God’s existence has long been a topic of controversy, one that spans the course of many centuries and––because of its nature––will never be resolved. Two notable philosophers have attempted to prove God’s existence: Saint Thomas Aquinas and René Descartes. Despite having been influenced by the former, Descartes’ arguments––while similar to Aquinas’––are reached through noticeably different methods. To analyze Aquinas’ proof for God’s existence, it is important to first analyze his definition of God––or “How We Know God”–– as outlined in the Summa of Theology (Qu. 12). Simply put by Aquinas, “[God] is (1) the cause of all, and that creatures differ from him in that (2) he is not a part of the things that he has caused, and that they are …show more content…
An effect must have a cause, which as an effect must then have a cause, which as an effect must then have a cause, and so forth. While this argument attempts to prove the existence of God to a religious audience, it is nevertheless scientifically sound. As Newton’s third law of motion states, an object in motion will stay in motion and an object at rest will stay at rest, less an outside force acts on it. Aquinas, despite having no knowledge of Newtonian physics) simply makes the assumption that God must be this initial cause to put the very first object into motion.
Similarly, in the fifth argument, Aquinas addresses what he views as the improbability that objects in nature without rationale (animals, plants, etc) can perfectly fulfill their given purpose, without someone manipulating and planning it. Therein, Aquinas finds a foothold to help prove the existence of God. However, as we will see in the fourth argument, Aquinas has a hole in his reasoning––namely through his groundless assumption that there is a manipulator/planner of the world and that said planner is God. Of the five, the fourth argument is most unique of the five and perhaps the soundest––it does not rely on a causal argument like the first three and it has already been considered by past philosophers (Aristotle). In his fourth argument, a conclusion is reached by implementing Aristotelian logic. Aquinas addresses the method through which we determine what is more or less, greater or lower, better
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
A third objection to the cosmological argument as a whole is that Aquinas insists that everything has a cause; if that is true, then what caused God? There being an uncaused cause would be a contradiction to Aquinas whole argument that everything has a cause yet God has no cause. But Aquinas defends his argument by saying that only everything in our universe has a cause because everything in our universe is a limited, dependent being. That still would require an uncaused, neither finite, nor dependent being unlike anything in our universe, God. Critics also object that the cosmological argument does not prove a loving and personal God, but Aquinas would probably respond by stating that this wouldn’t prove his argument is wrong, only that it has a limited purpose.
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.
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.
Thomas Aquinas’ five ways prove that God exists in some form, his argument that God exists through motion is a sound theory that he created. There are objections
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.
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.
Aquinas' second proof is similar to his first in that it relates to cause and effect. St. Thomas reasoned that in a world of order there is an order to all cause and effect. And , since there is a cause for the existence of all things there must be a cause that caused all things and had no cause itself. He points out that nothing in creation existed prior to itself and the causality cannot be traced back infinitely. If the efficient or first cause did not exist then nothing would exist. That first or efficient cause is God.
He states that “nothing can be predicated univocally of God and other things” (32, para. 1) because the cause, God, is not equal to the effect, creation (32, para. 2). Aquinas states that the divine perfection, the cause, outweighs the perfection of creation which is the effect (32, para. 2). However, one cannot say that the names of God are purely equivocally by chance (33, para. 1). He demonstrates how due to God being the cause of creation, while they are not univocal, the effect does resemble the cause (33, para. 2). Rather, the names said of God must be said analogically in the mode of reference of one thing to another (34, para.
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.
The final crucial proof of the existence of God is Aquinas fourth proof. This proof looks at qualities of humans; all humans possess many different attributes which we consider unique to each individual. This is when standards are formed humans began to have a certain criteria for how or what someone with a given attribute should act or how they should portray themselves. The only way this standard could come into existence is to believe that there is a perfect creation possessing all qualities and expressing them in the most precise and perfect way. This perfect creation is God, the person in which humans get the laws at which the obeyed by. Aquinas five proofs of the existence of God are much more extensive but just looking at the proof of motion and the proof of perfection it becomes unquestionable that there is an almighty creation. This superior creation creates laws at which
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.
St. Thomas Aquinas is a famous philosopher from the medieval period who believed there was a god. One of Aquinas significant works in philosophy was his argument that God exists. In Aquinas' argument, or also known as Summa Theologica, he uses five arguments to support the claim that God exist and four of them are cosmological argument. Cosmological arguments are arguments that try to reason that god exists because of the universe or cosmos leads to the conclusion that god exists. His first argument is the Argument From Motion. In the argument of motion Aquinas observed that we live in a world and universe that things are continuously moving, and he also noticed that to make something move something has to move or start it moving. To Aquinas this means that everything that is moving must have been moved by something or someone and there had to be a time when the thing wasn't moving. The mover for the beginning of everything in Aquinas' argument is God. The second argument is the Argument From Causation which is very similar to the Argument From Motion. Aquinas thoughts were that everything that is caused had to be caused by something else. Nothing can cause it's self so there must be an thing that is uncaused and to Aquinas that thing is God because it can't go back forever. The Third argument is The Argument From Contingency. Contingency is a future or thing that could have not existed and Aquinas believe that the world can't always be contingent because then it could have