Aquinas' Proofs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Entwhistler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Entwhistler

Guest
I’ve been reading some of Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God. I have even read of bit of them in the Summa Contra Gentiles where he goes into a bit more depth on the Argument from Motion. They seem pretty sound to me, but I am by no means a theologian.
I’ve been wondering how have these arguments have stood up to criticism? What are the most common objections to them, and do those objections hold any water? I would especially be interested to hear about the arguments in the Summa Contra Gentiles.

Cheers Y’all!
 
Entwhistler said:
I’ve been reading some of Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God. I have even read of bit of them in the Summa Contra Gentiles where he goes into a bit more depth on the Argument from Motion. They seem pretty sound to me, but I am by no means a theologian.
I’ve been wondering how have these arguments have stood up to criticism? What are the most common objections to them, and do those objections hold any water? I would especially be interested to hear about the arguments in the Summa Contra Gentiles.

Cheers Y’all!
Click to expand...
Here are a couple of arguments:

Argument from Motion, Aquinas said each thing in motion is moved by something else. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover that is in motion and put in motion by no other. Of course this contradicts the first statement that each thing in motion is moved by something else.

Argument from Causes, We perceive a series of causes of things in the world. Nothing in the world of things we perceive is the cause of itself. If the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists. Things obviously exist. Therefore it is necessary to admit a cause for all these things. This of course begs the question, what was the cause of this first cause, and what was the cause of that cause, and that cause…etc.

Aquinas’ arguments have been criticized a lot by people who are experts at logic.
 
laocmo said:
Here are a couple of arguments:

Argument from Motion, Aquinas said each thing in motion is moved by something else. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover that is in motion and put in motion by no other. Of course this contradicts the first statement that each thing in motion is moved by something else.
Click to expand...
Here is the actual argument:
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.
Click to expand...
Note that this first premise does not claim that all things are in motion. Just that some are in motion.
Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Click to expand...
So there is no contraction here since Aquinas never claims that all things are in motion. Only that some things are.
Argument from Causes, We perceive a series of causes of things in the world. Nothing in the world of things we perceive is the cause of itself. If the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists. Things obviously exist. Therefore it is necessary to admit a cause for all these things. This of course begs the question, what was the cause of this first cause, and what was the cause of that cause, and that cause…etc.
Click to expand...
Are you paraphrasing the second or third cause? I’m not sure.

God bless,
Ut
 
They are sound. Ed Feser and Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange do a good job at explaining the Five Ways (as do many others).

Aquinas is often misrepresented or misunderstood e.g. by Bertrand Russell.
 
Well, the arguments are (more or less) valid. The controversy is if whether or not they are sound. Soundness in arguments arises when a valid argument has true premises. A valid argument can be unsound, and a sound argument can be invalid.

I don’t think the arguments that try to explain away the infinite regress are especially sound. Mostly because it shifts the infinite regress off the world and places it on something that is infinite. Namely, God. The need is for something that is infinite, and I don’t see any reason why it can’t be “the universe.” There’s good science and philosophy to that effect - at least, that isn’t a logical contradiction.

For the same reason I don’t find the argument from contingency very compelling. It depends on a world arranged in such a way as we see it right now. But our theories seem to show that in billions of years past, the universe had greatly different rules. Moreover, we’re discovering more and more things about the universe that are wildly unintuitive and not reconcilable with our common everyday observations. I don’t know if the whole universe is contingent. I don’t know a reason why a universe of entirely contingent things couldn’t exist. I know Aquinas says it can’t, but, that doesn’t tell me much.

I don’t think that the argument from degree works, either, because it assumes there is a minimum/maximum for all properties. I don’t know if this is necessarily true, firstly. And secondly, the properties that Aquinas uses that leads to God are quite controversial themselves. Goodness and truth are hotly debated if they even exist. And existence is widely thought not to be a property at all but rather a quantifier.

And the teleological argument assumes there is some sort of ends or goals that the universe and things in it are moving towards. That is also hotly contested. I’m not even sure how that could definitively shown.

Anyhow, if I were to write a paper on the subject or lead a discussion about the Five Ways, those are the points I would bring up. I would also bring up, though, that there are real strengths it the arguments, and I wouldn’t think less of a person that is moved by them. For me, though, they depend on too many assumptions that are unwarranted.
 
Entwhistler said:
Thanks. I’ve always found the counter-argument “Who caused God?” to be rather irritating.
Click to expand...
As well it should. 👍

God transcends the principle of causality since he created it for the things of this world.

Only if God existed in time and space could you ask who caused God.
 
Entwhistler said:
I’ve been reading some of Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God. I have even read of bit of them in the Summa Contra Gentiles where he goes into a bit more depth on the Argument from Motion. They seem pretty sound to me, but I am by no means a theologian.
I’ve been wondering how have these arguments have stood up to criticism? What are the most common objections to them, and do those objections hold any water? I would especially be interested to hear about the arguments in the Summa Contra Gentiles.

Cheers Y’all!
Click to expand...
You should check out Dr Edward Feser. He was an atheist philosopher who became a Catholic believer partly because of Aquinas’ arguments. He wrote ‘Aquinas’ and ‘The Last Superstition’. As an atheist he had thought that these arguments had been defeated by modern philosophers. That is until he had to teach a course on them. And decided to learn the arguments from the perspective of the philosophers who gave them.

edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2012/07/road-from-atheism.html?m=1
 
Aquinas’ main problem is that he presumes a connection between “first cause” and “the theistic god of Christianity.”

In his defense, people in his day were far more insulated than they are today. It’s easy to assume that your particular deity is the “default” deity when the entire known world seems to believe in it.
 
An_Atheist said:
Aquinas’ main problem is that he presumes a connection between “first cause” and “the theistic god of Christianity.”

In his defense, people in his day were far more insulated than they are today. It’s easy to assume that your particular deity is the “default” deity when the entire known world seems to believe in it.
Click to expand...
Except this is hardly true. Scholastic philosophers put a great deal of time and argumentation in moving from an omnipotent God whose being is goodness who wished to manifest his glory so that others may share in it and the final cause of a rational being (man and woman) is to know truth and thus to know and love God to making a rational case for Christianity on the basis of historical evidence, particularly the resurrection as a historical event, which once you arrive at God through natural theology is hardly something to roll your eyes at. Books and books, huge sections of Aquinas’ own Summa Contra Gentiles focused on this very topic.

To say they simply said “hey look, rational arguments for God, ergo Christianity!” and left it at that is incredibly naive and just another popular myth circulating.
 
Wesrock said:
To say they simply said “hey look, rational arguments for God, ergo Christianity!” and left it at that is incredibly naive and just another popular myth circulating.
Click to expand...
Thanks for making this point.

Aquinas in the proofs he offered was arguing only for the philosopher’s God, not for the Christian God. Once the atheist can see that some sort of God must exist, the choice narrows to the one that is most believable. Aquinas in various places comments on other religions, along with their virtues or lack of virtues.

Here, for example, is his comment on Islam.

"He (Mohammed) seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected; he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.

He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the Contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms - which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning (1). Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his follower’s by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimony of the Old and the New Testaments by making them into a fabrication of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place faith in his words believe foolishly."
  • Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 16, Art. 4. Footnote: 1. Sura 21:5, Sura 44:14; Sura 16:103, Sura 37:36
opusdeialert.com/st-thomas-aquinas-against-mohammed.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top