Aquinas Weaknesses

Decent Essays
In Core Questions in Philosophy, Sober describes the first two ways of Aquinas for the existence of God as a division of causation. In this paper, I will examine the first two arguments of Aquinas, while each has its weakness, the weaknesses outweigh the strengths. The first argument comes with the weakness of not being able to survive modern physics. Whereas, the second argument delivers the weakness of the conclusion not following the proposition. Combined, I believe that both arguments do not exhibit strengths in their form and verification. Despite both arguments, not having strengths, they both showcase a combined weakness of the birthday fallacy. Overall, both arguments have valid and strong weaknesses, but no strengths amongst them.…show more content…
According to Newton’s law F = ma, an object will remain in motion until acted onto by a outside force. This law portrays the flaw in Aquinas’s argument of motion as it is not able to prove that an object needs to be acted upon another object for motion. A counter example which can be presented against the stand which I have taken would be any inanimate object such as a phone can only be moved if encountering a secondary force. But, in larger terms, this does not hold, as the universe example is still not valid for Aquinas’s law of motion. The second argument described by Aquinas is similar to the first argument but deals with causality. Aquinas described this argument in terms of events where one event is caused by another. A perfect example of this is the birth of a human being is caused by a relationship between two individuals; one event causes another. My belief is that the second argument of causality formulates a weakness of not being able to explain the proposition from the conclusion. The second way states that there is an entity that causes the first event, which is God, but Sober says it does guarantee that God exists. I believe God to exhibit the properties of omnipotence, omniscience and…show more content…
Aquinas’s method does not realize that there is exactly one event/motion that sets all chains in the natural world, he rather shows that there is at least one event/motion. Both arguments share a common weakness of not showing there is exactly one first cause, but it rather shows that there is at least one. If we were to show that there is exactly one first cause, this would cause the birthday fallacy which is invalid. Additionally, I would like to say that there are no strengths exhibiting the first two arguments of Aquinas. Perhaps, I say this as there are many flaws within both arguments and the strengths were quite unnoticeable to me, but each line in the argument has flaws, which to me, concluded that there are no
Get Access