St. Aquinas : 5 Ways To Proving God Exist

that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated” (24). Many religions believe that God is the best thing ever and he is infinitely good. With this assumption, it would make sense that God would not allow evil to exist. Because there is evil in the world, according to Aquinas, God cannot be demonstrated to exist because he would not allow something this bad to exist if he is infinitely good. Even though Aquinas has these strong opinions about God not existing, he always does a good job of thinking about the other side of the argument. Aquinas says, “The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected” (23). This opinion is very religiously driven because it is stating that the things that are believed in the religion are natural knowledge. However, some people really do believe this, so it is a valid way of thinking about it. It contradicts what Aquinas first said because here it is saying that faith and natural knowledge are the same thing, where first he said they were

Throughout many centuries philosophers have argued over the existence of God. In today’s society many people tend to hesitate in believing in a God because of the new scientific discoveries. For example, in the mid 1990s scientists built the Hubble telescope which revealed that there were billions of galaxies in our universe, this discovery led some people to question how can one divine being create so much and yet have a personal connection with everyone in the world. Which, in result, may take some scientific explanation to strengthen one’s belief in God, but for those who believe there is a benevolent God they do not need science to show proof that he exists because of their morals and beliefs they have been raised to follow. In this paper I will prove that God does exist by explaining the ontological, cosmological, and design argument.

Many philosophers have posed the question: How can I prove that God exists? Thomas Aquinas attempted to prove the existence of God in a rational way through his Cosmological argument. Aquinas argued that every event as we observe it has a cause and a casual chain cannot be infinite. Therefore, a first cause is necessary and this cause is God. Aquinas’ argument is unsuccessful because it assumes that God is a necessary being, fails to prove that the world is not an infinite chain of events, and undermines the basis of his argument by saying that God is infinite.

     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.

One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this

Scientific reasoning has brought humanity to incredibly high levels of sophistication in all realms of knowledge. For Saint Thomas Aquinas, his passion involved the scientific reasoning of God. The existence, simplicity and will of God are simply a few topics which Aquinas explores in the Summa Theologica. Through arguments entailing these particular topics, Aquinas forms an argument that God has the ability of knowing and willing this particular world of contingent beings. The contrasting nature of necessary beings and contingent beings is at the heart of this debate.

So in the end, Thomas Aquinas and Rene Descartes both attempted to prove the existence of God, but they differ in respect to the different thought processes to obtain the existence of God. An still to this day both Philosophers are regarded as key factor in the world of philosophy and their arguments were so influential that they were able to land a spot in our textbook “THE GREAT CONVERSATION”. But thanks to these gentlemen and their contributions to their works were able

The central problem of this paper that I am going to try to convince my atheist friend is that god existed. I will argue in favor of a higher being by first presenting and evaluating two argument that will be used to persuade my atheist friend. First I will explain Pascal’s argument. Second I will explain one of the arguments of Aquinas’s that is in favor of the existence of god. Then I am going to explain what’s the central difference between the two arguments is. I will conclude by stating whether I was successful in converting my atheist friend.

Sir Thomas Aquinas and William Paley present two arguments for the existence of God. Aquinas defines God as omnibenevolent (all good) for his argument, and he continues in “The Five Ways” to present arguments to prove God’s existence (Rosen et al. 11). Paley, on the other hand, primarily defines God as a designer worthy of our admiration for his work (Rosen et al. 27). During class discussion, defining God involved three major qualities: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Both Aquinas and Paley are attempting to prove the existence of the (Christian) God associated with these qualities. Although Aquinas’s “Cosmological Argument” and Paley’s “Argument from Design” have different premises, both have a similar logical gap in their

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.

Is God real? This question has been asked for thousands of years. What proof do we have? So far no physical proof has been found, however Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican Monk, offered some of the best arguments for the existence of God In his book the Summa Theologiae. Aquinas describes five ways that god could be proven. His arguments began with empirical observations of how he sensed the world around him and are therefor a posteriori. Here I will list the premise of each of the five arguments and discuss their validity.

In Aquinas’ 5th argument, he states that “things that lack intelligence always or nearly always act for an end, to achieve the best result and because of that, it is plain to see that it is not unintentional for the things to act for an end but has been designed to accomplish their end by an intelligent being we call God.” The argument is valid because the premises that are given in the argument are true which follows the conclusion which is also true. The argument is also sound because it is valid and actually true. This argument is one of the most compelling argument for God because of the fact that our surroundings are physical evidence for a living, infinite, omnipotent, eternal, loving and perfect God.

The existence of God is a question that has troubled and plagued mankind since it began to consider logic. Is there a God? How can we be sure that God exists? Can you prove to me that He is real? Does His existence, or lack thereof, make a significant difference? These loaded questions strike at the heart of human existence. But the real question is, can we answer any of them? These questions are answered in the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal and St. Anselm of Canterbury. For thousands of years, theologians, philosophers and scientists have been trying to prove or disprove God’s existence. Many, including the three mentioned above, have strong proofs and theories that attempt to confirm God’s existence. Although, without any scientific evidence, how can they be entirely sure? “Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs,” (Kreeft). Gravity similar to God’s existence ; it cannot be seen nor explained, yet it still exists. With faith, reason, understanding and even some math, God’s existence can be verified rationally.

Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theological, gives five ways or proof that agreed about the God existence. In the five points, he explained about different principles and provides with explanation and arguments about the existence of god. The first point that he made, The Argument of Unmoved Mover explains about the changes in the world, he provided with the argument that any changes that is happening in the world is a result of some other change and the change chain cannot be indefinite so, there is somebody that is responsible for all the changes without getting itself changed which he called god. Second point that he present is The Argument from Contingency which explains about the things in the world that have a cycle of existence and extinction but many things are existed for long and no evidence or a verge of extinction. The thing that is keeping the things in existence have something or somebody backing up which is imperishable understood as God. Third point that he provides is The Argument from Degree, in this he explained about the degree of judging something like good person and bad, truth or lie etc. So, there is

The existence of God, or other worldly beings, with infinite power and mystery has been questioned by philosophers throughout history. Whether you believe in an omnipotent being such as Allah, God, Buddha, etc. there is no physical proof they exist, only the belief in them. Throughout time, philosophers have set out to prove the existence of God through rational reasoning and philosophical viewpoints. Each philosopher “proves” the existence of God through different rationales. Thomas Aquinas, David Hume, William Paley, and Friedrich Nietzsche are some of the philosophers that sought out to prove the existence of God through rational reasoning and their own individual ideas without any actually physical proof.