The five proofs are meant, in their different ways, to show that there must be necessary being as well as,and as the very condition of the existence of, contingent being. — John

Yeah, but as I intimated to a previous poster, this doesn't strike me as positing anything all that different from Spinoza's Deus sive Natura or Kant's thing-in-itself or Schopenhauer's will or Hegel's Absolute or Tian (Heaven) in Confucianism or the Tao in Taoism or Nirvana/Storehouse Consciousness/Buddha Nature in Buddhism or Brahman in Hinduism or Plato's Form of the Good or Plotinus's One.

Each of these seems to meet the criterion of "necessary being" generally speaking. So when Aquinas blithely states at the end of each of the five ways that "this all men call God," I think he's making an unjustified leap. Not all men have called necessary being God. So why does he do so?

But Aquinas does marshall many other arguments to support his contention that necessary being should be associated only with God; and that any idea of necessary being that is not associated with God is deficient, inconsistent or incoherent. This is not to say anything about whether his arguments are valid or sound, but just to point out that Aquinas, of all philosophers, does not simply "blithely state" anything.

But Aquinas does marshall many other arguments to support his contention that necessary being should be associated only with God — John

Perhaps I missed them. I see only the identification being made, not the arguments thereto.

Are you a classical theist, John? Just out of curiosity.

I'm not too sure how to characterize classical theism.

Would you say this statement, made by Angelus Silesius, is an example of "classical theism":

"I know God couldn't live a moment without me; if I should disappear, He would die, destitute."

I like that quote. Schopenhauer employs it, too, as I recall.

I think it's too vague to classify with any precision. Silesius seems to be coming out of the tradition of the Rhineland mystics, who were classically theistic, I would say.

Mystics frequently flirted with heresy. (When I was enrolled in Comparative Religion I used to refer to it as the Department of Mysticism and Heresy). There is a tendency amongst mystics towards 'antinomianism' which is basically 'do whatever you like as you're already saved'; there were several movements or that kind in medieval Euorpe. (Mind you Eckhardt himself would never sanction such an idea). I think the key point is going beyond metaphysics - maybe that was the import of Aquinas' 'straw' remark. But 'beyond' is a different thing to stopping short of metaphysics which is what much modern philosophy does.

And yet it would seem to be heretical, that is against classic theism, to suggest that God's existence could depend on my own.

I would like to know the provenance of that quote, I am highly dubious about it.

It's from The Cherubinic Wanderer 85 (I.1.8) translated by Maria Shardy

Here is the same passage translated by J.E. Crawford Flitch 1932

I know God cannot live one instant without Me:
If I should come to naught, needs must He cease to
be.

PDF here: http://www.outofbodytravel.org/images/The_Cherubinic_Wanderer.pdf

interesting that Me is capitalised. (Have to go out.)

Interesting - I also find it on this page https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Angelus_Silesius

Many interesting quotes there. I'm reading Dean Inge on mysticism, I will see if he mentions it.

Several more quotes from Angelus Silesius

'O Man, as long as you exist, know, have, and cherish,
You have not been delivered, believe me, of your burden'

'Naught ever can be known in God: One and Alone Is He.
To know Him, Knower must be one with Known.'

Yes I wonder about the significance of that. A reference to higher self perhaps?

I remembered that quote roughly from some book I read in the last couple years and when I searched for it to get the exact words, I found the quote in the form I first presented it on that 'wiki quotes' page, but it didn't cite there what work it came from. When I searched that I found the PDF with the earlier translation.

Some evocative verses!

A reference to higher self perhaps? — John

Perhaps.

That second one could be transcribed directly from the Brahmanas, and the first would sit quite comfortably in the Dhammapada - quite in line with the universality of the mystics.

So, John, are you a classical theist?

Probably not, since I tend to think God is as dependent on us, as we are on Him.

There might be a mystical sense in which it is true, as in Angelus Silesius' expression, but one of the distinguishing features of Christian mysticism was the sharp distinction between creature and creator. In traditional theology, the creator was 'uncreated creator' - souls were created by God, so the idea that the creator is dependent on the created would not make sense in that worldview. Authors on mysticism like Dean Inge and Evelyn Underhill frequently differentiate Christian mysticism from the supposedly pantheist forms of mysticism associated with 'the Orient' which are more likely to either emphasise the complete effacement of identity through divine union, or a sense of equality between the soul and God.

I think you probably meant to write "distinguishing feature of Christian theology". I certainly don't believe that there is any sharp distinction between creator and created in Christian mystical texts such that it could be claimed to be a "distinguishing feature".

The Christian God is characteristically a triune God, and humanity in the form of the Son, Christ, and the relationship between God and Man in the form of the Holy Spirit is absolutely intrinsic to the Divine Nature, in my view.