tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post7910590149004155452..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: Pop QuizLee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-81067619294225301772009-09-30T19:33:25.754-04:002009-09-30T19:33:25.754-04:00Thanks Michael for the prompt reply and clear, con...Thanks Michael for the prompt reply and clear, concise explanation!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-10525973625338560242009-09-30T19:26:21.225-04:002009-09-30T19:26:21.225-04:00Anonymous,
This does have some resemblance to par...Anonymous,<br /><br />This does have some resemblance to <i>part</i> of Scotus' proof for God's existence, but it isn't very well formulated. As presented here (3.) is rather unclear. The point is that, since God is by definition uncaused, nothing can be the cause of him. <i>If</i> God exists, he exists necessarily.<br /><br />An even shorter way to do this would be to say: If God <i>can</i> exist, he <i>does</i> exist, because by nature God cannot come to be (it is not possible that there is no God now but that there will be someday). But it is the case that God can exist; ergo, etc.<br /><br />Note that this is by no means the whole of Scotus' natural theology, only the portion of it which he calls a "coloration" of the Anselmian argument.Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-4278168360919393802009-09-30T18:20:49.176-04:002009-09-30T18:20:49.176-04:00Most Honorable Lee & Michael:
Does the follow...Most Honorable Lee & Michael:<br /><br />Does the following argument really resemble how Scotists (or even Scotist himself) reason?<br /><br /><br /><br />A SCOTIST ARGUMENT FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE: <br /><br />1. An Uncaused Producer is logically possible. <br /><br />2. Anything logically possible is either actual or potential. <br /><br />3. A potential Uncaused Producer can only be caused (i.e., is not 'uncaused'). <br /><br />4. Hence, no Uncaused Producer is merely potential. <br /><br />5. Therefore, an Uncaused Producer is actual. <br /><br />6. This actual Uncaused Producer we call God. <br /><br />7. Therefore, God actually exists. <br /><br /><br />(cf. James F. Ross, Philosophical Theology)<br /><br /><br />SOURCE: http://veniaminov.blogspot.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-42299627634133602432009-09-24T02:33:34.096-04:002009-09-24T02:33:34.096-04:00I knew it, so it probably is too easy :-)
(a lurk...I knew it, so it probably is too easy :-)<br /><br />(a lurker)berenikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16917803593444075354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-73555445485078282872009-09-23T15:14:25.566-04:002009-09-23T15:14:25.566-04:00Aquinas, I sent. d. 19 q.5 a.1 corp.
Hope it wasn...Aquinas, I sent. d. 19 q.5 a.1 corp.<br /><br />Hope it wasn't too easyLee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com