Yes, which is a world apart from the specifically Christian notion of "the Word of God." And the whole point of the argument is that it doesn't assume a God exists. If we assume something we don't need an argument for it.

Yes, even for Aristotle it presupposed that God exists. The concept of the 'Word of God' is the basis for ALL Jews, Christians, and Muslims that God exists based on their belief.

Again . . .

Not all ancient cultures had scriptures they called the 'Word of God.'.but pretty much all Jews, Christians and Muslims did, and they embraced and further developed the apologetic arguments beyond what Aristotle proposed..

I am not sure where this line of reasoning is going for terribly circular apologetic arguments only meaningful to those that believe.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Of course it was not necessary, but it remains that their belief in God according to their scriptures was a presupposition for their arguments. The arguments have absolutely no meaning unless they were justifying their belief in God.

Where is this going trying to justify bad arguments?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Miss quoting me again . . .

I didn't misquote you. You evaded my question, for a second time. You seem very intent on not giving an inch in this conversation, to me or anyone else on the thread, which is growing rather old. You made a generalization, which I pointed out applies to pretty much everyone. That's not a misquote.

I'm going to bow out of continuing this conversation with you, first because I think there's a language barrier hindering us, and two because you don't seem terribly interested in an actual conversation, you simply wish to make declarations, which is ironic.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I didn't misquote you. You evaded my question, for a second time. You seem very intent on not giving an inch in this conversation, to me or anyone else on the thread, which is growing rather old. You made a generalization, which I pointed out applies to pretty much everyone. That's not a misquote.

I'm going to bow out of continuing this conversation with you, first because I think there's a language barrier hindering us, and two because you don't seem terribly interested in an actual conversation, you simply wish to make declarations, which is ironic.

Continue to 'Duck Bob and Weave.'

Yes you did mis quote and misrepresent my posts.
 
Top