For Atheists and Christians alike. Whether the Existence of God is Self-Evident?

Question

Summa Theologica Q II, The Existence of God, Article 1. Whether the Existence of God is Self-Evident? Please research and read the entire passage, including the "objections" up to excerpt listed below and beyond until the conclusion of Article 1.

"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. (Q. III, A. 4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the propsition 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."

As regards any/all refutations: 1. Please read the article in its ENTIRETY. 2. Please, NO "straw man" arguments. 3. Please, NO "off the cuff"/ "shoot from the hip" reactions and/or ad hominem attacks against St. Thomas Aquinas. I look forward to your replies. P.S. Please remember: The world is observing your answers. :)

Lucid Interrogator. Disappointing reply! Who on "God's green earth" could call himself/herself a scholar and thus attempt to refute St. Thomas Aquinas, "the prince of theologians", without knowing what the "Summa Theologica" is? You're being directed to the Summa Theologica, and anyone can easily find it. If you're "too jaded" that's your problem. Read the whole article to "determine my (St. Thomas') standpoint". If you aren't that committed to proving/upholding your beliefs, don't bother. The caution: The world is observing your replies", was made, precisely, to discourage those, such as yourself, from making ridiculous replies. Your excuses do not "hold water".

Arily666. Your reply is exactly what I didn't want as regards a refutation, i.e., some totally unsubstantiated "home-spun" "philosophy. Keep trying. :)

Novangelis. Sorry, I'm afraid that your answer is devoid of logic and your "excuse" just doesn't "cut the mustard". :)

Answer 1

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Answer 2

The same arguments in Summa Theologica can be used to prove the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It's nothing more than verbal games with no substance behind it.

Apparently Aquinas was very convinced of the existence of God. He believed that heretics should be put to death. The wishy-washy Augustine thought that they should be tortured first to see if they could be straightened out.

Answer 3

It's a typical empty circular argument. God exists and it is self evident because God exists. I didn't have the energy to track down Q. III, A. 4, but if it had merit, I wouldn't need to track it down.

ADDENDUM:
You posted half an argument an call the refutation of the first half laughable, but all you have is, "because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown." That's nothing.

Answer 4

I'm not an Atheist or a Christian, but I'm a Community Member, so I get to answer.

The ONLY proof of God's existence is available to an individual - the self. The value and meaning of that evidence cannot be determined by anyone but the person that directly experiences it.

I'm not sure what article you want me to read. I read everything you posted and still remain as convinced as I was before on the matter of God's existence.

Answer 5

Long question (and a tiny bit sanctimonious in its tone), simple answer. The existence of god is not self evident. Magic is a perfectly valid explanation for that which is unexplained by one's own set of knowledge - change the name from magic to God or Allah and you have religion. Leave it as magic and you have unsolved questions and science.

Nobody ever experienced something that when they got to the root of the experience they were still able to call "god" (or magic).

Answer 6

for Thomas Aquinas "god exists" is not self-evident, only for Anselm it was self evident (and from this you get the ontological argument which has been widely disproved by Kant later and by Gaunilon immediately).
For Aquinas you have to start from causes in order to understand the effect (in this case god), therefore he proposes a cosmological argument. Aquinas arguments are beautiful, but there is a problem in them: he presupposes the existence of God (this was the Kantian critic to Thomas), therefore his cosmological arguments needs to be backed up by the ontological argument, which has been proved wrong (you cannot pass from the level of language to the level of existence).
Moreover you have to keep in mind the critic to the principle of causation by David Hume (I won't go into that, cause it is too complicated to explain on a forum).

Answer 7

...... And where precisely are we to find this article?

You do realise that one of the most grievous social errors you can make is to rely on people to do work that they do not have to do. For someone to go and research the article in question would essentially require either that they were already intimately familiar with it.... or interested enough (i.e. not jaded enough) to go and find it for themselves.

As it stands though.... not only can we not determine your standpoint clearly in order to ascertain whether it would be viable to oppose you.... but we cannot see and nor are we being directed to that which you wish us pretty much exclusively to reference.

As such.... what you're asking is absolutely ridiculous.
Plus of course the sheer pomposity of the statement "The world is observing your answers" is enough to disincline at least myself from making so much as an effort..... not to mention your other list of prerequisite guidelines (despite setting none for yourself apparently).

Answer 8

Why the hell would atheists be interested in reading Aquinas' apologetic nonsense? From your excerpt, this sounds a bit like the modal ontological argument, which has been proven unsound by Russell and others.

Answer 9

That god does not exist is self evident to me. I therefore ignore the rant of a delusional saint since self evidence requires just that, evidence.

And I agree with many: you expect us to read a treatise of drivel and do your homework instead of playing online Asteroids? You've got to be kidding.

Answer 10

there is absolutely nothing in the natural world to validate this argument . god by concept is supernatural meaning not within the natural realm of existence . Since we have no supernatural yardsticks or othe means to register ,measure or otherwise validate anything supernatural the jump of logic is purely superstitious and fallacious in nature. Deluded perceptions are not recognized outside of the venue of religion as valid . sorry that's the crux of it to a billion people that admit to this . peace, keep trying .

Answer 11

I am but a simple human being...must say I never give God much thinking since I'm convinced it does not exist...
I grew up in a communist country, though my family used to be religious...Passing through the system of education, I used to be manipulated by both parties; believers and unbelievers alike...I decided it is best to believe what you can see and feel !