Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco

St. Thomas Aquinas Essay, Research Paper

St. Thomas Aquinas First Two Ways in Proving the Being of God

It is my position that God exists, and I think that Aquinas foremost two ways presents a

successful statement for the being of God. No uncertainty, the statements have weak points

which are subjected to unfavorable judgment but however, in my sentiment, these propositions by

Saint thomass do so carry through their intent in set uping the being of a Greatest

Conceivable Being that is the unaffected mover and causeless cause. I believe that this

ultimate Being is unchanging and started the existence, clip and all affair and constructs

of being. In my position, this Being is what we understand to be God.

St. Thomas Aquinas recognized that there were some people who doubted the

being of God because, to them, logic did non let for or explicate God s being. His

foremost two ways are two cogent evidences based on logic and observation of nature in turn outing God s

being to those who could non accept or believe God on religion entirely. Aquinas first manner

is based on gesture. He calls it the most obvious manner. This first statement, the Argument

from Motion, tries to turn out the being of God as the first mover which is unaffected.

Now, it is certain as a affair of sense-observation that some things in this universe are in

gesture. Whatever is in gesture, Aquinas provinces, is moved by something else. Aquinas so

defines one type of gesture as the decrease of something from potency to actuality,

and says that nil can do this motion except by something that is already in

actuality in the same regard as the first object is in potency. For illustration, something

which is really hot, like fire, makes something which is potentially hot, like wood, to

be really hot. In this manner the fire moves and alters the wood. Now, it is non possible for

the same thing to be, at the same clip and same regard, in actuality and in potency.

For case, what is really hot can non at the same time be potentially hot, though it may

at the same time be potentially cold. So, it is impossible that in the same regard and same

mode anything should be both mover and moved. In this, Aquinas means that nil

can travel itself. Therefore, if something is in gesture, it must hold been put in gesture by

something else, which must hold been put in gesture by yet another thing, and so on.

However, this can non travel on to eternity because there would ne’er hold been a first mover

and, accordingly, no subsequent movers. After all, 2nd movers do non travel except

when moved by a first mover, merely as a stick does non travel anything except when moved

by a manus. Therefore, this leads to the decision that there is a first mover which is non

moved by anything, and this first mover is what we understand to be God.

Sum uping Aquinas first manner, the statement states that objects are in gesture,

and if something is in gesture, so it must be caused to be in gesture by something

exterior of itself. That is, an object in gesture is put in gesture by some other object or

force. There can be no infinite concatenation of movers/movees so there is a first, unaffected

mover. Therefore, in decision, the unaffected mover exists and is called God.

Aquinas 2nd manner in turn outing God s being is based on the nature of

efficient causing. Now, causing itself is doing to be in the sense that the cause

makes at that place be the consequence. Efficient causing, nevertheless, is the production of the consequence, or

the activation from being simply possible or possible into complete fact. Therefore, the

efficient cause is what brings about the consequence to be efficaciously realized as existent. In the

discernible universe we discover an order of efficient causes, but no instance is found, or of all time

could be found, of something expeditiously doing itself. Such a thing would hold to be

prior to itself, which is impossible. Now, it is impossible to travel on everlastingly in a series of

efficient causes. This is because in every ordered series of efficient causes the first

member of the series causes the intermediate member or members ( whether the

intermediate be one or many members ) , which in bend cause the concluding member. If you

extinguish a cause you eliminate its effects, so at that place will non be concluding or intermediate

members in the series unless there is a first member. Given if the series goes on forever,

so there will be no first efficient cause, and so there will be no intermediate efficient

causes and no final/last consequence, and this would be an unfastened error which is evidently

false. For illustration, a tabular array is brought into being by a carpenter, who is in bend caused by

his parents. Obviously, we can non travel on to eternity. Therefore, one is forced to say

some first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name God.

In drumhead, Aquinas 2nd manner provinces that no object created itself, or is found

to be the efficient cause of itself because if this was the instance, the object would hold to be

prior to itself, which is impossible. Consequently, we see that one object s being is

at the same time dependent on the other. However, there can non be an eternal twine of

objects doing other objects to be so there must be an causeless first cause. Therefore,

in decision, the causeless cause exists and is called God.

What are the chief thoughts in Aquinas foremost two ways? Basically, I perceive that his

statements are tantamount to the proposition, There is no thing that came from nil.

The first statement is about gesture, which means every sort of alteration, non merely local

gesture or alteration of topographic point, but besides maturing, warming, etc. There must ever be a cause

for any alteration, a moving cause. The 2nd statement is really similar, approximately efficient

causes. The difference between a moving cause and an efficient cause is that the

traveling cause produces another province of something while the efficient cause green goodss

being. Therefore, it is my position that without a moving cause and an efficient cause

at that place would merely be nil and the existence and construct of clip would discontinue to

exist. On that history, Aquinas foremost two ways seem to show a successful statement for

the being of the Godhead God.

As with all statements trying to turn out the being of God, Aquinas foremost

two ways are subjected to possible unfavorable judgments, expostulations and/or weak points. To get down

with, see Aquinas first manner, the Argument from Motion. Aquinas says that the line

of movers can non travel on to eternity, which common sense would state you to be true. He

therefore establishes the arbitrary end point of God. A job arises in that this statement

could ever be tested to be false by inquiring the inquiry, What moved God? Aquinas

would likely reply that nil moved God because God has ever existed. Still, to

turn out his first statement to atheists, Aquinas must attach to it by another statement that

proves God has existed everlastingly. Then God would non necessitate to hold been moved since He

would ever hold been. This would do for a sort of round defect in logic or paradox,

in that Aquinas could non turn out God existed until he proved God has existed everlastingly, and

he evidently can non turn out that God has existed everlastingly until he proves that God exists at

all.

In defence against this and other unfavorable judgments, it is my point of view that a step of

religion is necessary to believe in God s being. My strong belief is that God s eternity

proves that he has existed everlastingly. When seeking to understand certain of God s

inexplicable properties, like how He has existed everlastingly, it is necessary to recognize

that we as worlds are finite existences who are incapable of to the full groking the space

being of God. God is the infinite God. Nothing or no one created Him, or brought him

into being. God is the Greatest Conceivable Being, without family tree, and holding

neither beginning of yearss nor terminal of life. Unmistakably, it is critical to hold an component of

religion to believe in God s being for it is impossible for finite heads to understand how

God can be without holding a beginning. When atheists and other non-believers try to

see God, they try to do the facts about Him tantrum within their limited capacity to

comprehend and understand. It appears they do non desire to believe that there is more of

God than their heads can incorporate and grok. Apparently, the effort to to the full

understand God is like seeking to put the infinite One into a finite infinite ; that is

impossible.

Another weak point that appears in Aquinas statements is that even if they do

supply certainty about the being of an unchanging modifier or Greatest Conceivable

Bing that could non hold failed to be, the statements fail to turn out the being of the

theistic God. Since the theistic thought of God is a Being of perfect goodness, omnipotence,

and omniscience, an issue arises. How do we cognize, for illustration, that the unchanging

modifier International Relations and Security Network T immorality or somewhat nescient? Well, aside from utilizing logic and our natural

powers of concluding to infer whether the ultimate Being is supremely good or non,

observe that an component of religion is one time once more necessary in this scenario. Finally,

sing the Argument from Motion, who is to state there was merely one original Prime

Mover? Why non two? Better still, why non a whole squad of Gods, working on the undertaking

together? Possibly our existence is one of many efforts, some good, some botched. In

defence against this unfavorable judgment, I believe that it is difficult for worlds to accept that some

things may non hold a ground, but there might be cases where this is really the instance.

It is my position that there may be some inquiries that merely may non be answered

right or known in our life-time as persons, or contingent existences.

Criticisms sing Aquinas 2nd manner, the nature of efficient causing, besides

consequence in assorted expostulations to the statement. First of wholly, it seems like Aquinas decides,

randomly, that the first efficient cause is called God by everyone. One may reason that

given there is some First Cause, it does non follow that there is God. It does non follow

either that there is merely one such cause, or that this being has the other properties normally

ascribed to God. The defence against this unfavorable judgment could be to analyse what is involved

in holding full spontaneousness, free from any conditions or motivating. That is, the First Cause

has all the independency, capablenesss, and profusion involved in absolute spontaneousness and

freedom from conditions. In other words, if these exalted claims did non use to God, what

so? Would that prospect involve dragging down God from the exalted position and

character involved in being the First Cause? If so, so that really fact is proof plenty that

these traditional thoughts of God are true after all.

Besides, one may reason that in this statement, even though each being in the space

series has a cause, the space series itself has no causal account. For illustration, people

imagine that, by doing the concatenation of causes reach back to eternity, they can somehow

hedge the force of this statement. For case, if the series went back everlastingly, the demand

for something to get down it is irrelevant. However, and in defence against this unfavorable judgment,

Aquinas had argued that the universe in rule could hold existed everlastingly. In fact, the

universe began to be, but that need non hold been so. If the universe had existed everlastingly, it

would still be wholly dependent on God to be. It would still non hold existed of

itself. The universe would still be created as being made to be by God. Indeed, since God

is non capable to clip, and so is non in clip, one might good state there is no time-related

or temporal precedence of God to the universe.

Finally, Aquinas foremost two ways seem related to inquiries about the existence. The

statement from gesture and statement from the nature of efficient causing give rise to

inquiries like Has the existence ever existed, or did it hold a beginning in clip? If

the existence did hold a beginning, so what was there before? And what about the size

of the existence. Is it infinite or finite? It is difficult to conceive of eternity, but if the existence is

finite, it does non do sense to inquire what is beyond it, because the existence is all there is.

In decision, I believe that a individual would hold to be all-knowing and

omnipresent to be able to state there is no God from his ain pool of cognition. We as

worlds are contingent, or finite existences, and merely person capable of being in all topographic points

at the same clip with a perfect cognition of all that is in the existence can do such a

statement that there is no God based on the facts. In other words, a individual would hold

to be God to state there is no God.

Still, turn outing the being of God to atheists and non-believers is a worthwhile

undertaking. If person did come up with a complete, unfailing statement for the being of

God, the people of the universe would hold no pick but to believe in His being.

However, even though St. Thomas Aquinas makes a worthy and in my sentiment successful

attempt, I believe such a undertaking is non yet possible through logic and concluding entirely. There is

an component of religion that must be present for people to believe, and if that component is non

at that place, no affair how foolproof an statement seems to be, there will ever be those who

make non believe. For me, Aquinas foremost two ways are successful in turn outing God s being

but my belief in the being of God is on the footing of religion. Therefore, if that component of

religion is non at that place, I do non believe you can wholly turn out God s being to everyone.

Bibliography

Aquinas Five Ways. 15 October 2000.

Aquinas Refutations. 13 October 2000.

Bonnette, Dennis. Aquinas Proofs For God s Existence. The Hague, Netherlands:

Martinus Nijhoff, 1972.

Buber s Basque Page. 13 October 2000

.

Craig, William Lane. The Cosmologic Argument From Plato to Leibniz: Thomas Aquinas. Great Britain: The MacMillan Press LTD, 1980

Exposing The Atheist. 15 October 2000.

Feinberg, Joel and Shafer-Landau, Russ. Reason & A ; Responsibility Aquinas, Saint Thomas: The Five Ways and Rowe, William L: The Cosmological Argument.

United statess: Wadsworth Printing Company, 1999

Is a Proof of the Non-Existence of a God Even Possible? 15 October 2000

.

Kenny, Anthony. The Five Wayss: St. Thomas Aquinas Proofs of God s Existence.

New York: Schocken Books, 1969

Second Way to God of Saint Thomas Aquinas. 13 October 2000

.

Swinburne, Richard. Is There A God? New York: Oxford University Press, 1996

PHILOSOPHY 100 ESSAY

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS FIRST TWO WAYS IN PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Name: EUGIN MAK

Student NUMBER: 43513001

St. Thomas Aquinas First Two Ways in Proving the Being of God

It is my position that God exists, and I think that Aquinas foremost two ways presents a

successful statement for the being of God. No uncertainty, the statements have weak points

which are subjected to unfavorable judgment but however, in my sentiment, these propositions by

Saint thomass do so carry through their intent in set uping the being of a Greatest

Conceivable Being that is the unaffected mover and causeless cause. I believe that this

ultimate Being is unchanging and started the existence, clip and all affair and constructs

of being. In my position, this Being is what we understand to be God.

St. Thomas Aquinas recognized that there were some people who doubted the

being of God because, to them, logic did non let for or explicate God s being. His

foremost two ways are two cogent evidences based on logic and observation of nature in turn outing God s

being to those who could non accept or believe God on religion entirely. Aquinas first manner

is based on gesture. He calls it the most obvious manner. This first statement, the Argument

from Motion, tries to turn out the being of God as the first mover which is unaffected.

Now, it is certain as a affair of sense-observation that some things in this universe are in

gesture. Whatever is in gesture, Aquinas provinces, is moved by something else. Aquinas so

defines one type of gesture as the decrease of something from potency to actuality,

and says that nil can do this motion except by something that is already in

actuality in the same regard as the first object is in potency. For illustration, something

which is really hot, like fire, makes something which is potentially hot, like wood, to

be really hot. In this manner the fire moves and alters the wood. Now, it is non possible for

the same thing to be, at the same clip and same regard, in actuality and in potency.

For case, what is really hot can non at the same time be potentially hot, though it may

at the same time be potentially cold. So, it is impossible that in the same regard and same

mode anything should be both mover and moved. In this, Aquinas means that nil

can travel itself. Therefore, if something is in gesture, it must hold been put in gesture by

something else, which must hold been put in gesture by yet another thing, and so on.

However, this can non travel on to eternity because there would ne’er hold been a first mover

and, accordingly, no subsequent movers. After all, 2nd movers do non travel except

when moved by a first mover, merely as a stick does non travel anything except when moved

by a manus. Therefore, this leads to the decision that there is a first mover which is non

moved by anything, and this first mover is what we understand to be God.

Sum uping Aquinas first manner, the statement states that objects are in gesture,

and if something is in gesture, so it must be caused to be in gesture by something

exterior of itself. That is, an object in gesture is put in gesture by some other object or

force. There can be no infinite concatenation of movers/movees so there is a first, unaffected

mover. Therefore, in decision, the unaffected mover exists and is called God.

Aquinas 2nd manner in turn outing God s being is based on the nature of

efficient causing. Now, causing itself is doing to be in the sense that the cause

makes at that place be the consequence. Efficient causing, nevertheless, is the production of the consequence, or

the activation from being simply possible or possible into complete fact. Therefore, the

efficient cause is what brings about the consequence to be efficaciously realized as existent. In the

discernible universe we discover an order of efficient causes, but no instance is found, or of all time

could be found, of something expeditiously doing itself. Such a thing would hold to be

prior to itself, which is impossible. Now, it is impossible to travel on everlastingly in a series of

efficient causes. This is because in every ordered series of efficient causes the first

member of the series causes the intermediate member or members ( whether the

intermediate be one or many members ) , which in bend cause the concluding member. If you

extinguish a cause you eliminate its effects, so at that place will non be concluding or intermediate

members in the series unless there is a first member. Given if the series goes on forever,

so there will be no first efficient cause, and so there will be no intermediate efficient

causes and no final/last consequence, and this would be an unfastened error which is evidently

false. For illustration, a tabular array is brought into being by a carpenter, who is in bend caused by

his parents. Obviously, we can non travel on to eternity. Therefore, one is forced to say

some first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name God.

In drumhead, Aquinas 2nd manner provinces that no object created itself, or is found

to be the efficient cause of itself because if this was the instance, the object would hold to be

prior to itself, which is impossible. Consequently, we see that one object s being is

at the same time dependent on the other. However, there can non be an eternal twine of

objects doing other objects to be so there must be an causeless first cause. Therefore,

in decision, the causeless cause exists and is called God.

What are the chief thoughts in Aquinas foremost two ways? Basically, I perceive that his

statements are tantamount to the proposition, There is no thing that came from nil.

The first statement is about gesture, which means every sort of alteration, non merely local

gesture or alteration of topographic point, but besides maturing, warming, etc. There must ever be a cause

for any alteration, a moving cause. The 2nd statement is really similar, approximately efficient

causes. The difference between a moving cause and an efficient cause is that the

traveling cause produces another province of something while the efficient cause green goodss

being. Therefore, it is my position that without a moving cause and an efficient cause

at that place would merely be nil and the existence and construct of clip would discontinue to

exist. On that history, Aquinas foremost two ways seem to show a successful statement for

the being of the Godhead God.

As with all statements trying to turn out the being of God, Aquinas foremost

two ways are subjected to possible unfavorable judgments, expostulations and/or weak points. To get down

with, see Aquinas first manner, the Argument from Motion. Aquinas says that the line

of movers can non travel on to eternity, which common sense would state you to be true. He

therefore establishes the arbitrary end point of God. A job arises in that this statement

could ever be tested to be false by inquiring the inquiry, What moved God? Aquinas

would likely reply that nil moved God because God has ever existed. Still, to

turn out his first statement to atheists, Aquinas must attach to it by another statement that

proves God has existed everlastingly. Then God would non necessitate to hold been moved since He

would ever hold been. This would do for a sort of round defect in logic or paradox,

in that Aquinas could non turn out God existed until he proved God has existed everlastingly, and

he evidently can non turn out that God has existed everlastingly until he proves that God exists at

all.

In defence against this and other unfavorable judgments, it is my point of view that a step of

religion is necessary to believe in God s being. My strong belief is that God s eternity

proves that he has existed everlastingly. When seeking to understand certain of God s

inexplicable properties, like how He has existed everlastingly, it is necessary to recognize

that we as worlds are finite existences who are incapable of to the full groking the space

being of God. God is the infinite God. Nothing or no one created Him, or brought him

into being. God is the Greatest Conceivable Being, without family tree, and holding

neither beginning of yearss nor terminal of life. Unmistakably, it is critical to hold an component of

religion to believe in God s being for it is impossible for finite heads to understand how

God can be without holding a beginning. When atheists and other non-believers try to

see God, they try to do the facts about Him tantrum within their limited capacity to

comprehend and understand. It appears they do non desire to believe that there is more of

God than their heads can incorporate and grok. Apparently, the effort to to the full

understand God is like seeking to put the infinite One into a finite infinite ; that is

impossible.

Another weak point that appears in Aquinas statements is that even if they do

supply certainty about the being of an unchanging modifier or Greatest Conceivable

Bing that could non hold failed to be, the statements fail to turn out the being of the

theistic God. Since the theistic thought of God is a Being of perfect goodness, omnipotence,

and omniscience, an issue arises. How do we cognize, for illustration, that the unchanging

modifier International Relations and Security Network T immorality or somewhat nescient? Well, aside from utilizing logic and our natural

powers of concluding to infer whether the ultimate Being is supremely good or non,

observe that an component of religion is one time once more necessary in this scenario. Finally,

sing the Argument from Motion, who is to state there was merely one original Prime

Mover? Why non two? Better still, why non a whole squad of Gods, working on the undertaking

together? Possibly our existence is one of many efforts, some good, some botched. In

defence against this unfavorable judgment, I believe that it is difficult for worlds to accept that some

things may non hold a ground, but there might be cases where this is really the instance.

It is my position that there may be some inquiries that merely may non be answered

right or known in our life-time as persons, or contingent existences.

Criticisms sing Aquinas 2nd manner, the nature of efficient causing, besides

consequence in assorted expostulations to the statement. First of wholly, it seems like Aquinas decides,

randomly, that the first efficient cause is called God by everyone. One may reason that

given there is some First Cause, it does non follow that there is God. It does non follow

either that there is merely one such cause, or that this being has the other properties normally

ascribed to God. The defence against this unfavorable judgment could be to analyse what is involved

in holding full spontaneousness, free from any conditions or motivating. That is, the First Cause

has all the independency, capablenesss, and profusion involved in absolute spontaneousness and

freedom from conditions. In other words, if these exalted claims did non use to God, what

so? Would that prospect involve dragging down God from the exalted position and

character involved in being the First Cause? If so, so that really fact is proof plenty that

these traditional thoughts of God are true after all.

Besides, one may reason that in this statement, even though each being in the space

series has a cause, the space series itself has no causal account. For illustration, people

imagine that, by doing the concatenation of causes reach back to eternity, they can somehow

hedge the force of this statement. For case, if the series went back everlastingly, the demand

for something to get down it is irrelevant. However, and in defence against this unfavorable judgment,

Aquinas had argued that the universe in rule could hold existed everlastingly. In fact, the

universe began to be, but that need non hold been so. If the universe had existed everlastingly, it

would still be wholly dependent on God to be. It would still non hold existed of

itself. The universe would still be created as being made to be by God. Indeed, since God

is non capable to clip, and so is non in clip, one might good state there is no time-related

or temporal precedence of God to the universe.

Finally, Aquinas foremost two ways seem related to inquiries about the existence. The

statement from gesture and statement from the nature of efficient causing give rise to

inquiries like Has the existence ever existed, or did it hold a beginning in clip? If

the existence did hold a beginning, so what was there before? And what about the size

of the existence. Is it infinite or finite? It is difficult to conceive of eternity, but if the existence is

finite, it does non do sense to inquire what is beyond it, because the existence is all there is.

In decision, I believe that a individual would hold to be all-knowing and

omnipresent to be able to state there is no God from his ain pool of cognition. We as

worlds are contingent, or finite existences, and merely person capable of being in all topographic points

at the same clip with a perfect cognition of all that is in the existence can do such a

statement that there is no God based on the facts. In other words, a individual would hold

to be God to state there is no God.

Still, turn outing the being of God to atheists and non-believers is a worthwhile

undertaking. If person did come up with a complete, unfailing statement for the being of

God, the people of the universe would hold no pick but to believe in His being.

However, even though St. Thomas Aquinas makes a worthy and in my sentiment successful

attempt, I believe such a undertaking is non yet possible through logic and concluding entirely. There is

an component of religion that must be present for people to believe, and if that component is non

at that place, no affair how foolproof an statement seems to be, there will ever be those who

make non believe. For me, Aquinas foremost two ways are successful in turn outing God s being

but my belief in the being of God is on the footing of religion. Therefore, if that component of

religion is non at that place, I do non believe you can wholly turn out God s being to everyone.

Bibliography

Aquinas Five Ways. 15 October 2000.

Aquinas Refutations. 13 October 2000.

Bonnette, Dennis. Aquinas Proofs For God s Existence. The Hague, Netherlands:

Martinus Nijhoff, 1972.

Buber s Basque Page. 13 October 2000

.

Craig, William Lane. The Cosmologic Argument From Plato to Leibniz: Thomas Aquinas. Great Britain: The MacMillan Press LTD, 1980

Exposing The Atheist. 15 October 2000.

Feinberg, Joel and Shafer-Landau, Russ. Reason & A ; Responsibility Aquinas, Saint Thomas: The Five Ways and Rowe, William L: The Cosmological Argument.

United statess: Wadsworth Printing Company, 1999

Is a Proof of the Non-Existence of a God Even Possible? 15 October 2000

.

Kenny, Anthony. The Five Wayss: St. Thomas Aquinas Proofs of God s Existence.

New York: Schocken Books, 1969

Second Way to God of Saint Thomas Aquinas. 13 October 2000

.

Swinburne, Richard. Is There A God? New York: Oxford University Press, 1996

PHILOSOPHY 100 ESSAY

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS FIRST TWO WAYS IN PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Post Author: admin