Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Concept of God

**Posted by Mysterious Brony** 9/18/2015 1:04 pm

Hi everybody! How could a Thomist respond if an atheist attacks the concept of God or show the divine attributes are contradictory, etc? Any response can be helpful.

**Posted by Herodotus** 9/28/2015 6:39 am

You might introduce the concept of pure actuality. That leads to interesting discussions on act and potential, sufficient reason etc

**Posted by DanielCC** 9/28/2015 7:22 am

Well the atheist arguably has to claim that the concept of God is incoherent. I don't think one need have recourse to specifically Thomist arguments here though. If one is forced to defend and elaborate on the Divine Attributes I'd rather turn that into a positive argument for God a la Plantinga's MOA. The coherence and hence possibility of a simple being implies it's actuality as well.

Attacking the coherence of the Attributes is the main way of arguing for overall incoherence. Christopher Martin has a huge book, The Impossibility of God, dedicated to arguments of this kind (many of which are pitiful - 'If God cannot sin then He's not all-powerful).

Patrick Grimm offered a number of animadversions against Omniscience and Omnipotence based on the Liar's Paradox, Russell's Paradox and the Incompleteness Theorem. There's an interesting and relatively cordial dialogue between him and Plantinga on this subject somewhere (as I recall one of the conclusions they reach is that if the animadversion against Omniscience goes through then the Principle of Bivalence can't even be formulated).

Last edited by DanielCC (9/28/2015 9:15 am)

**Posted by Scott** 9/28/2015 10:12 am

DanielCC wrote:
Christopher Martin has a huge book, The Impossibility of God[.]

Just for the record, that's Michael Martin. Christopher Martin's one of the good guys.

**Posted by DanielCC** 9/28/2015 12:18 pm

Scott wrote:
DanielCC wrote:
Christopher Martin has a huge book, The Impossibility of God[.]
Just for the record, that's Michael Martin. Christopher Martin's one of the good guys.

Oooouch! Thanks for the timely correction there Scott.

**Posted by Herodotus** 9/28/2015 7:41 pm

I also think it worthwhile angle is to raise the concept of essence. I have listened to a very worthwhile course that covers this in some detail by Dr Denis Bonnette in his lectures he gave to Dr Raphael Waters' class after the the latter's death.

Yes this is very Thomistic but it leads to quite brilliant revelations to the uninitiated on being.

**Posted by Mysterious Brony** 9/28/2015 7:53 pm

I noticed that, most of the time, when atheists attack the concept of God, they mean the divine attributes in univocal terms. For example, JL Mackie attacks the concept of God by using his logical POE,
(1) God is all-powerful and all-good
(2) Evil exists
(3) Then either He is all-powerful but not all-good or He is all-good but not all-powerful
(C) Therefore, God cannot exist
Mackie assumed "all-good" to be morally good in the same sense as us humans, but in a higher degree. However, Thomists deny univocal terms regarding God, instead Thomists use analogous terms. Also, Thomists deny that God is a moral agent. Hence, the logical POE loses a lot of its force. Indeed, if one uses univocal terms regarding God then one will get into trouble, especially when it comes to Divine Simplicity. I have not read Martin's "Impossibility of God" but I read Paul Copan's review of the book. He mentions that a lot of the "disproofs" are not that good. Maybe some day I will read it.

**Posted by DanielCC** 9/29/2015 4:38 am

I would be wary about bringing issues of analogical predication here as if it's treated as a core notion the atheist which will just switch to attacking it. I also think that even Thomist will be forced to assay the core Divine Attributes i.e. Omnipotence and Omniscience as univocal albeit with the qualification that they could never be possessed by any being apart from God (and this for metaphysical rather than doctrinal reasons). Mysterious Brony is absolutely right about the term 'Good' being used in a completely different manner by many atheists though (on the metaphysical background to Classical Theism the term 'Good' is doesn't apply only to moral agents as it does in many modern philosophies) - this just highlights the fact that atheists and theists really need to agree on an ethical theory before the Problem of Evil can even be raised*.

*in Mackie's case he was a universal error theorist so that deals with the problem swiftly and sweetly.

Herodotus wrote:
I also think it worthwhile angle is to raise the concept of essence. I have listened to a very worthwhile course that covers this in some detail by Dr Denis Bonnette in his lectures he gave to Dr Raphael Waters' class after the the latter's death.

Yes this is very Thomistic but it leads to quite brilliant revelations to the uninitiated on being.

I'm interested: what aspect did you particularly have in mind when you refer to the concept of essence? Most Thomists I've encountered have been wary of giving an account of the Divine Essence.

EDIT: Nice avatar btw

Last edited by DanielCC (9/29/2015 4:39 am)

**Posted by Mysterious Brony** 9/29/2015 12:40 pm

Regarding Mackie, he denied there was such thing as objective morality, and so he cannot use moral evils as an argument against God. However, what about natural evils?

**Posted by DanielCC** 9/29/2015 1:07 pm

Mysterious Brony wrote:
Regarding Mackie, he denied there was such thing as objective morality, and so he cannot use moral evils as an argument against God. However, what about natural evils?

Is not the concept of morality implied by the very use of the word 'Evil' i.e. evil is a moral concept. Even if natural evils didn't fall into this category it wouldn't help Mackie as what he wants to imply is that God's in creating this world and permitting a world which said natural evils is wrong i.e. a choice that ought not to have been made.

(Doesn’t Putnam take Mackie to task somewhere about using terms like ‘cruel’ or ‘just’?)