Re: [asa] Doug Groothuis v. William Dembski

Heya David,

On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 1:35 PM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>wrote:

> Aquinas would *never* have said that the "designer" of creation could be
> other than the creator-God. For Aquinas, the teleology he saw in creation
> traced back to an unmoved mover, which must be God. And yes, it would have
> been heretical (and completely contrary to his system) if Aquinas had
> suggested that creation could have been designed by some other created being
> -- by definition, for Aquinas, all created things have a cause, and all
> causes trace back to an uncaused cause, which is God.
>

Absolutely, but the specific arguments that Aquinas offered in proof of a
creator-God did not on their own indicate 'This God is triune, Christ is
part of the trinity which comprises this God' etc. The unmoved mover,
Aquinas' five ways, etc - those alone will get you to 'creator-God', but
they won't get you to 'the creator-God who sent his only begotten Son to die
on the cross for our sins'.

Yes, Aquinas (who I'm reading of more and more lately - as an aside, I
suggest 'The Last Superstition' by Edward Feser for a thought-provoking
book) certainly did get into the more specific and Christian topics in great
detail. All I'm saying is that the arguments Aquinas - or even William Lane
Craig, among others - offer as proof of God, or inference of God, do not on
their own bring them to 'The God of Christianity'. Other arguments do, and
taken together, their whole intellectual offering could be viewed as
specifically leading to such a conclusion.

But the same could be said of a Christian invested in ID. ID alone would
encompass a number of arguments for/proofs of a creator-God. But their
'whole thought' could be comprised of ID, philosophy, even personal
testimony - and point unmistakably towards the God of Christianity.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 2 13:45:22 2009