Miller´s Analogy with Getting Up Early to Go Fishing Essay

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.

Miller first raises some examples to proof his argument is possible but doesn't have to explain to Weirob what plan God has in mind. The example is about a painting can have ugly parts but been more beautiful or deep because of them or a dull chapter in an interesting novel. But Weirob does not think her suffering with her flu compares with those examples at all. She claims that she is not a picture of a sniveling, dripping, suffering human but a sniveling dripping, suffering human. This convinces us to think that Weirob wants Miller to give her a more detail of example which is related to her.

Some of the three major arguments for the existence of God are cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments. Cosmological argument is the reasoning that the being of the universe is powerful proof for the existence of a God who made it. There are two main forms of cosmological argument, the modal and temporal. Modal cosmological argument, also known as the argument from contingency, recommends that because the world may not have existed, we then need some clarification of why it does exist. When there is more than one likelihood, something has to decide which of the possibilities is understood clearly. Therefore the world is contingent, because there has to be a logical reason for its existence. This form of argument also claims that the only type of existence that doesn’t need any clarification is a being that does not failed to exist such as God. Temporal cosmological argument, also known as the Kalam argument, contends that all evidence are that there is a point in life at which the world began to exist, and that this starting must either have been caused or uncaused. The cosmological argument used by Aquinas declares that since nothing originates from nothing. Therefore the world must have been brought into reality by something outside it, which can be called "God".

Aquinas’ argument is contradicted by a previously learned concept called Ockham’s Razor, which focuses on the simplest reasoning without any assumptions. The text from Summa Theologica contradicts this by creating the idea of an eternal God to explain the universe. The simplest idea would be to believe that the universe is eternal itself, rather than creating an exterior being. The idea behind Ockham’s Razor is that the simplest answer is the most easily testable and most likely. Where did the idea of God creating the universe even begin? This concept is far more complex than simply the universe created itself.

Aquinas argued the existence of God with five main points. Aquinas began by saying that nothing can be a cause of itself; rather every event was caused by some prior event. Therefore event A causes event B that leads to event C and so forth. He believed in this cause and effect relationship but believed that there must be a first cause as a starting point. When contemplating this starting point Aquinas rejected the possibility of an infinite series of events. This means that the universe has not existed forever and there must have been something from which every single event stems. There must be an uncaused first cause, which Aquinas concluded to be God. The first cause is called the unmoved mover. The unmoved mover is what set all other events and beings in motion.

     Aquinas’ third way argument states that there has to be something that must exist, which is most likely God. He starts his argument by saying not everything must exist, because things are born and die every single day. By stating this we can jump to the conclusion that if everything need not exist then there would have been a time where there was nothing. But, he goes on, if there was a time when there was nothing, then nothing would exist even today, because something cannot come from nothing. However, our observations tell us that something does exist, therefore there is something that must exist, and Aquinas says that something is God.

To prevent the possible hypothetical problem of infinite regression, Aquinas believes in an unmoved mover. Based on the foundations of Aristotle’s God the unmoved mover who thinks about nothing but himself as in thinking about other things would cause movement and contradict his state of unmovement. In the same way, Aquinas adopts the same model of an unmoved god who first puts other things in motion. However, unlike Aristotle, Aquinas merely adopts the idea of contingency to postulate a non-antideity. From the bases of causation and motion we arrive at two attributes of God ‘unmoved mover’ and ‘uncaused first cause’. with motion, “nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality” therefore cannot be simultaneously in actuality and

In the article, “The Five Ways,” from Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas argues whether God exists, which

The ideas that God is altogether simple and that he has complete knowledge of himself and all things form the foundation for much of Aquinas' arguments for the existence of a world of contingent beings, deriving from a necessary being. Aquinas continues this line of reasoning in his argument that God's knowledge is the cause of things. Aquinas likens this relationship to the artificer and the art. The artificer, working through his intellect, creates the art. As Aquinas says, "Hence the form in the intellect must be the principle of action." Aquinas also says, "Now it is manifest that God causes things by his intellect, since his being is his act of understanding; and hence his knowledge must be the cause of things, insofar as his will is joined to it." Aquinas is saying here that if God's intellect creates things, i.e. human beings, then he must also be the cause of those things because his intellect is the same thing as his will. Keeping in mind that God is altogether simple, this conclusion naturally follows a logical sense of reasoning.

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

Therefore, it is more believable that the universe had a beginning and a personal creator. The third of Aquinas' ways is the argument of contingency. The world consists of contingent items- items that have a property are items referred to as 'being.' These items are generated and perish; they have a beginning and an end.

The first part in which one can prove that there is a God is based on change. In the first part, Aquinas mentions that things change and that there has to be something which brings about that change, but at the same time is changeless. Aquinas states that “a thing in process of change cannot itself cause that same change; it cannot change itself” (Aquinas 45). For example, he gives an example about wood and fire. The wood is able to be hot but simply cannot make itself change without having an outside source that will cause it to become hot. The fire, that is naturally hot, will indeed make the wood hot and as a result, will change the wood.

The excitement begins to rise as the first cast draws nearer. The motor is prepared for take-off and the key is placed in the ignition. The engine turns over and the huge motor roars. The sleek boat accelerates rapidly and speeds toward the first fishing spot of the day. In a matter of minutes, the powerful boat glides into the fishing spot. The anticipation of catching a fish becomes almost unbearable. The fishing poles are grabbed quickly out of the rod lockers, and lures are tied onto the end of the fishing line. Moments later, the sound of a lure splashing into the water can be heard from the boat. The real adventure has just begun.

The Reductio Argument, which was the Third Way Argument from Possibility and Necessity, is the best argument in contrast to the other four arguments in order to prove the existence of God. The argument proposes ten statements that disagree with the validity of an assumption, which can be summarized as such: in order for things or beings to exist, they have to be contingent. Contingent in the manner that there has been a previous being or situation thus allowing for a new being to exist, or a new situation to arise creating a constant repetitive cycle. Overall the assumption proposes that the possibility of either a being or a situation existing is dependent on a prior occurring situation. The Third Way Argument points out that prior situations

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.