Now That This Paper Has Evaluated Aquinas’S Summa Contra

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.

Comparing Aquinas and Descartes they both in a way have arguments for cause in proving the existence of God. Aquinas in that "nor indeed it is possible, that anything is the efficient cause of itself" (The Second Way, 2) and there needs to be a first cause that is the cause of all

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.

The arguments made by Aquinas at first seem to be powerful. However, when examining and taking a closer look the arguments don’t seem to be as

     There is, however, a way to fix Aquinas’ theory. If we take his logic into account we can say that there was a time when the universe did not exist. But, the universe exists now therefore it must have had a beginning. By definition a necessary being has no beginning and now end. Due to this definition we can say that the universe is not a necessary being. This leaves us with one of three options: there is a necessary being, the universe has always existed, or something can come into existence out of nothing. Due to the big bang theory we can eliminate the theory of the universe always existing. Therefore, there is a necessary being or something can come into existence out of nothing. Because we know that something cannot come into existence out of nothing we determine that there must be a necessary being. However, the necessary being is either God or the universe. Because the universe had a beginning it can not be necessary, therefore God is the necessary being and he must exist.

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

Well unfortunately some believe their (omnipotent) God has all the answers and knows of every person’s next moves and what’s yet to come. I can somewhat agree with that but I don’t believe it is my duty to judge or prove the existence, and the all mighty power God has. I certainly am a believer of faith and that the existence of good and evil lies in all of us, regardless of the control God has over us. My opinion relates to how Aquinas believes that everyone’s consequences and endings they choose are because of the free choice God gives us all. As mentioned in the book, a great example that I find makes a perfect analogy is when he states, “He can create in a multitude of ways, No

As discussed in class, modern scientific research provides alternatives to Aquinas’s presumed necessities. An infinite series of causes no longer seems impossible. This research disproves Aquinas 's third premise (P3), and his argument for God as the first cause is consequently unnecessary. Furthermore, the fourth premise still has a logical gap between the first cause and God. Aquinas offers no explanation as to why the first cause must be God or a supernatural being at all. The first cause may just as easily be a spontaneous event, or a first cause may not exist at all in an infinite universal cycle.

vi. Saint Aquinas attempted to explain God as the first mover, and that all things followed after God’s initial cause. But also, It was Adam the first man, who chose to bring sin into the world, God did not cause that to be, and neither did anything outside of Adam, and therefore it was Adam’s self determinant choice to sin against the laws of God.

In this paper, I offer a reconstruction of Descartes argument for God’s existence in the Third Meditation. Descartes tries to prove the existence of God with an argument that proceeds from the clear and distinct idea of an infinite being to the existence of himself. He believes that his clear and distinct idea of an infinite being with infinite “objective reality” leads to the occurrence of the “Special Causal Principle”. I will start by discussing and analyzing Descartes clear and distinct idea of an infinite being and how it the classification of ideas and the difference between formal and objective reality Special Causal Principle. Finally, I will examine the reasons Descartes offers for his belief in Gods existence and I will indicate the drawbacks within the proof. It will be concluded that Descartes arguments are inadequate and don’t clearly prove the existence of God.

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.

To further validate his proof, he attempts to show God’s existence as an a posteriori claim. Descartes states that as humans we have the idea of God in our minds. We conceive God as a perfect being, that of perfect existence. As shown in the quote from page 37, this idea of God is beyond our reasoning to create, and must have come from God itself. Our idea of God certifies his existence. Descartes deviates from the method again, and his reasoning fails to provide an absolute proof.

As in Aquinas Argument everything is either necessary or contingent. If everything in the world is contingent, then everything is going toward an end, so at one time there would be nothing. In reality we can see that there is something right now which is the humans, other creatures. Therefore, not everything is contingent. On the other hand, let say that everything in this world is necessary, so everything will not tend to an end and that is wrong too because a lot of creatures are extinct. So there must be something necessary and all of the other thing is contingent. This statement leads us to Thomas Aquinas third Argument which is that god is the necessary being and all the other creatures are contingent.

Thomas Aquinas theorized five different logical arguments to prove the existence of God utilizing scientific hypotheses and basic assumptions of nature. In the fifth of his famous “Five Ways”, Aquinas sets forth the assumption that all natural bodies move toward an end. Since bodies are constantly moving in the best way possible to achieve that end, the path must be designed. God, of course, is the ultimate designer of the universe.

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.