In his presentation, the argument that God exists as self - existent cause of all finite being is established first, and the problem of
analogical predication follows.
If Aquinas at least tacitly acknowledges this by making
all analogical predications depend upon the clearly literal distinction between Creator and Creature, he can also seem not to acknowledge it by flatly declaring that we can not know of God quid sit, but only an sit or quod sit.
Another, even more important, difference between Hartshorne's and any classical theory is not formal, but material — namely, his demonstration that the strictly literal claims that must be made about God if there are to be any symbolic or
analogical predications at all must be partly positive, not wholly negative, in meaning.
Not exact matches
For one thing, he is far more explicit in acknowledging that the whole superstructure of nonliteral
predication, whether symbolic or
analogical, rests on a base of strictly literal metaphysical claims.