Abstract
Christian apologists in the tradition of classical theism, especially Thomism, argue for the existence of God as Goodness itself and the source of all finite, particularised goodness. However, elements of modern apologetics, partly because of deficiencies of communication, can obscure these aspects of the divine nature and activity. In particular, describing God as «Existence Itself» is easily perceived as either empty and incoherent or difficult to relate to his identity as the Good. This problem can be overcome in four ways, while remaining within the argumentative tradition of Thomism. First, by distinguishing the unconditioned and active Be-ing of God from the conditioned and passively received «be-ed-ness» of all finite «beings». Second, by explicating finite essence as subtractive from rather than additive to being, thus rendering Absolute Being as «full» rather than conceptually empty. Third, by using the openness of transcendentals and the degrees of being found in Nature to outline the ultimate convergence of existence and essence, and of Being and Goodness. Fourth, by preferencing terms like «Absolute Being» and «Ultimate Reality» over «Existence Itself».
Introduction
The Cosmological Argument is a powerful one that has been formulated and effectively defended against objections by many Christian philosophers right up till the present. The classic versions found in Aquinas and the early modern Thomists such as Cajetan and Suarez have been supplemented by, for example, the extensive treatments of it by neo-Thomists such as Mascall, the deeply apophatic approach of Grisez, the use of a formal language of modern modal logic and mereology by Koons, and many helpful popular presentations, such as that of Kreeft and Tacelli. What these have in common is the use of the distinction between created entities which have existence contingently and God who exists necessarily and essentially, and so is Existence Itself. The absolute identification of God’s existence and essence here is just one manifestation of their assertion of «divine simplicity», or lack of composition, which itself connects back to the uncaused nature of God (since all entities composed of disparate parts require a process of composition, and therefore causation).
But the term «Existence Itself» is problematic. Whether it even
makes sense is one problem. Indeed, it appears to many that the concept
is either definitely incoherent (as noted by the evangelical
Thomist apologist Geisler), or not a definition of God at all. For example,
if God simply is existence or being, then it seems that every
created entity which has existence «has God» as that existence, that «to be» for anything is «to God», unless one is to mire the Cosmological
Argument in accusations of equivocation.
It was probably for reasons such as these that those responsible for one popular dictionary of philosophy felt confident describing this identification as a «rash theological claim». But it will not just be professional philosophers who attempt to poke holes in the arguments like this, educated unbelievers (and believers!) will come up with similar objections, either on their own or by reading relevantly sceptical material. […]
Pagine: