A fascination of the human race is discovering how the universe, everyone, and everything came into being. Many scientist and theologians have studied this topic for centuries and looking back at some of the earlier arguments will show key insights in proving Gods existence. One of the best sources we have on the subject of Gods existence in the catholic theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Thomas Aquinas was a Catholic priest from Italy who was an influential theologian of the 12th century. Thomas is recognized as the author of the five arguments for the existence of God. The first way is the argument of motion followed by the argument from efficient causes third is the argument from possibility and necessity and lastly is the argument from
Thomas defines Motus as the transition of something moving from potential reality to actual reality. He does not just consider motion as a method of moving forward but as a potential in “growth of wisdom, Fluctuation in temperature, birth, death, etc.) are all examples of potency to actuality.” (Father Robert Barron) In his argument of motion he points out a second principle which is that nothing can move itself because if you are undergoing a state of motion you are in turn in a state of potentiality. “If there is no first nonderivative member of the series, then there is no such source. Each member of the series either has the causal power it is exercising derivatively or non-derivatively. If the series has no first independent member, then no member has the power it is exercising non-derivatively.” (Caleb
The object was created by Sir Isaac Newton to demonstrate conservation of momentum of energy through five swinging spheres. When one end of the device is lifted and then released it strikes the other spheres and the direct force causes them to move. The first ball might have caused the impact but it was not capable of moving itself and another sphere did not move it. The force that created the initial reaction was outside of the Newton’s cradle. Newton however had a very different outlook on motion “The Newtonian motion which remained, however, is the result of conflict, lacks any purpose or goal and has nothing to do with the divine life itself. Aristotle, and indeed Plato before him, would have viewed such motion” (SIMON OLIVER) Even though both famous academic thinkers came to the same conclusion that everything in motion must have be placed in motion they cannot come to the same conclusion “Ultimately, all motion is seen as a participation in the most perfect "motionless motion" of the Trinitarian Godhead in which all things are known, and thereby created and sustained, in the eternal emanation of the Son from the Father. By contrast, Newton outlined a view of motion which saw this category as a primitive state to which bodies are indifferent. Thus motion tells us nothing about the ontology of creation.
Saint Thomas of Aquainas may have been one of the greatest thinkers who attempted to bridge the proverbial gap between faith and reason. His Sacred Doctrine which was the initial part of his Summa Theologica was the basis for his conclusion about the existence of God. Aquinas tended to align his beliefs close with Aristotle's supposition that there must be an eternal and imputrescible creator. In comparison, Anselm's impressions were influenced largely by Plato. In his text Proslogion he outlined his Ontological argument that regarding the existence of God. It was simply that God was the ultimate and most perfect being conceivable, and that his state of existing is greater than not existing therefore god, being perfect in every way, must exist. This is where their paths divide, and although they essentially reach the same determination they paint the picture quite differently.
St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas were considered as some of the best in their period to represent philosophy. St. Anselm’s argument is known as the ontological argument; it revolves entirely around his statement, “God is that, than which no greater can be conceived” (The Great Conversation, Norman Melchert 260). St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument is known as the cosmological argument; it connects the effects of events to the cause for why they happened. Anselm’s ontological proof and Aquinas’ cosmological proof both argued for God’s existence, differed in the way they argued God’s existence, and had varying degrees of success using these proofs.
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’ second proof for the existence of God is a sound argument. Aquinas’ argument about the efficient/agent cause is philosophically persuasive because it is easy to apply to things. The second proof is based on the notion of the efficient cause. The efficient cause is based on a chain of cause and effects. Aquinas does a suitable job in proving God’s existence through the order of caused causes through the world of sense.
First, Descartes contends that God’s perfection implies his immutability because a modification of his action would deny the perfection of the creation. Accordingly, Descartes says: ‘Thus, God imparted various motions to the parts of matter when he first created them, and he now preserves all this matter in the same way, and by the same process by which he originally created it’ (AT IXB, 62). The conservation of the initial conditions of the universe is possible because of God’s continual action on the universe. Finally, Descartes concludes this argument explaining that it is reasonable to think that God preserves the same quantity of motion in matter. Under these considerations, we can say that Descartes founds his physics on his metaphysical conception of God’s immutability, and it makes possible to universalize the laws of
Humans can never know for the certain why the universe was created or what caused it but, we can still create arguments and theories to best explain what might have created the universe. The cosmological argument is another idea to prove the existence of god. Many philosophers debate wheatear the cosmological argument is valid. The cosmological argument starts off quite simply: whatever exists must come from something else. Nothing is the source of its own existences, nothing is self-creating []. The cosmological argument states at some point, the cause and effect sequence must have a beginning. This unexpected phenomenal being is god. According to the argument, god is the initial start of the universe as we know it. Though nothing is self-creating cosmological believers say god is the only being the is self –created. Aquinas, an Italian philosopher, defended the argument and developed the five philosophical proofs for the existence of god knows as, the “Five Ways”.[]. In each “way” he describes his proof how god fills in the blanks of the unexplainable. The first way simply states that, things in motion must be put in motion by something. The second was is efficient because, nothing brings its self into existence. The third is, possibility and necessity [!]. Aqunhias’ has two more ‘ways’ but for the purpose of this essay I won’t be focusing on them heavily. These ways have started philosophers to debate and question his arguments ultimately made the cosmological argument debatable. The cosmological argument is however not a valid argument in explaining the existence of god because the conclusions do not logically follow the premises.
Let us review Newton’s bucket argument, which relies on the existence of absolute motion to prove the existence of absolute space. Assume that there is a plane of existence completely devoid of matter—call this plane a “void”—save for a bucket full of water and a rope tied to the bucket. The argument is as follows: Firstly, in an instance where the water displays the effects of centrifugal force, the water is not moving relative to the bucket or any material object. Secondly, all centrifugal forces result f...
I claim that even when things of nature are turned into artifacts (desks, statues, buildings, etc.) that the inherent motion that nature has given the base materials remains and that nothing man can do will change the end. I will do this by first showing the differences between how motion causes things like stone, wood, earth,
The First Law of Motion (Law of Inertia) states that “A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force”. The Second Law of Motion states that “The force acting on an object is equal to the mass of that object times its acceleration”. The Third Law of Motion states that “if a body exerts a force on a second body, the second body exerts a force that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the first force. So for every action force there is always a reaction force” Sir Isaac Newton will be remembered today for his academic achievement and excellent Laws of Motion! Isaac Newton’s works was once accepted in Britain after half a century. Now, Isaac Newton’s work is widely distributed throughout the world and had been ranked among humanity’s greatest achievements in abstract
...potentiality to be. For example, a cat cannot give birth to a dog. Simply because it does not biologically have the potential to do it. In the same way, an object cannot suddenly become what it does not have the potential to be.
can move itself. Therefore, if something is in motion, it must have been put in motion by
necessarily exist, then there must be a time where all things go out. of the existence of the. The basic idea is that everything has a prior cause, but the chain of causes can't go back infinitely far, so there must be a first cause. The "first way" (Unmoved mover) argument might be summarized as follows. this: 1.
Similarly, Aquinas discusses efficient causes. An efficient cause is what we simply refer to as a cause, in other words that which causes an action or event. The first efficient cause leads to
Thomas Aquinas was a teacher of the Dominican Order and he taught that most matters of The Divine can be proved by natural human reason, while “Others were strictly ‘of faith’ in that they could be grasped only through divine revelation.” This was a new view on the faith and reason argument contradictory to both Abelard with his belief that faith should be based on human reason, and the Bernard of Clairvaux who argued that one should only need faith.
Sachs, Joe. "Aristotle: Motion and Its Place in Nature ." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2014.