Timeline for Question about the Thomistic view of God's attributes
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 8, 2022 at 17:20 | comment | added | Dcleve | Thomism has undergone a major revival in theological circles, but it is very much at odds with contemporary philosophy. Thomism is "analytic", in that the nature of God is derived from reason alone, and is a priori. But Kant narrowed the realm of a priori dramatically with The Critique of Pure Reason, and subsequent adoption of pluralism in both math and logic removes what little room he left for a priori. In theological terms, per contemporary philosophy God's nature is contingent. One discovers it from observation, not reasoning. Trinity, salvation, commandments, all are contingent. | |
| Aug 8, 2022 at 3:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/1556475307565223936 | ||
| Aug 7, 2022 at 18:31 | history | edited | Bob | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Aug 7, 2022 at 13:57 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Aug 7, 2022 at 13:53 | history | edited | curiousdannii |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 7, 2022 at 7:35 | answer | added | David Gudeman | timeline score: 5 | |
| Aug 7, 2022 at 5:01 | comment | added | Conifold | How are "mind-dependent virtual distinctions that describe the one essence" different from "real ways of describing him" other than in verbal emphasis? They are not "real entities" either way on your proposal, "mind-dependent" does not mean unreal, and "ways of describing" are perspective-dependent by their plain meaning. So what is left of the distinction between "virtual" (or "formal", as Duns Scotus would put it) and "real" (which he would apply if they were "real entities")? | |
| Aug 7, 2022 at 4:17 | comment | added | Kristian Berry | This is one of those moments in theology I'm torn over. The wannabe novelist in me loves the description of ultimate unity; the abstract skeptic in me wonders if, "God is absolutely simple because He would otherwise not be a se," or worse, "God is a se because He is absolutely simple," are assertions that violate both simplicity and aseity. | |
| Aug 7, 2022 at 3:07 | history | asked | Bob | CC BY-SA 4.0 |