Aquinas' Third Proof for God

[Charlemagne_III]

St. Thomas Aquinas’ third argument for the existence of God from Necessary Cause

“The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.”

Does this argument sail, or is it deeply flawed?

Your thoughts?

 

[Solmyr]

Does this argument sail, or is it deeply flawed?

Totally flawed. It treats “nothing” as an ontologically possible state of existence… as if “nothing” could exist. Also it treats “time” as an independent variable, rather than being part of the STEM - space + time + energy + matter.

Of course Aquinas had no idea about reality, so he simply speculated. Today we know that “time” is part of the (physical) universe. And we know that “nothing” is just an abstraction, not an ontological object. So forget it. It is as useless as the other “proofs” of God.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Personally, I wouldn’t say that it’s deeply flawed, but rather that it’s subtly flawed. Specifically it’s flawed in two areas, the first being it’s reference to the necessary cause as a “being”, and the second being its reference to the necessary cause, as that which all men speak of as God.

In the first instance the argument doesn’t support designating the necessary cause as a “being”, if this is indeed the proper translation. And in the second instance the argument doesn’t support attributing to this necessary cause all of the characteristics that men ascribe to God. One may appeal to the other “Ways” to establish this connection, but this argument, in and of itself, doesn’t establish that the necessary cause is that which men refer to as God.

What this argument does do, is establish the need for a necessary cause, but what it doesn’t do is establish the nature of that cause. For that one needs to refer to the Fourth Way. And that argument is much more problematic. Fortunately, you didn’t ask about that one.

Other than these two minor objections, I find Aquinas’ Third Way to be a perfectly sound argument for a necessary cause.

 

[dmar198]

Personally, I wouldn’t say that it’s deeply flawed, but rather that it’s subtly flawed. Specifically it’s flawed in two areas, the first being it’s reference to the necessary cause as a “being”, and the second being its reference to the necessary cause, as that which all men speak of as God.

In the first instance the argument doesn’t support designating the necessary cause as a “being”, if this is indeed the proper translation. And in the second instance the argument doesn’t support attributing to this necessary cause all of the characteristics that men ascribe to God. One may appeal to the other “Ways” to establish this connection, but this argument, in and of itself, doesn’t establish that the necessary cause is that which men refer to as God.

What this argument does do, is establish the need for a necessary cause, but what it doesn’t do is establish the nature of that cause. For that one needs to refer to the Fourth Way. And that argument is much more problematic. Fortunately, you didn’t ask about that one.

Other than these two minor objections, I find Aquinas’ Third Way to be a perfectly sound argument for a necessary cause.

In my opinion, the first flaw you noticed is defensible and not a flaw. It appears that St. Thomas uses the term Being to mean Anything that exists. Thus a rock is a being and a fork is a being, because they exist. The english word Being reflects this understanding because it is the gerund form of the word Be, which is a synonym for Exist. That’s what I think the english translators were going for when they translated it that way.

The second flaw, in my opinion, is also defensible, though on entirely different grounds. The argument gives a good reason to think that there is a being which is a cause of the whole universe, and it is also not meant to be separated from the rest of the book where the author discusses proofs for other characteristics of this being. One time I heard a debate where an atheist objection was that Thomas Aquinas’s five ways don’t prove what God is like: loving, all powerful, all knowing, etc. The other debater pointed out that the arguments for the existence of God come on the first few pages, and the arguments for God’s attributes come a few chapters later. Thus this objection is problematic for treating a few pages as if it intended to be a whole book. It is as if someone picked up Darwin’s Origin of Species, read the first ten pages, and then objected that he hadn’t proved his thesis yet. That would be an invalid objection because it ignores the proofs that appear in the pages the reader skipped. Similarly, atheists shouldn’t object to the Five Ways for not proving everything about God, because they are only intended to show that a creator exists – the rest comes later.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Totally flawed. It treats “nothing” as an ontologically possible state of existence… as if “nothing” could exist.

Could you please identify the sentence in which Aquinas refers to nothing as an ontologically possible existent?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In the first instance the argument doesn’t support designating the necessary cause as a “being”.

How else could it designated other than as a “being”?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Similarly, atheists shouldn’t object to the Five Ways for not proving everything about God, because they are only intended to show that a creator exists – the rest comes later.

Exactly, the five ways are only meant to persuade the atheist that Something exists other than the universe. This is not so far removed from the view of Einstein that God does exist, even if that God is not provable as a personal God.

 

[JurisPrudens]

Also it treats “time” as an independent variable, rather than being part of the STEM - space + time + energy + matter.

The speed of time may be different for every single piece of matter, but the time itself looks quite independent of the matter. E.g., it is meaningless to ask “where” the Big Bang happened, but we have an idea of when it happened. And we don’t know what was “before” it. Our mind allows to speculate about what was “before” the Bang, although the theory tells us that there was no “time” as we know it “before” the Bang.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The speed of time may be different for every single piece of matter, but the time itself looks quite independent of the matter. E.g., it is meaningless to ask “where” the Big Bang happened, but we have an idea of when it happened. And we don’t know what was “before” it. Our mind allows to speculate about what was “before” the Bang, although the theory tells us that there was no “time” as we know it “before” the Bang.

Aquinas would probably see the Big Bang as consistent with his third argument.

The Big Bang was possible “before” it happened, but if it was possible, it was only possible because there was a Necessary Cause that made it possible, since it could not have made itself possible.

 

[thinkandmull]

I don’t agree with any of the five ways. Although it is true the world doesn’t has to exist, and that even if time in the past ways different there would still be an infinity of static causes stretching out to the past, Aquinas fails in saying that the world could possibly be eternal from reasons perspective

 

[thinkandmull]

Although this computer COULD have been somewhere else, could be demolished, that doesn’t mean it didn’t depend on an eternal past series of events. Its cause didn’t have to do that in the sense that God is said to be necessary. But its cause was there, and the cause behind that cause was behind it, to infinity. So a contingency argument doesn’t work. The world could be an eternity of contingent physical effects. Arguing that there must be a necessary being is a philosophical argument many will find unsatisfying

 

[Solmyr]

Could you please identify the sentence in which Aquinas refers to nothing as an ontologically possible existent?

Read your own OP, where it says: “Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence”.

 

[thinkandmull]

yes, there “could have been nothing” but maybe there just was something always. The thing about these arguments is that they are meant for someone to find God. Once the mind has gone through the process of understanding there is a God, there can always be arguments and debates. But obsession searching for arguments in support of the five ways is something I’ve seen once or twice and it doesn’t end well. Those arguments aren’t meant to be math

 

[JurisPrudens]

Although this computer COULD have been somewhere else, could be demolished, that doesn’t mean it didn’t depend on an eternal past series of events. Its cause didn’t have to do that in the sense that God is said to be necessary. But its cause was there, and the cause behind that cause was behind it, to infinity. So a contingency argument doesn’t work. The world could be an eternity of contingent physical effects. Arguing that there must be a necessary being is a philosophical argument many will find unsatisfying

There can be no infinite series of past events, because everything is mortal and passible. In an infinite series, everything potential would have been actual, which is not the case.

 

[hasantas]

Totally flawed. It treats “nothing” as an ontologically possible state of existence… as if “nothing” could exist. Also it treats “time” as an independent variable, rather than being part of the STEM - space + time + energy + matter.

Of course Aquinas had no idea about reality, so he simply speculated. Today we know that “time” is part of the (physical) universe. And we know that “nothing” is just an abstraction, not an ontological object. So forget it. It is as useless as the other “proofs” of God.

That evidence and argument of Aquinas gives a meaningful opinion for existence of God. Otherwise there is no % 100 evidence for presence of God but every evidence support to be convinced.

“Nothing could be exist” also means everything needs a cause to be exist. For instance for an atom to has existence it needs subatomic particles and subatomic particles need another particle or a cause. And nothing come(emerge) from “nothing” in physical universe. It cannot be said that those things emerged from nothing physically because as physically everything requires a cause. You cannot built a wall with “nothing”. So you need materials to built wall. And that make the wall “possible”. Because if you did not decide to built wall hence there would not be wall. And the wall cannot be built by itself. It require another cause to be exist. Sameway everthing is possible because everything is physical and need for another causes. Everything cannot emerge from “nothing” as physically. Physics do not accept that. So you must say there is chains of events as eternally! Yes you can think in that way but there is no any evidence for that but that is a “possibility”. But for presence of God there are thousands of evidences just like thousands of prophets and scriptures and self divine influences and other evidences and experiences.

And time start with acting. If there is no move so there is no time. If everything stop so nothing will change and there will not be the meaning of time.

 

[hasantas]

Although this computer COULD have been somewhere else, could be demolished, that doesn’t mean it didn’t depend on an eternal past series of events. Its cause didn’t have to do that in the sense that God is said to be necessary. But its cause was there, and the cause behind that cause was behind it, to infinity. So a contingency argument doesn’t work. The world could be an eternity of contingent physical effects. Arguing that there must be a necessary being is a philosophical argument many will find unsatisfying

The thought of infinite series of events is more philosophically! There is no any scientific evidence for that.

Everything is material and physical so everything requires another causes to has existence. That is much more sciential. And as physically nothing could be emerged from “nothing” and nothing can be send to “nothing” includes energy. It just transforms. So everything must be emerged from nothing into a part(beginning) of infinite series! Because there is something!

 

[ccmnxc]

Read your own OP, where it says: “Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence”.

The statement can be understood as implying the negation of anything existing, as in, ~(Ex), where x is a thing, as opposed to (Ex), where x is (a reified) nothing.

Also it treats “time” as an independent variable, rather than being part of the STEM - space + time + energy + matter.

I’m not seeing how a STEM view of things makes unsound Aquinas’s argument, at least, makes is unsound in such a way where is cannot be reformulated to avoid the problem. E.g. There was a time as which nothing existed being rendered as, there was a state of affairs such that nothing existed, and etc.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Read your own OP, where it says: “Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence”.

The negation of existence is just that. Aquinas is not affirming that nothing exists.

You are caught up in the semantics.

 

[Ghosty]

Totally flawed. It treats “nothing” as an ontologically possible state of existence… as if “nothing” could exist. Also it treats “time” as an independent variable, rather than being part of the STEM - space + time + energy + matter.

Of course Aquinas had no idea about reality, so he simply speculated. Today we know that “time” is part of the (physical) universe. And we know that “nothing” is just an abstraction, not an ontological object. So forget it. It is as useless as the other “proofs” of God.

Actually, Aquinas is not arguing that there could possibly be absolutely nothing. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Aquinas argument is essentially that given what we see and know there should be nothing, but there is something, so there must be a necessary something. The fact that it is impossible for there to be nothing follows from this observation.

 

[Solmyr]

The statement can be understood as implying the negation of anything existing, as in, ~(Ex), where x is a thing, as opposed to (Ex), where x is (a reified) nothing.

The concept of “nothing” obviously exists. The assumed ontological object of “nothing” does not and cannot exist, because if it existed, it would be “something” - and that is NOT a game of semantics. The phrase “nothing exists” or “it is conceivable that there was a time, when nothing existed” are both meaningless word-concoctions. From this it obviously follows that the question: “why is there something rather than nothing” is equally meaningless.

I’m not seeing how a STEM view of things makes unsound Aquinas’s argument, at least, makes is unsound in such a way where is cannot be reformulated to avoid the problem. E.g. There was a time as which nothing existed being rendered as, there was a state of affairs such that nothing existed, and etc.

The change you proposed is equally meaningless. There can be no state of affairs of “nothingness”.