The Five Arguments For The Existence Of God

Therefore the universe (cosmos) has a cause c) That cause is God d) Therefore God exists. For this to follow Aquinas has to exclude the possibility of infinite regression; i.e. events with their previous causes going back in time forever).

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

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.

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

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

Aquinas’ first and second argument are both very similar to one another. Aquinas states “To cause change is just to draw something out of potentiality into actuality” (Aquinas 43). So here, Aquinas is saying that something has the potential to change. And if you change it that makes it a reality. Aquinas then states “this can only be done by something in actuality.” (Aquinas 43). This something that he is referring to is God. Next Aquinas states “It is therefore impossible for a thing that undergoes a change to cause that change, or for something to change itself. Therefore, whatever undergoes change must be changed by another thing. And, if this other thing undergoes change, it also must be changed by something else, and so on.” (Aquinas 43). However, Aquinas goes back on what he has said and states “But this cannot go back to infinity” (Aquinas 43). This is what we called an “infinite regress”. However, I am not a fan of Aquinas’ theory that an infinite regress is impossible. While it’s understandable, I believe that us as humans will always ask “why?” So we can follow Aquinas and say that an infinite regress is impossible and we must stop at God. But, this brings the questions of “why is God exempt from this?” and if we choose to not follow Aquinas and believe an infinite regress is possible then we can go back into infinity which dismantles 3 of his 5 arguments. After all, he is trying to prove the existence of only one God. Aquinas then wraps up his first argument by saying “We must therefore posit a first cause of change which is not itself changed by anything. And this everyone understands to be God.” (Aquinas 43).

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

It could be restated without defining God, and by replacing “God” each time it is mentioned with “A being than which none greater can be conceived” . Despite this possible restatement, Aquinas had further critiques of Anselm’s argument and why it is unnecessary for proving the existence of God. Aquinas says that even if we were to assume that all people shared the same idea of God as a being that which none greater could be imagined, “it does not therefore follow that he understands what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally” . This second critique is reasonable because although we can rehearse the line “a being than which none greater can be conceived” over and over in our minds, nobody knows what this sequence of words actually means. We can grasp the concept of finite things and that God is unlike any other reality known to us, but these concepts are so far from being an adequate description of God that we can easily say that they do not help us to get a detailed idea of who He is.

The first argument deals with motion. Aquinas concludes everything moves because of an unmoved mover who is known as God. Furthermore, to counteract this argument nothing is able to move itself. If every substance or object has something to which causes it to move than the very first object to arise would need a mover as well. Why is God exempt from this rule?

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.

In A Discourse on the Method, Descartes attempted to prove the existence of God in a priori manner. He did not trust his own senses when trying to prove the existence of God and therefore he relied on the ontological argument. By making the same assumption made by Anselm, which was that an ontological argument assumes that existence is a predicate of God, Descartes is able to conclude that ‘God exists’ is true by definition because the subject ‘God’, who already contains all perfections, already contains the predicate – exists, which is a perfection. Although this may be perceived as a strong claim to believers, many such as Gaunilo would have disagreed. Descartes postulates his argument in the fourth part of his Discourse in order to try and prove the existence of God. One must discuss why one feels Descartes attempted to do so and exactly how convincing his claim is. However, before one can understand his claim, it is important to grasp an idea of the background that Descartes was writing from when he wrote the Discourse and the meaning of proof.

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

Throughout the course of this essay we shall examine two of the major philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The arguments that we are going to focus on shall be the Design argument and the Ontological argument. We shall compare, evaluate and discuss both the Design (or teleological) argument for the existence of God and the Ontological Argument for the existence of God, as well as highlighting philosophical criticisms of both theories too. By doing so, we shall attempt to draw a satisfactory conclusion and aim gain a greater understanding of the respective theories and their criticisms of each theory.

When St. Thomas wrote this section of his ground breaking essay what he ultimately was claiming, was that through philosophy and observation, there is a way to see how the natural world points to there in fact being a God. Although to some it may seem absurd, modern day science based upon observation and experimentation, does not completely discredit or debunk the first, second, third, and fifth arguments from St. Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways, but rather it suggests substantial evidential credibility, in regards to his theories on God’s existence.Concepts, theories, and laws drawn from the

Man loves God. It is as natural a love to Man as any other is. For millennia the notion of divinity has ruled the minds of peoples the world over, its power to foster social cohesion and social conflict at the heart of its aversion to senescence. However, can such a consequential notion have as its foundation a logical proof? Arguments in the affirmative abound. Let us examine one in particular, that of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Five Ways. As we do this, we will consider Søren Kierkegaard’s claim that any logical proof of God’s existence assumes God already exists, that God is necessary for reality to exist (Swenson). Let us establish the logical proof offered by Aquinas and then determine whether we could reach the same conclusions assuming God does not exist, and employ Occam’s razor.