Reply Obj. 2: When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause’s existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word God.
My gosh there's a lot in this. Please consider laying it out in a bit more detail? E.g., "animal," in your syllogism is the essence of both dog and warm-blooded, the latter two being existences? And thus this sample syllogism not an example of an argument/proof by cause-and-effect?Aquinas responds to the objection by noting — Leontiskos
All dogs are animals
All animals are warm-blooded
Therefore, All dogs are warm-blooded — Leontiskos
'animals' seem to cover everthing other than insects and possibly some inverterbrates — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.