Over my new years vacation I had an opportunity to challenge a Catholic on the existence of God. I was told that this was a well known fact that has already been proved. Naturally I probed and encouraged polite discussion. The Catholic was not able to communicate the argument to me stating that it was overly complicated however was quick to assign me homework to read a book about Thomas Aquinas and his proof of God. A few observations before I comment on the book:
- I realize that the Catholic did not understand his or her own position on the matter since they were not able to actually make the argument they they professed to agree with. I also realize that academically I won the debate at this moment since no counter point was actually given.
- From an epistemological perspective I observed the Catholic claim that reason, emotion, and faith were all valid methods of knowledge. This makes any reasonable argument I make ineffective if it conflicts with the Catholic’s faith or emotion based conclusions.
I decided to take a look at the Thomas Aquinas book until I found an error in his metaphysics. I didn’t have to read long. On page 15 it was stated that Thomas Aquinas holds there can be “forms” without “matter” – that is the existence “immaterial” substance (for which he offers no further explanation). This disassociates existence from identity and allows for “immaterial” things such as souls, angels, God, etc., to have a metaphysical identity without a corespondent existent.
It is a rejection of reason which allows for assigning metaphysical significance to arbitrary concepts and will result in contradictions and ultimately cognitive chaos.
