tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post7500334546404953662..comments2023-04-05T09:07:08.419-07:00Comments on Fides et Ratio: The Definitive Proof of God's ExistenceAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-5498329490783471612012-08-30T19:13:29.177-07:002012-08-30T19:13:29.177-07:00On the other hand, if a thing's being and esse...On the other hand, if a thing's being and essence are distinct, it seems that that thing is contingent.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-58691493516522144552012-08-30T19:12:30.901-07:002012-08-30T19:12:30.901-07:00I see what you mean. One possible way of doing th...I see what you mean. One possible way of doing that is to show that God can exist without creation. The kalam and contingency arguments, for example, can be used to supplement the metaphysical argument. I don't think the latter can do that on its own, but I'd love to be proven wrong.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-87661602550642672022012-08-30T09:33:32.295-07:002012-08-30T09:33:32.295-07:00I understand the distinction between God and creat...I understand the distinction between God and creation that you make and agree with it. However, I don't think the proof above gets us there (admittedly some of Aquinas' other proofs do). I was curious whether the proof could be improved to favor theism over pantheism.Jaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06413844619464733681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-6150842890030983462012-08-30T08:52:11.266-07:002012-08-30T08:52:11.266-07:00Hi Jay,
It could be construed as an argument for ...Hi Jay,<br /><br />It could be construed as an argument for pantheism or for theism. Theists don't deny the imminence of God, only that he is distinct from creation. One way of maintaining that God and creation are distinct is to point out that only God is being itself subsisting; whereas other entities, while participating in the same being, possess essences distinct from their being.<br /><br />By Leibniz's Law:<br /><br />God: being and essence are identical<br />Creation: being and essence are distinct<br /><br />Therefore, God and creation are distinct.<br /><br />Make sense?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-68447125513498291692012-08-30T07:05:35.647-07:002012-08-30T07:05:35.647-07:00Isn't this proof, as it's stated, as much ...Isn't this proof, as it's stated, as much a proof for pantheism as it is for theism? It seems God/Being is a part of all of us.Jaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06413844619464733681noreply@blogger.com