Aquinas' Arguments for the Existence of God
In Summa Theologica, Question 2, Article 3, Aquinas attempts to prove
the existence of God. He begins with two objections, which will not be
addressed here, and continues on to state five arguments for the
existence of God. I intend to show that Aquinas' first three arguments
are unsound from a scientific standpoint, through support of the Big
Bang theory of the creation of the universe.
In the first and second arguments Aquinas begins by stating that some
things change and that the changes to these things are caused by
things other than themselves. He says that a thing can change only if
it has a potentiality for being that into what it changes. Aquinas'
change is defined as taking a characteristic of an object out of
potentiality into actuality. This can only be accomplished by
something that is already in reality. He also states that an object's
property cannot be in reality and potentiality at the same time. A pot
can be actually hot and potentially cold, but it cannot be both
actually hot and potentially hot. Because of this necessity of the
object changing to be in reality while the change occurring to be in
potentiality that an object cannot change itself. He continues by
saying that for any change to occur there must have been a previous
cause that existed in reality and if one was to trace this line of
causes and effects all the way back there must be a first cause that
began the chain. But there cannot be anything worldly like that
because anything natural must have an impetus already in reality to
transform it from potentiality to reality. The only explanation, in
Aquinas' e...
... middle of paper ...
...s a cause except God. Secondly, the first and second
arguments are invalid because the way the Big Bang happened and the
universe was created was left to a good deal of chance and it would
have been illogical for God to have created it that way. If God did
create it in this form then it would be contradictory to Aquinas' idea
of a completely rational, benevolent, and omnipotent God. Aquinas'
third argument is unsound because he states that not every entity can
fail to exist, but during singularity all of the matter in the
universe is suspended in one lawless and unlocatable point. The lack
of governing laws and any way to tell where that point would have been
is proof that it may not have existed. The scientific proof of the
beginning of the universe renders Aquinas' first three arguments from
Summa Theologica unsound.
Examining the two works against each other as if it were a debate makes it a bit clearer to compare. Aquinas, reveals his argument under the groundwork that there are essentially two methods of understanding the truth. One being that it can be surmised through reason an logic, and the other being via inner faith. On the surface at this point it could be argued that this ontological determination a bit less convoluted than Anselm, yet I tend to think it could be a bit more confusing. This is what leads him to the claim that the existence of God can be proven by reason alone or “a priori”. Stemming from this belief he formulated his Five Proofs or what he called the “Quinquae Viae”. The first of which is fairly simple based on the fact that something in motion had to have been moved. Agreeing that something set it in motion therefor there must have been a...
Anselm’s argument can be summarized as, “1. God does not exist. (assumption) 2. By “God,” I mean that, than which no greater can be conceived (NGC). 3. So NGC does not exist. (from 1 and 2) 4. So NGC has being only in my understanding, not also in reality. (from 2 and 3) 5. If NGC were to exist in reality, as well as in my understanding, it would be greater. (from the meaning of “greater”) 6. But then, NGC is not NGC. (from 4 and 5) 7. So, NGC cannot exist only in my understanding. (from 6) 8. So NGC must exist also in reality. (from 5 and 7) 9. So God exists. (from 2 and 8) 10. So God does not exist and God exists. (from 1 to 9) 11. So Premise 1 cannot be true. (by 1 through 10 and the principle of reduction ad absurdum) 12. So God exists. (from 11)” (262). This quote demonstrates how Anselms ontological proof is “God is that, than which no greater can be conceived” in understanding and reality by stating that a contradiction would be made if God didn’t exist in both (262). Aquinas cosmological proof stated that the existence of God could be confirmed in five ways, The Argument- “from Change”, “Efficient Causality”,
In the first part, Aquinas states that the existence of god is not self-evident, meaning that reason alone without appealing to faith can give a good set of reasons to believe. To support this claim, Aquinas refers to “The Argument of Motion”, proposing that:
Aquinas’ argument has a couple of flaws in it. One is pointed out by Samuel Clarke, who says a whole series of dependant...
One is that both theories believe that there had to have been a starting point to the universe. They both believe that it was created for a reason and that there will eventually be an endpoint. St. Aquinas believes that everything is constantly changing, and that for the change to start there must have been something to make the change happen. The first source of things moving is of course, God. Aquinas believes that all things trace back to God, who “is a being having its own necessity…” (Philosophical Proofs on the Existaence of God) A key belief in Aquinas’s Design Argument is that if something exists, there is a reason why it does exist and is a necessity. Another comparison is that both the Kalam’s Cosmological Argument and the Aquinas’s Design Argument have is that both believe that the Universe was started by the big bang. The difference between Kalam’s Cosmological Argument is that Aquinas’s Design Argument is caused by motion, an object is in motion it can send another object in motion. All things in the universe that are in motion and changing can be traced back to
The Reasons Why Some Thinkers Rejected the Cosmological Argument Aquinas’s argument was as follows: If the universe was infinite, it would have an infinite number of days. The end of an infinite series of days can never be reached, so today would never arrive. However, today has arrived, so the past cannot be infinite. Time began when the universe began, which was an event.
Have you ever walked 9000 miles? Well Thomas Aquinas did on his travels across Europe. Thomas had a complex childhood and a complex career. Thomas Aquinas has many achievements/accomplishments. History would be totally different without St.Thomas Aquinas. There would be no common law and the United States Government would not be the same without the common law.
what is normal and usual; that it is not usual to be able to describe
While I do agree with some of Aquinas’ claims. Such as the idea that nothing comes from nothing. I believe something has to happen to become. It could be the efficient cause, causing the world to start. Although still having the question what made such a cause to effect everything in the
Descartes would agree with Anselm’s conclusion that God exists but he would likely attack Anselm’s method of reaching this conclusion with the Fool. The arguments share a major commonality in their reliance upon the human mind in proving God’s existence. In both arguments, God’s existence becomes evident when reflecting on an idea of God. In both cases, possessing an idea of God is enough to prove God’s existence. These similarities, however, are not be enough to protect Anselm from Descartes’ hypothetical criticism of the method by which Anselm gets the Fool to admit that God exists. Descartes’ would take issue with the role that the mind plays in Anselm’s argument. In Descartes’ argument, the mind plays a necessarily passive role in understanding
The Medieval philosopher, St. Thomas Aquinas, argued against non-specific atheists that the existence of God, or a god, could be proven with natural reason. The most important arguments of Aquinas which supported the concept of a higher power are in his first three proofs: the arguments of motion, efficient cause, and necessary being. These proofs were based on the premise that God acted on potential objects and actual objects, and that to understand the existence of God, one would need to examine the effects that God had on the world. Aquinas’ belief that God can be indirectly observed is important in how he uses the human senses as the means for understanding the effects of God, which had previously been doubted for viability in searching for a universal truth.
His ideas also don’t contradict these theories because we have learned, through scientific studies, that nothing can come into existence without there being another force acting upon it. Aquinas also creates a logical explanation when he speaks of purpose. It seems that everything in the universe has been designed intricately to play a role in the big picture of our
It is my view that God exists, and I think that Aquinas’ first two ways presents a
whereas a thing that is contingent may go out of existence. The method Aquinas uses is to set up the opposite position, then prove. it to be wrong. Therefore, the cosmological argument begins by accepting the premise that all things are contingent. If all things are contingent, i.e., if all things can go out of existence and do not.
This is because it’s possible for everything both to exist and not to exist, therefore both possibilities must have been fulfilled at some point. He phrases it in those terms, but I believe his argument is better understood by saying everything which exists must have come into existence, and therefore didn’t exist before that. Since something cannot spontaneously come into existence, he believes, another being gave everything else existence. This is called a “necessary thing,” meaning its existence is necessary for the existence of other things. Aquinas believes a being bestowed its necessity onto itself and did “not [receive] it from another.” What was a paradox before, an object being both the cause and effect, is now the logic. This object is God, and gave existence to all other