It is my view that God exists, and I think that Aquinas’ first two ways presents a
successful argument for the existence of God. No doubt, the arguments have weak points
which are subjected to criticism but nonetheless, in my opinion, these propositions by
Aquinas do indeed accomplish their purpose in establishing the existence of a Greatest
Conceivable Being that is the unmoved mover and uncaused cause. I believe that this
ultimate Being is unchanging and started the universe, time and all matter and concepts
of existence. In my view, this Being is what we understand to be God.
St. Thomas Aquinas recognized that there were some people who doubted the
existence of God because, to them, logic did not allow for or explain God’s existence. His
first two ways are two proofs based on logic and observation of nature in proving God’s
existence to those who could not accept or believe God on faith alone. Aquinas’ first way
is based on motion. He calls it the most obvious way. This first argument, the Argument
from Motion, tries to prove the existence of God as the first mover which is unmoved.
Now, it is certain as a matter of sense-observation that some things in this world are in
motion. Whatever is in motion, Aquinas states, is moved by something else. Aquinas then
defines one type of motion as the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality,
and says that nothing can make this movement except by something that is already in
actuality in the same respect as the first object is in potentiality. For example, something
which is actually hot, like fire, makes something which is potentially hot, like wood, to
be actually hot. In this way the fire moves and alters the wood. Now, it is not possible for
the same thing to be, at the same time and same respect, in actuality and in potentiality.
For instance, what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot, though it may
simultaneously be potentially cold. So, it is impossible that in the same respect and same
manner anything should be both mover and moved. In this, Aquinas means that nothing
can move itself. Therefore, if something is in motion, it must have been put in motion by
something else, which must have been put in motion by yet another thing, and so on.
However, this cannot go on to infinity because there would never have been a first mover
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.
... middle of paper ... ... Everything is basically relative and is what each separate person perceives it to be, just like the answers to the infinite questions posed by The Turn of the Screw. Works Cited Burrows, Stuart.
8- McDermid, Douglas. "God's Existence." PHIL 1000H-B Lecture 9. Trent University, Peterborough. 21 Nov. 2013. Lecture.
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.
The Proof of the Existence of God There are many arguments that try to prove the existence of God. In this essay I will look at the ontological argument, the cosmological. argument, empirical arguments such as the avoidance of error and the argument from the design of the. There are many criticisms of each of these that would say the existence of God can’t be proven that are perhaps.
Descartes second argument for proving God’s existence is very straightforward. He has four possibilities that created his existence. Through process of elimination he is left with God being his creator.
I personally believe neither are wrong and neither are right. It would be a great argument if they somehow put the arguments together. Such as Descartes using the proof of “change or motion,” and proof of “efficient cause.” That would eliminate some uncertainty of Descartes. Of course he does talk about causal proof in the third meditation. Also he does say he is certain only of his uncertainty, but he could claim some reason how he exists, as well as God. Descartes believes only what’s in the mind 's eye and how he experience things in the world.
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.
This theory is Aristotle’s belief that something can not come out of nothing. Aristotle says, “How will there be movement, if there is no actually existing cause?…The seeds must act on the earth and the semen on the menstrual blood”. What he is saying is that something must be set into motion by something else. There is always a cause to an effect. One relies on the other. Therefore, before origin there must have been an “immovable mover”, that being God.
...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.
In Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous and Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, philosophers George Berkeley and René Descartes use reasoning to prove the existence of God in order to debunk the arguments skeptics or atheists pose. While Berkeley and Descartes utilize on several of the same elements to build their argument, the method in which they use to draw the conclusion of God’s existence are completely different. Descartes argues that because one has the idea of a perfect, infinite being, that being, which is God therefore exists. In Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, Berkeley opposes the methodology of Descartes and asserts that God’s existence is not dependent on thought, but on the senses and
Thomas Aquinas uses five proofs to argue for God’s existence. A few follow the same basic logic: without a cause, there can be no effect. He calls the cause God and believes the effect is the world’s existence. The last two discuss what necessarily exists in the world, which we do not already know. These things he also calls God.
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.