Aquinas's Arguments for God's Existence

Introduction

Historically, people have tried to prove the existence of God through several arguments. What usually prevails in most of these arguments is that it is incorrect to prove the existence of God through ontological reasoning. The idea is that among the people, it is impossible to prove the existence of God just by proposing that he exists and this means that one cannot do it just by examining the concept of God but rather through logical reasoning. St. Thomas Aquinas is one of the individuals who have brought out a logical argument with the aim of proving that God exists. The argument is embedded in his Five Ways reasoning, where he explains that the presence of God is provable in five ways. The first way is the argument from motion that proves that God exists because natural things are always in motion (Aquinas, n.d). The second way is the argument from efficient cause is cemented on the idea that in a world of sensible things, nothing causes itself. The argument from necessary being is the third way that is centered on the idea that God is necessary for people's being of existence. The fourth way is the argument from gradations of goodness that says that all natural things are perfect, and such perfection has a source. The last way is the argument from design that explains that natural things work in design, and such intelligence is instilled in these things by God (Aquinas, n.d). I do not agree with Aquinas's arguments for God's existence because his third-way explanation relies on contingency, the second way belief of infinite causes is wrong, and his first way is based on the assumption that God himself is immune to the regress.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Relying on a Contingency

Relying on a contingency to develop an argument is wrong, and this is what the Aquinas third way argument is all about. In this argument, Aquinas reasons that if everything was classified as a need-not-exist category, then it means that at one time, nothing existed. Therefore, if nothing existed, then it is impossible for anything to exist, which means that there must be something that must have existed to make other things exist and to him what existed is God (Moad, 2016). It seeks that Aquinas realizes that the third way proof of God using the argument from possibility and necessity is incorrect because it would assume that at one time, nothing existed, and this would not develop a valid argument. Therefore, he brings in a contingency to his argument that nothing existed except God, and it is Him who made other things come to existence. Contingency can never be proof because one assumes that if something exists, which might not be true because it might not have existed.

The contingency argument developed in Aquinas's third way brings other problems. First, the argument depends on an assumption question of if something existed. If everything was contingent, then at one time, something might not have existed. It is not a self-evident phenomenon, yet Aquinas never gives his argument on this issue (Moad, 2016). Secondly, the concept of contingency raises a concern about ambiguity. Aquinas argues that something must have existed first for other things to exist. However, this argument is ambiguous in that assuming so raises many unanswered questions of what things are possible to exist and what things do not have such capability. Consequently, it implies that some things have both the ability to exist and not to exist, and this makes the argument illogical and incorrect.

Belief on Infinite Causes

Aquinas's second-way argument is cemented on the belief of infinite causes, which makes it illogical and wrong. The argument stipulates that nothing can exist without a cause. Therefore, anything that exists must have been caused by something else. The argument is based on the idea of cause and effect such that the first cause must be prevalent for the first effect to prevail. If there is no first cause, then there is no first effect and neither can there be the second and subsequent effects. According to Aquinas, there cannot be infinite causes or movers, and as a result, something that happens must have been caused by something earlier, and this mover is God. However, it is essential to consider that nothing is an efficient cause of anything, more so when it is an assumption that something caused others to exist, but itself was not caused to exist (Morreal, 1979). The assumption developed by Aquinas that something is uncaused cause raises a complication that there could be more than one first cause.

In the above example, there is the first cause. However, one can still point out that there is inconsistency in what is the first cause in that there seems to be more than one cause in the above example. It makes no sense that there is more than one fist cause, yet this is the fact when one looks from the above view and therefore from this view, Aquinas seems to implicate that there is more than one God who made something to exist and this invalidates his argument of one God exists. As a result, it is correct to say that Aquinas's argument is proof of theism rather than monotheism (Morreal, 1979). His second way is, therefore, based on the assumption of the existence of at least one God and not the existence of exactly one God. If this is the case, then Aquinas fails to prove that God exists. Instead, he proves that a certain uncaused cause exists.

The philosophical problem extends to raise the question of whether God exists when one considers the beliefs of both the theists and atheists. Theists believe that God exists. Atheists, on their part, believe that God does not exist (Morreal, 1979). What is evident among the two is the presence of faith that convinces either party to believe that their opinion is valid. It is the same concept that Aquinas uses in the second way argument where he stresses that nothing exists without a cause and therefore concludes that God is the cause. He uses the concept of faith to come up with the second way. However, relying on faith in relation to theism and atheism raises two concerns. One of the concerns is, if there are no profound arguments about God's existence, then, does it mean that theists are wrong and, therefore, irrational? The other concern is if there are no profound arguments that God does not exist, does it mean that atheism is wrong, and therefore, atheists are irrational? Using the above explanation means that either of the two concerns can be presumed to be accurate, and this validates the belief of atheists because faith alone cannot be used as a base of making a reliable argument. Some evidence is required to show that God exists just like one would like some evidence if they were told that other planets support life. Similarly, atheists would deserve some evidence to prove that their belief is wrong, but Aquinas only tells them to have faith that God exists without evidencing his argument.

God is Immune to the Regress

It is incorrect for Aquinas to base his assumption on the idea that God is immune to the regress. The first way is the argument of change, which is centered on the idea of motion. The argument here is that things are in motion because there is a mover, and that mover is God. According to Aquinas, a mover exists first because if there is no mover, then nothing would be in motion. As he stipulates, when people look around the world, they see that all things are in motion, and something is making them move and that something in question is God. The assumption means that for this notion to work, there must be a first, unmoved mover, which is God, and this means that He is immune to regress, and this only makes sense to Christians who believe that God is immune to time (Ferencik, 2017). Aquinas does not prove logically and with evidence to non-Christians, and this proves that his proof is all wrong.

The first way of motion, as an argument in itself, makes use of illogical deductions that are not cemented with evidence. First, Aquinas argues that at first, everything is at rest until a mover causes motion. It is not something that people know, and therefore, they are not bound to believe that this argument is correct. Furthermore, Aquinas cannot prove that the motion must come from outside and not within natural phenomena. This proves that instead of using concise evidence, Aquinas is determined to making people believe in the premise because he believes so to be true.

Second, Aquinas contradicts himself with this argument. It is the case because he stipulates that an unmoved mover must exist at first; a notion that would break his idea that everything in motion requires a mover. The premise would only prevail if Aquinas clarified that the unmoved mover itself is not in motion because if it is in motion, then it means that there is something that moves it. It seems like Aquinas wants people to accept that although things are in motion, other things are an exception of this wrong, a premise he fails to clarify.

Third, the illogical argument above leads to his conclusion that the mover is God. He fails to prove that the unmoved mover is God, although, in the first place, the argument above invalidates the assumption of the existence of an unmoved mover. Hypothetically, all that Aquinas does is to prove that there is a featureless mover about which no one call tell about, only that it made things come to motion. One cannot tell whether the mover is intelligent or even omniscient, and this makes the first-way argument a failure of proof.

Conclusion

I do not agree with Aquinas's arguments for God's existence because his third-way explanation relies on contingency, the second way belief of infinite causes is wrong, and his first way is based on the assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. In his third way argument, Aquinas depends on an assumption question of if something existed and, as such, cannot validate his reasoning. In his second way argument, Aquinas relies on another wrong assumption of infinite causes raising a confusion of the possibility of the existence of more than one first cause. Aquinas's first-way results in illogical deductions in assuming that everything that is in motion has a mover that has to exist first, and this contradicts his argument rendering it invalid and incorrect. Nevertheless, Aquinas's argument is purely philosophical and, therefore, only complements theology. From a theology standpoint, God exists, and this is the truth that people must hold in their religious faith. The analysis above does not in any way criticize religious principles but only opens up a debate of God's existence from a philosophical point of view.

References

Aquinas, T. (n.d.). THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274. The Five Ways. Retrieved from http://joemixie.com/college%20pdfs/Aquinas5Ways.pdf

Ferencik, J. (2017). Arguments for God's Existence Debunked. Retrieved 28 September 2019, from https://medium.com/@jakubferencik/arguments-for-gods-existence-debunked-cb656189653e

Ilodigwe, D. (2018). Aquinas and the Question of God's Existence: Exploring the Five Ways. International Journal of Philosophy and Theology, 6(1), 19-32. doi: 10.15640/ijpt.v6n1a3

Moad, E. (2016). Problems with Aquinas' Third Way. Revisiting Aquinas' Proofs For The Existence Of God. doi: 10.1163/9789004311589_012

Morreal, J. (1979). Aquinas' Second Way. Sophia, 18(1), 20-28. doi: 10.1007/bf02800570