roger wasson company - cheapersunglasses.com

substance? There is no conceivable source for this knowledge
that would not itself be an effect.
From such considerations it would appear to follow that either
essential knowledge of God is possible through an analysis
of His effects, or no knowledge of God is possible at all.
Thomists attempt to escape the difficulties suggested above
by an appeal to analogical predication: all knowledge of God is
analogical rather than univocal.
But what is the status of this assertion itself? If all knowledge
of God is analogical, then the knowledge, that it is analogical,
is also analogical, and so on to an infinite regress. If
the asserted analogy between God and creatures, or Being and
beings, does not describe a relation that holds essentially of
God, then there is no basis for proposing the analogy at all, nor
does it yield any real knowledge of God. But if the analogy
does describe a relation that holds essentially of God, then the
assertion of the analogy is false: for it would then not be true
that all knowledge of God is analogical, the analogy itself posing
an insuperable and decisive exception.
Nor is there any escape from this predicament by asserting
that God, as the cause, must bear some analogy to His effects:
for if all knowledge of God is analogical, cause is also predicated
analogically; so that no essential knowledge of God is
communicated by the statement that God is the first cause. Yet
it is only in terms of just such an essential knowledge that any
analogy between God and creatures may be asserted. Hence, as
Clark maintains,(Footnote: 38: A Christian View of Men and
Things, p. 312. when the existence of God is concluded from
sensible things, it is not actually God’s existence that is concluded.
The denial of a univocal element in predications about God
therefore reduces analogical predication to sheer equivocation
and makes God unknowable: the only thing that makes any
analogy meaningful is a univocal element or point of likeness