(February 5, 2022 at 7:29 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(February 5, 2022 at 2:25 pm)emjay Wrote: ... so it's not the case that you see Aquinas' arguments for instance, for the necessity of God, as sufficient reasons in the sense of the PSR, for the actual existence of God (in the why sense, if not the how sense)?...there is still a question there for you as to how God exists, if not why?
Just to clarify, I was talking about the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) as a necessary feature of an intelligibility. The 5W of Aquinas only work if two conditions are met: 1) reality is intelligible and 2) human reason is effective. Believing either of conditions to be the case requires a leap of faith.
I'm sorry but I think I may have got a little lost in translation there too... what I meant I was always curious about was LFC's question to you... ie whether you were curious about the reason/how of God's actual existence, or whether you treat its existence as a brute fact that requires no further explanation beyond the necessity implied by the Five Ways... the latter either out of necessity/practicality, in the sense of still having questions like the former but accepting you can't answer them, or in the sense of seeing the Five Ways as a complete explanation of God's existence. Rightly or wrongly I've always assumed you do treat it as a brute fact, on account of the Five Ways, but I've never seen you explicitly state it, nor if that's the case, whether that is out of necessity/practicality or because you consider the Five Ways a complete explanation. So here I was only really replying to your first sentence in reply to LFC... 'Not at this time.' rather than anything that followed (or may have been in the previous, larger post), just curious what you meant by saying you don't see it as a brute fact, at least 'not at this time'.
