Arguments against Soul

[Belacqua]

I'm not entirely sure that Aquinas is the best support of your definition of 'supernatural'.  He rejected the ontological argument on the very basis that we cannot know God's nature.  Since we can't know this, we cannot determine whether God is supernatural.

Boru

Yes, nearly every theologian holds it to be true that because God is so enormously beyond human understanding, it is silly for us to make definitive statements about what God must be. 

As I recall, Aquinas rejected Anselm's version of the ontological argument because the words "than which nothing can be greater" may be understood differently by different people. 

Do you think, though, that this rules out God having a nature? We can't say "it is in the nature of God to be X"?

Or is it that while God (like everything else) has a nature, it is not one fully knowable by humans?

---

@Belaqua

You act as if the god of Aquinas is infallible. That couldn't be farther from the truth. These philosophers you hold in such high regard, unfortunately, didn't have this whole thing worked out. Imagine that.

The God of Aquinas is infallible -- if by that you mean that God, as understood by Aquinas, cannot do badly. 

Or do you mean that Aquinas was not infallible when describing God? I have never believed that Aquinas was infallible; of course he made mistakes.

I mention Aquinas as an example of an important theologian, held in high esteem by the church, whose idea of God and heaven was entirely different from what has been described on this thread. 

I completely agree with you that all the philosophers I hold in high regard didn't have "this whole thing" worked out. No one has worked it all out, which is why they are still interesting and relevant questions.