Existence of God

In the “Suma Theologica,” by Saint Thomas Aquinas, Aquinas combines the doctrines of Christianity with Aristotelian philosophy, through the assertion that as a result of observation, utilization of the senses, and an empirical mindset, one can substantiate the existence of God. Aquinas holds the conception that in the quest for God’s existence, philosophy and theology are interwoven together and both play complementary roles. He infuses numerous theological doctrines, mainly from Saint Augustine, alongside Aristotelian ideals such as, the first mover, to corroborate his argument for the existence of God. Instead of basing his argument on human reason and rationality like his predecessor, Saint Anselm of Canterbury, Aquinas holds that it is instead through an empirical mindset that one is able to ascertain and comprehend the existence of God. Aquinas deems that all knowledge acquired originated from the experiences of our senses. He believes that by experiencing events, the human being is aware of the fact that there exists an effect for every action that is undergone. Through this realization, Aquinas recognizes that there must exist a cause that triggered that event into existence, culminating in the conclusion that everything in existence must be characterized by a cause. This argument presented defines the cosmological argument, a belief that there is a first cause, which is God, who is seen as the source of the cosmos that sets in motion a cycle of cause and effect. To prove this argument, Aquinas presents five different variants, each with subtle distinctions that display two reoccurring themes, the importance of sense experience and the notion of causality, to prove the existence of God.

In Aquinas’s first argument, he lin...

... middle of paper ...

... cause and effect stopped at the Big Bang, as it does to claim it stopped at God. The Big Bang Theory, which has no previous cause, could have easily prompted the chain of cause and effect. Why must we presume the world to have a beginning and claim that the cosmos could not have been a cause of itself? Since Aquinas, at the time, does not fully understand the workings of the Universe, his claim that the infinite regression arbitrarily stopped at God, is misleading, since the regression could have stopped as the universe itself prompted the chain of cause and effect. I wholeheartedly agree that Aquinas’ cosmological argument proves the existence of an “uncaused cause,” however I believe that it fails in acknowledging other means of creation and holds no validation that the first cause attributes the characteristics of the God of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.