Question about Aquinas's Arguments for the Existence of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter icamhif
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

icamhif

Guest
In his Three Ways of arguing for the existence of God, how does Aquinas attempt to prove that the Unmoved Mover has to be a personal Being, not the god of Deism?
 
icamhif said:
In his Three Ways of arguing for the existence of God, how does Aquinas attempt to prove that the Unmoved Mover has to be a personal Being, not the god of Deism?
Click to expand...
I don’t think Aquinas is attempting to prove in his five arguments for the existence of God what you are asking here. One would have to keep reading his Summa Theologica, for example, which begins with the five proofs for the existence of God, to understand God as a personal being which is derived principally from divine revelation. St Thomas writes about the providence of God and other truths pertaining to God and his nature after establishing the existence of God. There is no sense in speaking or writing about God and what pertains to Him unless it is first established that God exists. This is the order which St Thomas follows. In the Summa Theologica, St Thomas writes first about Sacred Doctrine or Divine Revelation which is the highest and certain truth, for philosophy is the handmaid of theology.
 
Thank you! I really love Aquina’s argument for an Unmoved Mover, but I would like to learn more about the “next step,” after arguing that He exists. Just to make sure I understand you, are you saying that Aquinas is saying that the only way we can know that God is “personal” is through direct divine revelation (i.e. Theophany and the Incarnation), not by a set of philosophical premises that lead to a conclusion?
 
icamhif said:
Thank you! I really love Aquina’s argument for an Unmoved Mover, but I would like to learn more about the “next step,” after arguing that He exists. Just to make sure I understand you, are you saying that Aquinas is saying that the only way we can know that God is “personal” is through direct divine revelation (i.e. Theophany and the Incarnation), not by a set of philosophical premises that lead to a conclusion?
Click to expand...
No…it would not be correct to say: God could not be known as personal in the mind of Aquinas apart from divine revelation; Aquinas would indeed say the opposite. He would say, however, that we can only know God is triune because of divine revelation, as one example.

Aquinas speaks of what can be known by reason alone in the Summa Contra Gentiles as well as the Summa Theologica and you would do well to look at these works in tandem. Aquinas is also building upon the work of those who preceded him, notably Boethius among many other philosophers, in terms of the field we know as Natural Theology.

Natural theology, and especially for the Scholastic period, is an avenue you should pursue in your research.

Also, to an earlier point you raise, it must be remembered that the concepts of deism are really from the age of enlightenment, well after the era of Aquinas.
 
icamhif said:
In his Three Ways of arguing for the existence of God, how does Aquinas attempt to prove that the Unmoved Mover has to be a personal Being, not the god of Deism?
Click to expand...
There are a couple of directions that such a proof could take.

One would be using the idea of final causation, the end for which any event occurs. Final causes would require something like intentionality, both in directing the course of events through efficient/formal causes towards the ends that arise intrinsically from the nature of causes themselves. In other words, nothing is or acts the way it does without an intrinsic relationship to effects/ends. Yet, that these are ordered towards determinable ends would seem to indicate an Orderer. This would be something like what Aquinas argues in the fifth way - there are five ways, not three, by the way.

The second would be in the nature of the Unmoved Mover itself. The Unmoved Mover (aka Uncaused Cause) couldn’t be merely caused to act as it does to bring about its effects, it must be moved by its nature as Actus Purus - the Pure Act of Being Itself - but not in the way of merely being caused to do so - otherwise it would not be the UNCAUSED Cause. More like or analogous to intentionality, as in free will. The Unmoved Mover must be more akin to intellect and will (personhood,) but on an infinitely higher level than constrained to acting merely on a causal level.

He outlines an argument similar (though much better) than this in the Summa Contra Gentiles, which I could try to find.
 
Thanks, Peter! Very helpful and informative answer.

Don, thanks for the correction and for pointing me in a direction of study.
 
icamhif said:
In his Three Ways of arguing for the existence of God, how does Aquinas attempt to prove that the Unmoved Mover has to be a personal Being, not the god of Deism?
Click to expand...
He doesn’t do that in the Three Ways (actually it’s Five Ways) but he does show that God is personal later in the Summa. He doesn’t use exactly that language, either. He proves God is a person by proving that He is an intelligent being and a being with free will. The existence of God’s intellect is the subject of Summa Theologica Book 1 Question 14 and the existence of God’s free will is the subject of Summa Theologica Book 1 Question 19. These things actually imply one another, I think, and the existence of either one is proof that God is a person.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
No…it would not be correct to say: God could not be known as personal in the mind of Aquinas apart from divine revelation; Aquinas would indeed say the opposite. He would say, however, that we can only know God is triune because of divine revelation, as one example.

Aquinas speaks of what can be known by reason alone in the Summa Contra Gentiles as well as the Summa Theologica and you would do well to look at these works in tandem. Aquinas is also building upon the work of those who preceded him, notably Boethius among many other philosophers, in terms of the field we know as Natural Theology.

Natural theology, and especially for the Scholastic period, is an avenue you should pursue in your research.

Also, to an earlier point you raise, it must be remembered that the concepts of deism are really from the age of enlightenment, well after the era of Aquinas.
Click to expand...
I don’t think ,it is true that the concepts of deism are from the age of enlightenment. Aristotle seems to have been a deist (although he probably never called himself a deist).
 
I don’t see how someone could have will without some intellect giving options to the will. Perhaps a being could have a intellect with will in the sense that its mind would have a succession of thoughts but couldn’t do anything about them
 
thinkandmull said:
I don’t see how someone could have will without some intellect giving options to the will. Perhaps a being could have a intellect with will in the sense that its mind would have a succession of thoughts but couldn’t do anything about them
Click to expand...
I’m not sure a succession of thoughts is sufficient to count as intellect. Anything with a brain could probably have a succession of thoughts. I think an intellect can do something about those thoughts.
 
icamhif said:
In his Three Ways of arguing for the existence of God, how does Aquinas attempt to prove that the Unmoved Mover has to be a personal Being, not the god of Deism?
Click to expand...
It is proven by reason (cause and effect) that God is One, the Source or Ultimate Cause of all Creation, for creation did not cause itself, or sustain itself in existence. In causing each of us, and all of us, for He created each soul to His image, He is at once personal, and universal. In Deism God created us, but left us to manage for our selves. This is contrary to the fact that man shows complete dependence, he didn’t cause himself, he does not independently sustain himself, he doesn’t move himself but is moved by another, he does not cause motion except in a secondary way. Divine Revelation confirms these truths. Right reason shows that God exists, Revelation identifies Him. Being personal is implicit in the reasoning, being personal is explicit in Revelation
 
belorg said:
I don’t think ,it is true that the concepts of deism are from the age of enlightenment. Aristotle seems to have been a deist (although he probably never called himself a deist).
Click to expand...
Aristotle couldn’t have been a deist because his concept of Unmoved Mover requires the Mover to be a sustaining cause of all things. If things can sustain themselves in existence (sustain their own causal potential) then they wouldn’t require a final actuating cause. It is a gross misunderstanding of the arguments of Aristotle and Aquinas to claim Aristotle could have been a deist.

Deism derives from a dualism where matter self-exists and the deity merely crafts it into some form or other. It isn’t a very tenable or stable view, simply because dualism isn’t a very sustainable metaphysic.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Aristotle couldn’t have been a deist because his concept of Unmoved Mover requires the Mover to be a sustaining cause of all things. If things can sustain themselves in existence (sustain their own causal potential) then they wouldn’t require a final actuating cause. It is a gross misunderstanding of the arguments of Aristotle and Aquinas to claim Aristotle could have been a deist.

Deism derives from a dualism where matter self-exists and the deity merely crafts it into some form or other. It isn’t a very tenable or stable view, simply because dualism isn’t a very sustainable metaphysic.
Click to expand...
On a very narrow definition of deism, you are correct, but just like there are lots of different kinds of theism, there are also lots of different kinds of deism.
 
icamhif said:
In his Three Ways of arguing for the existence of God, how does Aquinas attempt to prove that the Unmoved Mover has to be a personal Being, not the god of Deism?
Click to expand...
Are you wondering if God perhaps is not conscious but moves with his reason and will without being awake?
 
belorg said:
On a very narrow definition of deism, you are correct, but just like there are lots of different kinds of theism, there are also lots of different kinds of deism.
Click to expand...
Deism meaning God is a Theological and Philosophical position the combines the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge with the conclusion that reason and observation of the material world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single Creator of the Universe. I understand there are two forms today, the classical, and the modern, the classical does not involve God after creation, the modern involves God to some extent, and there are various forms of the modern. So the classical in not the narrow sense but the core sense that exists in both forms, and that is what we are dealing with.
 
thinkandmull said:
Are you wondering if God perhaps is not conscious but moves with his reason and will without being awake?
Click to expand...
Not quite. I’m not sure if I’m entirely convinced that the Unmoved Mover has to be non-physical/immaterial. Could it be possible that there exists a material that’s self-sustaining and non-contingent, such as “Energy” in the context of physics?

And even if it can be proven that all physicals/materials, by logical necessity, have to be contingent, can the Unmoved Mover be the Law of Physics that keeps the universe in order?

Also, I’m not entirely sure if everything has a Final Cause. Does a rock, for instance, have an intrinsic purpose of its existence?

Thanks.
 
icamhif said:
Not quite. I’m not sure if I’m entirely convinced that the Unmoved Mover has to be non-physical/immaterial. Could it be possible that there exists a material that’s self-sustaining and non-contingent, such as “Energy” in the context of physics?

And even if it can be proven that all physicals/materials, by logical necessity, have to be contingent, can the Unmoved Mover be the Law of Physics that keeps the universe in order?

Also, I’m not entirely sure if everything has a Final Cause. Does a rock, for instance, have an intrinsic purpose of its existence?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Well, the unmoved mover is pure act. Matter is potentiality. Accordingly, the unmoved mover is without matter and thus is immaterial.

Yes, rocks have a purpose as everything that God created has a purpose. God did not create anything for no reason. I don’t think we would have mountains without rocks nor soil for plants, trees, and crops to grow in. If I’m not mistaken, geology says that soil comes from rocks. Also, we build things from rocks and stones such as houses and what not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top