Noone, Tim; Houser, R. E. (1 de noviembre de 2005). «Saint Bonaventure» [San Buenaventura]. Stanford Encyclopedio of Philosophy(en inglés). Consultado el 18 de febrero de 2021. «As a relation, truth always involves a comparison. Epistemological truth is an “indivision” between the human mind and the thing known. Ontological truth is an “indivision” between potency and act within a creature; the more it fulfills its nature, the truer it is.»
Noone, Tim; Houser, R. E. (1 de noviembre de 2005). «Saint Bonaventure» [San Buenaventura]. Stanford Encyclopedio of Philosophy(en inglés). Consultado el 18 de febrero de 2021. «Bonaventure was the first thirteenth-century thinker to pay serious attention to the ontological argument. He read the Proslogion of Anselm through Aristotelian lenses. Now Aristotle had recognized three different kinds of scientific principles: common axioms governing all thought, so well known that no one can deny them, and proper principles limited in range to a given science–its definitions and postulates. Anselm seemed to mean that God’s existence is an axiom of thought known by all humans, and Bonaventure agrees: “since our intellect is never deficient in knowing about God if it is, so it cannot be ignorant of God’s existence, absolutely speaking, nor even think God does not exist.”».
Noone, Tim; Houser, R. E. (1 de noviembre de 2005). «Saint Bonaventure» [San Buenaventura]. Stanford Encyclopedio of Philosophy(en inglés). Consultado el 18 de febrero de 2021. «While Anselm thought this conclusion rules out even the possibility of atheism, Bonaventure more realistically shows how atheism is possible. The problem is with our defective knowledge of God’s nature. Error there can lead by logical inference to the conclusion that God does not exist in the first place. We are spontaneously theists, but can convince ourselves to become atheists. Inadequate definition of God points to a second problem. Knowing God exists is similar to knowing axioms because both are recognized by all. The difference is that we are quite certain “the whole is greater than the part,” because the terms involved in this axiom are so familiar to us; but about God’s existence we have more an opinion than certain knowledge, because we lack an adequate definition of God’s nature.»
Noone, Tim; Houser, R. E. (1 de noviembre de 2005). «Saint Bonaventure» [San Buenaventura]. Stanford Encyclopedio of Philosophy(en inglés). Consultado el 18 de febrero de 2021. «Principles are “self-evident” (cf. Aristotle, Topics, 100a31–b21). In the second of Aristotle’s modes of per se (Aristotle, Posterior Analytics 73a34–b3), the essence of the subject causes the predicate. This provided Bonaventure with an ingenious explanation of why principles are self-evident: “We know principles to the extent that we understand the terms which make them up, because the cause of the predicate is included in the subject.” If the essence of the subject term is what connects it to the predicate term in a self-evident proposition, then the essence of God must be what makes “God exists” self-evident. The positive ontological argument contains an inference to the existence of God that runs through the divine essence.»
Noone, Tim; Houser, R. E. (1 de noviembre de 2005). «Saint Bonaventure» [San Buenaventura]. Stanford Encyclopedio of Philosophy(en inglés). Consultado el 18 de febrero de 2021. «As a union of things in the greatest degree distant from each other is entirely repugnant to our intellect, because no intellect can think that one thing at the same time both is and is not, so also the division of something entirely one and undivided is entirely repugnant to that same intellect. For this reason, just as it is most evidently false to say that the same thing is and is not, so also it is most evidently false to say at the same time that the same thing is in the greatest degree and in no way is.»
Noone, Tim; Houser, R. E. (1 de noviembre de 2005). «Saint Bonaventure» [San Buenaventura]. Stanford Encyclopedio of Philosophy(en inglés). Consultado el 18 de febrero de 2021. «In his Commentary on the Sentences Bonaventure used the transcendental “true” as the middle term of his positive ontological argument; in the disputed question On the Mystery of the Trinity he used “good,” and in the Journey of the Mind to God he used “being.”».
Noone, Tim; Houser, R. E. (1 de noviembre de 2005). «Saint Bonaventure» [San Buenaventura]. Stanford Encyclopedio of Philosophy(en inglés). Consultado el 18 de febrero de 2021. «Bonaventure includes the negative reasoning so prominent in Anselm’s version, but to Anselm’s formula he adds “being itself” and “the highest truth.” While each of these three descriptions casts a different light on why the inference to God’s existence is valid, Bonaventure here seems to prefer “the highest truth” because the definition of truth as “indivision” is the basis for re-conceiving the ontological argument as establishing an “indivision” between the middle term and the predicate “exists.” If the “highest truth” is “pure indivision,” then the highest truth cannot be divided off from existence.»
Noone, Tim; Houser, R. E. (1 de noviembre de 2005). «Saint Bonaventure» [San Buenaventura]. Stanford Encyclopedio of Philosophy(en inglés). Consultado el 18 de febrero de 2021. «No one can be ignorant of the fact that this is true: the best is the best; or think that it is false. But the best is a being which is absolutely complete. Now any being which is absolutely complete, for this very reason, is an actual being. Therefore, if the best is the best, the best is. In a similar way, one can argue: If God is God, then God is. Now the antecedent is so true that it cannot be thought not to be. Therefore, it is true without doubt that God exists.»
Noone, Tim; Houser, R. E. (1 de noviembre de 2005). «Saint Bonaventure» [San Buenaventura]. Stanford Encyclopedio of Philosophy(en inglés). Consultado el 18 de febrero de 2021. «In contrast with creatures, which are mid-level on the scale of being because they are open to existence and non-existence, the notions of complete nothingness (omnino nihil) and completely pure being (esse purissimum) have absolutely opposed implications for existence. “Complete nothing-ness” is logically inconsistent with real existence, so there is a perfectly valid inference from the notion of nothing to non-being (non-esse). Nothing cannot exist. If the nature of nothing entails its non-existence, the nature of its opposite, completely pure being, entails its real existence.»
