DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Classical Theism
HTML https://classicaltheism.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Philosophy
*****************************************************
#Post#: 59--------------------------------------------------
A Newbie to philosophy asks a question!
By: DoppyTheElv Date: December 27, 2019, 1:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone!
A 17 year old agnostic theist here. Knowing some of WLC's
arguments and the ilk but extremely little about philosophy and
classical theism in overall.
Also excuse if you see some distasteful grammar and spelling,
i'm not a native english speaker myself.
So here is the question: It's often said that theists can define
God in any way that suits them. Lacking empirical evidence and
observation of God further strengthens/ is the foundation of
this claim.
So what is your response to this? And how would one solve it?
Thank you very much!
#Post#: 60--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Newbie to philosophy asks a question!
By: ClassicalLiberal.Theist Date: December 28, 2019, 12:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Myself, and many others on this forum would adovcate a thomistic
conception of God. That being, that God is pure actuality,
lacking any potentiality. With that being say, an attribute can
only be said to be of God if it can be logically demonstrated
that it is a consequence of God being pure actuality. For
example, because material things are composite, they are
therefore a mixture of actuality and potentiality, so God cannot
be said to be material.
I like William Lane Craig, but I have profound philosophical
disagreements with him. I recommend Feser's book, Five Proofs of
the Existence of God. Apart from the main arguments he presents,
it gives one a decent understanding of the underlying
metaphysics. It is greatly important that one understand the
underlying metaphysics to truly grasp the claims made by, and
arguments presented by, classical theists. His book, Scholastic
Metaphysics I would also recommend, but only on the condition
that you've already developed a decent understanding of the
metaphysics. The book goes into greater depth than I think is
necessary to efficiently work through the propositions made by
thomists, but it will help give you a much deeper understanding.
#Post#: 61--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Newbie to philosophy asks a question!
By: Atno Date: January 3, 2020, 12:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think that theists can define God in "any way" that
suits them. I myself am committed to a more thomistic
understanding of God, but much of it would overlap with common
understandings of God.
An important thing to keep in mind is that you do not need to
fully and perfectly understand or comprehend a concept in order
to use it meaningfully.
Most people share a common, intuitive understanding of what
"God" means. They don't think it is literally an "invisible old
man on a cloud" or anything silly like that. Rather, the common,
intuitive idea of what God is supposed to be would be something
like that:
'The Creator of the universe and all contingent reality... an
Eternal, Necessary, Uncaused, Self-Sufficient, Immaterial,
Spaceless, Intelligent, Wise, Good, Personal Creator...
All-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent..." etc. This
understanding is good enough, for starters. Philosophical
arguments can establish the existence of such a being.
For example:
Leibnizian and Thomistic Cosmological arguments (they show there
is a First Cause of reality, and it is Necessary, Purely Actual,
Self-Sufficient and Eternal. It is also immaterial, since
material beings are contingent, dependent, etc. The First Cause
is also very powerful, intelligent because of various different
arguments, etc. So, God);
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (shows there is an Eternal
creator of the physical universe. It is immaterial since it is
outside of space and time. It is immensely powerful. Also
plausibly personal because of different arguments. So, God);
The Fine-Tuning Argument (shows there is an intelligent mind
behind physical reality who favored order and life; it is
immensely powerful since it governs physical laws; it is
immaterial since it basically transcends the universe and
controls it, etc. So, God);
Arguments from Consciousness and Mind (shows there is an
immaterial Creator of our minds and consciousness, etc.
Plausibly God, again);
Moral arguments (shows there is a Perfect, Transcendent being
who is the ground of all goodness and ordained reality and moral
laws, etc. Basically God, again).
And so on.
So, despite whatever disagreements there might be, there is a
common, intuitive understanding of what "God" is, and it is the
sort of being whose existence can be reached through different
arguments of natural theology.
I recommend you to read some introductory books on this subject.
If I may recommend, check these out:
"How reason can lead to God" by Joshua Rasmussen. This book is
really, really great. It is very didactic. The writer is an
expert professional philosopher and the whole book is an
extended argument for the existence of God. Please give it a try
and read it carefully, you will enjoy it.
"Who designed the designer?" by Michael Augros. This book is
very simple, and also very didactic. It defends a classical
thomistic argument for the existence of God. Also give it a
shot, you will really enjoy it if you read it with good
attention.
These two books are very simple and easy to read, and pack a lot
of content.
*****************************************************