RE: Arguments Against Thomistic philosophy
January 22, 2018 at 6:22 pm
(This post was last modified: January 22, 2018 at 6:53 pm by KevinM1.
Edit Reason: Grammar OCD
)
You're right in that I don't know jack about Neo-Platonism.
That said, why are we assuming that things related to god are only positive. In other words, if there's an epitome of evil, why isn't it also associated with god? Why is there a distinction that says "well, the ur-version of these traits belong to, and point to, a god, but the ur-version of those traits do not?"
I'm sincerely asking, BTW. Because from the outside it makes no sense. It seems to be backwards. There's a definition of the Christian god, and among its attributes is goodness, and so because it is god, it must contain or exhibit the most goodness.
I'm also still not convinced that the 5th way is actually saying anything meaningful about intent. That a smashed piece of glass doesn't turn into butterflies doesn't mean that an intelligence made it so. Then again, like I freely admit, I'm probably not understanding what you or Aquinas are actually saying.
That said, why are we assuming that things related to god are only positive. In other words, if there's an epitome of evil, why isn't it also associated with god? Why is there a distinction that says "well, the ur-version of these traits belong to, and point to, a god, but the ur-version of those traits do not?"
I'm sincerely asking, BTW. Because from the outside it makes no sense. It seems to be backwards. There's a definition of the Christian god, and among its attributes is goodness, and so because it is god, it must contain or exhibit the most goodness.
I'm also still not convinced that the 5th way is actually saying anything meaningful about intent. That a smashed piece of glass doesn't turn into butterflies doesn't mean that an intelligence made it so. Then again, like I freely admit, I'm probably not understanding what you or Aquinas are actually saying.
