A Y323 wrote:Jac3510 wrote:As Aquinas pointed out a long time ago, the existence of God is self-evident to those with the proper training. It is not self-evident to those who are uneducated.
Hi Jac. Can you show me where Aquinas says this? I'm not doubting you, I just want to read the reference for my own use. Thanks in advance.
Here's
one place:
- A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: "Whether all that is, is good"), "that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space." Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (3, 4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects.
I would give you a few others, but unfortunately, I've leant out a few of my resources. In any case, Aquinas' point here is that God's existent is self-evident in itself, but not necessarily to us. Yet the moment we examine the nature of things, specifically of being, that God's existence is self-evident becomes immediately evident to us. Thus, "those who do not know the meaning of the predicaet and subject of the proposition" (those who are uneducated) will not regard God's existence as self-evident. Those who are educated on these things, however, see it perfectly.
truthman wrote:I don't think #2 is valid either.
It is not obvious that a loving God would make reasonable nonbelief impossible, nor has it been proven.
I would certainly be interested in a demonstration of the statement, tm, but I don't think it would be too terribly hard to show. The key word is "reasonable." The argument does not suggest that non-belief is possible, but rather that God would not give us any really good reasons to not believe. Of course, if He didn't care about us, then He wouldn't care if we had good reasons to believe in Him or not, but on the assumption that He cares (which is implied in His loving us), it is difficult to see how He would or could create the world in such a way that we could be
justified in our non-belief (which is the meaning of "reasonable").
Where we can argue against the second premise is in pointing out that it becomes a slippery slope. If God would not allow reasonable disbelief in His existence, then why allow reasonable disbelief in ANY truth statement? But that would prove that if God exists, then everyone on earth would believe the same thing about everything. But now you've denied free will, which goes against the notion of a believing God in the first place, so the entire premise either proves that the notion of God or the argument itself is incoherent. As much as atheists would like to say its the former, I'm sure the intellectually honest ones among them would recognize they'd be making entirely too much out of something that is difficult, at best, to demonstrate in the first place.
smiley wrote:Jac3510 wrote:For his argument to prove God's non-existence, he would have to demonstrate that a perfectly loving God would therefore be sure all people are properly educated, which is obviously much more difficult to prove.
God can certainly not
force someone to be properly educated, however, how about if we phrased it this way "a perfectly loving God would ensure that all people
can get properly educated if they
want to".
But this isn't the case.
Especially not if we're talking about the God of Christianity.
Anyone who sits down and thinks about the essence of being is perfectly capable of seeing the self-existence of God. Further, atheism is only in fashion in the developed world. Ironically enough, you are viewed as totally unreasonable and downright foolish in those "uneducated" parts of the world. Focusing, then, on the developed world, where you think you have the luxury of an education that has made is reasonable to doubt God's existence, sadly for you, this same developed world offers you all the education you desire to see that God's existence is, in fact, self-evident. You only have yourself to blame. I do realize that blaming God is much more emotionally satisfying, and it is human nature. Adam did it when confronted with his first sin. Far from doing anything new, you're just repeating the same mistake that people have been making, and believers have recognized and pointed out, since time began. There really is nothing new under the sun.
smiley wrote:Jac3510 wrote:The bottom line is that all atheists are either uneducated or unreasonable. There are no reasonable, educated atheists.
I disagree with this completely. Are you honestly going to say that there are no honest, truth-seeking professional atheist philosophers/scientists/historians out there?
I'm sure you do. And yes, I am honestly going to say that there are no honest, truth-seeking professional atheist philosophers/scientists/historians out there. I've read too many of those types. You have idiotic statements coming from them like "I don't believe in God and I hate Him." I've become so incredibly bored with watching atheists try to muddle their way through the various arguments for God's existence. None of you take the issue seriously. You all
act as if such things as morality, love, beauty, and truth exist. You all
act as if things like choice and rationality are possible, even when you are shown time and time again that none of that has any meaning in your atheistic world. Even Darwin recognized the absurdity of his own position:
- With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
So I'm sorry if it is at all offensive to you. It isn't intended to be. But no, there are NO honest, educated atheists out there. There are plenty of honest atheists. They are just ignorant of the facts. There are plenty of atheists who are not ignorant of the facts. They are dishonest. The former are lazy and their disbelief is their own fault. The latter are wicked, and their disbelief is also their own fault.
Further, I appreciate J's comments on the nature of salvation, whatever Gabe may or may not have meant in his original post. In my own view, we either believe that salvation is by faith alone or we think it is by faith and something else (loving/liking God, promising to follow Him/turn from our sins, baptism, etc.). John 3:16 says the condition for salvation is faith. Anyone who adds anything to that is preaching a false gospel.
