(October 12, 2021 at 4:40 pm)Nomad Wrote: ...
The biggest problem with Thomist thinking is that all his arguments necessitate that you start with the proposition "assume the christian god exists". When your whole argument hangs on you first assuming your conclusion is true, then you have no argument.
Fair enough... I did have concerns about that myself, but since Neo's not even contesting that, I guess it's a moot point now.
(October 12, 2021 at 5:01 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Did Aquinas start with the conclusion and worked backwards? Sure, maybe he did. Does it matter? Not really. The logical structures of the 5W demonstration are solid so that’s not the issue. The main objection seems to be the typical ending of “…to which everyone gives the name of God.” This doesn’t bother me in the slightest. None of the 5W demonstrations “prove” the fullness of God’s revelation, which would be impossible and unreasonable to expect. Instead, each demonstration deals with a specific divine role such as Creator (1W & 2W), Sustainer (3W for embodiment, 5W for order), or Ultimate Truth (4W for reason and value). With respect to that limited goal, I find the 5W successful.
FWIW I'm still interested in learning all about this, even if it is based on circular reasoning. It's just an interesting subject, and as I said, it has also sparked an interest in classical philosophy for me, so that's a bonus.
