Thomas Aquinas Argument For God's Existence

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 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.

To prevent the possible hypothetical problem of infinite regression, Aquinas believes in an unmoved mover. Based on the foundations of Aristotle’s God the unmoved mover who thinks about nothing but himself as in thinking about other things would cause movement and contradict his state of unmovement. In the same way, Aquinas adopts the same model of an unmoved god who first puts other things in motion. However, unlike Aristotle, Aquinas merely adopts the idea of contingency to postulate a non-antideity. From the bases of causation and motion we arrive at two attributes of God ‘unmoved mover’ and ‘uncaused first cause’. with motion, “nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality” therefore cannot be simultaneously in actuality and

The series also can not have a cause from within because no one being within the series is necessary. An example of this would be the set of real numbers we use today. Taking one number away from the set would not cause the set to cease in existence. There is no beginning to the number set and no end as well. If we view the Universe with the same concept then Aquinas’ theory can be seen to have a major flaw.

singularity there is no time and all of the laws of physics as we know

Frederick Copleston was a priest, and historian of philosophy who supported Aquinas’ rejection of infinite regress. Copleston reformulated the argument by concentrating on contingency, which he discussed in depth during a radio debate with Bertrand Russell in 1947. Copleston, like Aquinas, argued that there are things in the universe which are contingent, for example, us – we would not have existed if our parents had not met. All things in the world are similar to this, nothing in the world is self-explanatory, and everything depends on something else for its existence. Therefore, we are forced to search for an external explanation. The explanation must lead us to a cause which is self explanatory, i.e. one which contains within itself, the reason for its own existence – a necessary being. The conclusion must be God. Copleston argues that if we don’t accept the existence of an ‘unmoved mover’, like Aquinas suggested, there is no explanation for the universe at all. Copleston believes the universe is gratuitous without a first cause, because without an explanation, nothing has meaning – “Everything is gratuitous. This garden, this city, and myself; when you suddenly realise it, it makes you feel sick and everything begins to drift… that’s nausea”.

It is certainly plausible to believe that there is in infinite series of contingent overlapping things in the universe so there is no need for a necessary being. Aquinas is making a clear connection between the argument from contingency and the argument from causation, so some of the criticisms still apply. Aquinas is relying on reduction ad absurdium to prove that infinite regress is impossible but Aquinas may not understand what infinite regress is. Certainly, a finite series would need to come to an end with an unmoved mover but an infinite series would just never reach an

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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