Objections To St. Thomas Omnipotence Of God

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

After reading Article 1, Aquinas for Armchair Theologians by Timothy M. Renick most can automatically acquire that Thomas Aquinas was a very influential thinker amongst others when explaining his theological views. His religious views may have differed from others during his time, however, it did influence and encourage others on the different topics of God vs. Satan, and why God has not all the answers, and powers when making sure every human being should not face evil. Aquinas believed that Christians needed to view their basic beliefs in another way to make sense of their own faith when questioning all that God did for each individual. The real question to all this, which a lot of people even question today is “Why is their evil in the World?”

Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica represents one of the most famous attempts to prove God's existence. Aquinas wrote at a time in which people began to develop skepticism concerning the existence of God. In this regard, it is instructive to position Aquinas

Aquinas denied that animals are proper objects of moral concern for at least two reasons: (1) God made animals exclusively for human use; we ride, wear, work, and eat animals, and "there is no sin in using a thing for the purpose for which it is" ("Summa"). (2) Animals cannot reason. Since only rational beings are proper objects of moral concern, how one treats animals is morally valuable only insofar as such treatment affects rational beings. For example, one should not torture animals only because doing so may subtly influence one to torture humans, too. Points (1) and (2) are central to the Utility Thesis.

In this paper, I plan to give an exposition of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ five point argument. Next, I plan to state one of the five arguments that I find the most compelling and then explain why it is so compelling. Finally, I plan to state one of the five arguments that I find the least compelling and give reasons as to why it is the least compelling.

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

Many people argue on whether or not travel sports are necessary. Some people say they are a good thing because they give kids team working abilities, but others say they are bad because the people who do not make the team are left with no physical activity. Travel sports are not necessary and sports should be more of a participation thing not all about winning because, they are bad for the kids who fail to make the team. Also they are a financial burden and a big time commitment.

He believed that serious crimes, such as capital punishment and self-defense, were inexcusable and there were no circumstances in which they were justified. Aquinas talks about the just war theory in another aspect by saying that “Evil must not be done for the sake of good.” He talks about evil in the sense of the option to damage, impede or destroy a human good. Every choice that you make must rational feelings behind it. When part of a person’s reality is damaged, impeded, or destroyed, it gives itself a reason not to make a particular choice based on a person’s personal fulfillment. The reasoning behind a person’s choice could be put to the side, and the choice could be made if the person would, beforehand, explain the reason they decided to choose that action and this would mean that in choosing this action, some greater good would come out of this choice or that the basic human good would not be damaged, impeded, or destroyed. Finnis says, however, that it is impossible for the human goods to be proportionate to each other (Finnis

It is imperative to understand Aquinas’ definition of just and unjust laws. Through defining these terms, we will be able to understand Aquinas’ claim. A law that is just has the power of “binding in conscience” (Aquinas in Dimock, ed., 2002, p.20). It is derived from eternal law and therefore inherently morally correct. An unjust law lacks this integral quality. Aquinas is willing to say that an unjust law is a so-called law, but a just law is a law proper in its entirety.

Choose two of the divine attributes discussed in lesson 127 and explain how Aquinas derives them.

The arguments combined prove a being which is a prime mover, first cause, necessary being, root of all perfection, and intelligent being. The arguments, however, do not prove the Christian God as described by the Bible. First, the arguments do not prove that there is only one god. There could be several gods and Aquinas’ arguments do nothing to prove otherwise. Furthermore, a god could have all of these attributes yet never have done anything that was described in the Bible. For example, I can envision a god with all of these attributes who enjoys to eat cheese. I could even write a book about such a god and the different types of cheese he eats. And, based on Aquinas’ arguments, as my god has all the qualities described by Aquinas, my god is equally as likely to exist as the Christian God. There are infinitely many gods that can be envisioned which all have the attributes described by Aquinas. Therefore, there is no way of proving, even if Aquinas’ arguments are true, that the Christian God described by the Bible

His very thesis is centered on the idea that god must be a creator, because the universe is so intricate and perfect. He is arguing for god's existence not the nature of God. So is Aquinas his five ways of proving God's existence, They do not explore the nature of God. Why must God be a creator.. ? Maybe humans created god, the idea of god, a community in a dance of unity, or in a shared ritual.

The first question: “Did Aquinas intend that his notion of analogy be understood as violating the law of non-contradiction?” The answer is, of course not. Darley points out that St. Thomas agrees strongly with the Aristotelian epistemic foundational concept of the law of contradiction. He further points out that Aquinas does not hold this for merely created things, but also the Creator. For He Who Is cannot be He who is not. The ineffable nature of God as the transcendent one cannot contradict the laws of being for He is Being. His nature cannot contradict reason for He is Truth. St. Thomas, according to Darley, then moves to Scripture as evidence that God cannot break a fundamental law of His own Being. After going through the writings of Thomas, and various other Thomist, Darley concludes his argument by saying that analogical language of God does not break

For the world to operate, he argues the world is in motion. Assuming the world is in constant motion, it supposes the idea of the existence of a ‘mover’. Hence, if every motion is moved by a mover, to avoid an infinite number of movers which is impossible, it must mean there is one true mover. Aquinas therefore argues this ‘first mover’ is God. God is also moved by nothing because he is the creator. “God is not included within common being”, he exists on a plane beyond the human world (Schindler 597). He exists to move others, but there cannot be something that moves him. If God is the greatest thing imaginable or non-imaginable, it must mean God cannot be moved by others. Velecky adds on, “Aquinas thinks that God is the unique self-existent form which cannot be realized in a material way” (Velecky 39). This is to say, regardless of a material form, God exists. Because the world is in constant motion, Aquinas argues this is proof of God’s existence. Human knowledge acknowledges “God [directs] and [moves] the world” as factual (Di Blasi 349). No one else can be true source for the world and natural things to be in movement. To conjure up anything beyond the idea of God is impossible. While not explicitly stated, Aquinas seems to imply the thought of something besides God is God. Similarly, Carpenter argues “there is no objective difference between what we call God, quiddity of God and qualities of God” (Carpenter

Thomas Aquinas is most well known for his moral philosophy and theological writings. Aquinas did not believe that philosophical reasoning can provide a complete account of divine nature, however it is a source of divine truth and helpful for absolving the credibility of the Christian faith doctrines. From this perspective, philosophical reasoning, can be a tool in the service of theology.