Anselm and Aquinas Argument Regarding God

St. Thomas Aquinas’s first cosmological argument, the prime mover, defines things in the world as being either in a state of potentiality or in a state of actuality. Those things that are in potentiality are things that have the capability of being reduced to another form. Such as a boy is potentially a man, or tree is potentially a house. Things that are in a state of actuality are things that are currently reaching their potential; such as that boy becoming a man, or that tree becoming that house. Aquinas observed that all things in a state of actuality had to have been put into that state by something that was already in actuality. In thinking about this he concluded that there would have to be an infinite regress of actual things making potential things actual. He concluded that this would be impossible because given that, there would be no first mover. He instead, postulated that there must be a first mover. A being that never had potential but only has existed in a state of infinite actuality. That what we call God.

He states that since the series of dependent beings couldn’t be caused by any external or internal source, that it would have to be cause “absolutely by nothing”. He then states that this is a “contradiction to be done in time; and because duration in this case makes no difference.” He also states that it is a “contradiction to suppose it done from eternity.” Since the universe has parts that come into existence at one occasion and not another, it must have a cause. There could supposedly be an infinite regress of causes if there was evidence for such, but lacking such evidence, God must exist as the cause.

Aquinas and Descartes both have arguments for the existence of God, with some similarities and a multitude of differences. Descartes presents two major premises in his argument with his degrees of reality principle and his casual adequacy principle. It is possible for Descartes to be influenced by Aquinas, but the arguments for the same thing differ greatly that even if any inspiration Descartes could have pulled from Aquinas' work is minimal, to say the least.

I am going to reconstruct the argument of the Anselm about the existence of god.in the text Anselm try to explain the about the existence of the greatest conceivable being in the understanding and in the reality. He gives a definition to god “you are something than which nothing greater can be conceived”(Anselm).

3. Out of all three arguments for the existence only one of them is based on an a priori knowledge and it is the Ontological Argument. This argument is based on the knowledge that God does

To begin with, Anselm introduces the Ontological argument as a viral component of the religious aspect of mankind. The presence of a God should not be debated. He portrays this God as an all perfect being that represents the divine concept. He argues that no being is greater than God whether imagined or perceived by the human mind. From the human perspective of divinity, God’s existence is merely an idea of the mind. Even though man’s imagination can present an even higher being than God, it fails to make sense in philosophical principles since it is contradictory. Also, the existence of God can be conceptualized. This means that the senses of man are enough to act as proof of the presence of a being higher and more powerful than him. Philosophy allows for proof to be logical and factual as well as imaginative. From this point, the objection to an idea or imagination such as the existence of God makes his

Than there has to be something that already existed to make everything exist and for that to happen that had to be someone, so that is God. Aquinas also pointed one in one of his earlier proofs of the First Mover. Aquinas says that anything moved is moved by another, so there must be a first mover (a mover that is not itself moved by another) and that first mover is God. Both of the philosophers used great methods to come to their conclusion about how god came into existence. They both used different thinking methods to get to their well respected arguments but did come to the conclusion that God does “exist”. I believe the key difference about the two philosophers was the time difference between the philosophers, Thomas Aquinas wrote his proofs in the medieval ages around the 1200’s while ( with no disrespect) Rene Descartes wrote his meditation in the 1600’s. There is a big 400 year gap between ideas are compared but that came down to the same conclusion

The third argument for God’s existence is the ontological argument. This argument is unlike the cosmological and teleological arguments in that it does not argue from evidence in the natural world. Thus, it is not a “cause and effect” argument.

Thomas Aquinas also had a critique of the ontological argument, that we as humans cannot know Gods nature, humans will all conceive of God in different ways, some conceptions of God even assign him a body; this argument couldn’t apply to all these conceptions, some of which are contradictory, this would mean it’s impossible to conceive of God in the way that Anselm has put forward. In order for the ontological argument to work you would need to know God perfectly, and since only God knows itself perfectly, only God could use this argument. The phrase “a being than which none greater can be imagined” is far too vague to be used in a strong argument.

Thomas Aquinas believed that the existence of God is self-evident, but rejected the idea that it can be deduced from claims about the concept of God. He critiques Anselm’s ontological argument, stating, “not everyone who hears this word ‘God’ understands it to signify that some have believed God to be a body” . This critique is plausible because most people have different ideas of who God is and what He does. Anselm’s argument works only to convince all people to define the notion of God in the same way. However, Anselm may rebut this critique, arguing that his ontological argument could be restated.

Does God exist? That question has been asked by people for centuries. Christians, Jews, and Muslims would all say that God exists. They would claim that He is the creator of all things and is of a higher being than man is. Others would claim either that God does not exist or that God is not what the Christians, Jews, and Muslims say He is. Both Anselm and Aquinas address this question: Anselm in his "Proslogion" and Aquinas in his "Summa Theologica." The opinions of Anselm and Aquinas as to the nature of God are the same, although Anselm lacks the proof to back up his claims.

Aquinas' second proof is similar to his first in that it relates to cause and effect. St. Thomas reasoned that in a world of order there is an order to all cause and effect. And , since there is a cause for the existence of all things there must be a cause that caused all things and had no cause itself. He points out that nothing in creation existed prior to itself and the causality cannot be traced back infinitely. If the efficient or first cause did not exist then nothing would exist. That first or efficient cause is God.

We know that inanimate things cannot start a motion by themselves. “Each thing in motion is moved by something else” (web.mnstate.edu, 2017). Aquinas was trying to prove that the initial or first mover had to have been God. God is infinite and he started everything else in motion. The problem with that proof is that it never proves that God is the only unmoved mover that started motion.

Evident through individual’s senses, is the concept of motion. In Saint Thomas Aquinas’, Summa Theologiae, he makes the claim for the existence of God through the idea of motion. In this writing he argues the need for God as the start to every movement, which we comprehend as motion. He expands on this notion using the conception of potentiality and prime mover as the foundations to his claim. He begins by stating, “Everything that moves, is moved by something else, for nothing can move unless it has the potentiality of acquiring the perfection of that towards which it moves.”

Here Aquinas argues that everything that happens is the cause of something, but nothing can cause itself. If we trace back a cause all the way back to the beginning of the world, it could not have caused itself. Therefore, God must have been the first cause. Aquinas’ third proof is the Argument from Contingency. We see that everything here on earth is finite. People die, empires fall. All things must come to an end. That means things had to have a beginning where nothing was in existence yet. How did things come into existence? God. Aquinas’s 4th argument is the Argument of Degrees. Here we judge things to be a certain degree of good or bad. But what are we comparing that to? If they have a certain degree of good and bad, then what is the greatest degree of good? And that must be God. Aquinas’s final argument is his Argument from Design. Perhaps one of his strongest arguments Aquinas says that there must be an intelligent designer behind everything. Random objects don’t have any brains to act the way they do. But they are directed in the way they act by God.