Marketing 300 Notes Essay

In the Summa Theologica, doubting doubting Thomas doubting Thomas uses the philosophical method to theology and addresses the indecision of whether beau ideals man burn down be exhibit as well as the movement of whether we notwithstandingt end cheat divinity fudge completely. For doubting Thomas, the motion of proving the instauration of divinity fudge is eternally bound up with the question of how, and to what extent, we coffin nail do immortal at all. St. Thomas Aquinas believes that yes, idols universe toilet be demonstrated but that no we finishnot manage immortal completely. St. Thomas believes that idols existence discount in fact be demonstrated and that it faeces be d wizard so in two ways. wiz is by dint of the cause, and is called a priori, and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration a posteriori this is to argue from what is prior relatively moreover to us (Aquinas 15). In ot her words, to demonstrate that theology exists is d whiz in a cause and effect manner. For the question as to whether or not we can enjoy god completely, St. Thomas answers that no, we cannot know idol completely. According to St. Thomas one can know the sum of God, but to completely know God would be unsurmountable.The differences between these two questions ar that the question as to whether or not Gods existence can be demonstrated addresses Gods existence whereas the question on whether or not we can know God completely does not question Gods existence, dear the amount of companionship one can have on God. St. Thomas Aquinas proposed five proofs in which man can use rude(a) antecedent to prove the existence of God through adventitious evidence. Through the use of natural condition we can logically conclude in the existence of God. Yet strictly speaking, Gods existence cannot be definitively proven through laboratory tests and experimental science.Experimental scie nce and intrinsic evidence cannot definitively prove historical events, and inso uttermost by reason we know they have occurred. And surely were science falters and extrinsic evidence fail, reason and intrinsic evidence can prove the ghostlike which cannot be measured by material sciences. The first way begins find the movement all over the world and ends up asserting the existence of God as Immovable Motor the second way observes the existence of causes in the world and concludes the existence of an ultimate Cause.The Third Way emphasizes one of the most important features of all mortal objects, the radical insufficiency of their being, their eventuality the beings of the world exist but they could equally not exist, they have unique(predicate) features which they could equally not have. If they do exist but could not wherefore we can think of a time in which they didnt and if they were the only(prenominal) beings of the world, therefore nothing would have existed. As this is obviously not the case, then we should conclude that along with those contingent beings there must exist a necessary being, a being which has its origin in itself instead of in another being, and that being is God.St. Thomas states, Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other and this everyone understands to be God (Aquinas 16). In the next paragraph Aquinas says, Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the image of God (Aquinas 17). Clearly, St. Thomas Aquinas is making his point that God is the character of everything. Since God is the cause we hold the effects. The effects had to have come from a cause, which is God, and therefore God must exist. St.Thomas Aquinas starts off his word of honor on whether or not one can know God by discussing the senses and their role in how forgivingness know things. Our natural cognition begins from sense. Hence our natural acquaintance can go as far as it c an be led by sensible things (Aquinas 86). St. Thomas states, It is unsufferable for God to be seen by the sense of sight, or by any other sense, or faculty of the sensitive power (Aquinas 74). What this departure is saying is that we cannot see God and because we cannot see God, it is im likely for us to know him.As cosmos we can know human beings because we can see them physically, however we cannot do this with God. Aquinas says, when any created intellect sees the essence of God, the essence of God itself becomes the intelligible form on the intellect (Aquinas 77) and this means that for what we can see with our human eyes that is what is going to portray to us what God is like. This means that we cannot richly know God and that we can only know of him or somewhat him. God is an infinite being and we are finite beings which mean that we can only contain so much knowledge within us. payable to the fact that we are limited with our knowledge, it is impractical for humans to ever be able to fully encompass and know God because there is too much to know about Him. God is infinite, he has always been and humans cannot understand this because there is nothing else that we know of that has incessantly been and always will be. For these reasons, St. Aquinas believes that humans will never be able to fully know God like how they know one another. One can to a fault compare these two questions not just by what they are based on (existence and knowledge) but also by looking at the differences between faith and knowledge.As stated antecedently when discussing whether or not we can know God completely, the basis of knowledge is derived from the senses. Knowledge has factual evidence from the world around you and has to do with reason and science. We have a more perfect knowledge of God by grace than by natural reasonthe knowledge which we have by natural reason contains two things images derived from the sensible objects and the natural intelligible light, enabl e us to short-change from them intelligible conceptions. Now in both of these, human knowledge is assisted by the revelation of grace.For the intellects natural light is strengthened by the infusion of gratuitous light (Aquinas__). On the other hand, conviction (or a belief) in something you take without question or evidence. An example of this is if someone is indoors of a building and cannot see removed and someone comes in from being outside and tells the person that it is raining. Since the person inside has no way of knowing that it is raining outside since they cannot see or hear it, then they must believe the person telling them that it is raining.Faith does not involve a search by natural reason to prove what is believed. But it does involve a form of inquiry unto things by which a person is led to belief, e. g. whether they are spoken by God and confirmed by miracles (Aquinas__). Teachings by St. Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius agree with the teachings of St. Thomas Aqui nas about knowing God. All of them agree that it impossible to be able to fully and completely know God. Alternatively, the three of them believe that one can only know about and of God knowing only the different aspects of God.Dionysius describes God as wholly unknowable and has as incomprehensible presence (Pseudo Dionysius 119) which is him saying that God cannot be understood completely. Dionysius also says that God is made up of infinite characteristics, which Dionysius combines to call the Godlike oneness (Pseudo Dionysius 36). He says that one can better know God through knowing that he has characteristics such as good, fair, and existent (Pseudo Dionysius 39-40) but that he is so much more than just these. This relates to St.Thomas Aquinas thoughts that through our senses, we can come to know more about God because of what he created, but it is still impossible to completely know God. Similarly with St. Augustine, he states that God is high above all, uncontainable and imme asurable (Augustine 32) which means that God is beyond our reach. Due to the face that we cannot see God, then it is impossible for us to know him fully. St. Augustine also states that God is incorruptible, inviolable, and unchangeable (Augustine 90). The meaning of this passage states that God is perfect.If he were to be changed, he would no longer be perfect. This is a concept that humans cannot comprehend because humans are not perfect and perfection is an abstract thought. They can have an idea as to what perfection is, but it is impossible to fully understand. In conclusion, knowing that God exists and knowing God are two completely different questions. St. Thomas Aquinas states that one can know that God exists and that it can be proven philosophically through the effects. On the other hand he also states that one cannot know God, only aspects of Him.These two questions correlate with the different of faith and knowledge. Faith is associated with the question of knowing God (c annot be proven) and knowledge is associated with the question of knowing that God exists (can be proven philosophically). St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine and Pseudo Dionysius all state that it is impossible to fully know God. They all agree on the fact that it is possible to know aspects of God and know partially who he is through development our senses, yet God is still seen to be infinite so it is impossible for our human minds to fully comprehend God.