St. Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs of the existence of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter RochesterMN
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RochesterMN

Guest
Thomas Aquinas says that the order of nature presupposes a higher plan in creation. The laws governing the universe presuppose a universal legislature who authored the order of the universe.

What does universal legislature mean in this context?

The Dictionary definition of legislature is: a body of persons having the power to [legislate]

Does persons mean the Trinity?

How can I explain this to 6th-8th graders?
 
Are you sure it doesn’t say “universal legislator?” That would simply mean God is the lawgiver of the universe who gave everything its order.

-Fr ACEGC
 
Aquinas very specifically said we cannot know WHAT God is (his essence), but we can say THAT God is (his existence).

In his 5 proofs, the only criteria he gives about God is what God IS NOT, i.e. not a finite physical entity like you and me.

Basically his argument went like this:
  1. Things are caused by prior things (the kids in your class are caused by their parents, their parents, caused by their grandparents, etc)
  2. Either there is an infinite causal chain of things going back forever or it all started with one first cause of everything. The former isn’t logical since means infinite time and Big Bang is evidence of the latter.
  3. The first cause of everything can’t be physical or finite entity, since if its physical or finite entity then by definition it has some characteristics (X) and hence must have had a prior cause which caused it to have characteristics X as opposed to say, characteristics Y. Hence first cause isn’t physical or finite entity and is God.
 
Aquinas11 said:
  1. Either there is an infinite causal chain of things going back forever or it all started with one first cause of everything. The former isn’t logical since means infinite time and Big Bang is evidence of the latter.
Click to expand...
OR…there is no begining or end and existence is an eternal loop. Yeah, I know you can’t imagine that either. But there are a lot of facts that we have no hope of imagining, so that’s not an argument against it.

And the Big Bang is the begining of everything we experience now. What was/is on the other side? Dunno. But feel free to fill in the blanks as you see fit.
 
Last edited:
RochesterMN said:
How can I explain this to 6th-8th graders?
Click to expand...
If you mean how to explain proof of a higher plan of creation, mention the complexity of design found in the all aspects of the natural world, and how it couldn’t have developed that way unguided/unplanned. Think about throwing logs in the air in a field: it could be shown that it’s theoretically possible for the logs to land in the shape and function of a cabin or fence, but we all know that ain’t happening.
 
RochesterMN said:
Thomas Aquinas says that the order of nature presupposes a higher plan in creation. The laws governing the universe presuppose a universal legislature who authored the order of the universe.

What does universal legislature mean in this context?

The Dictionary definition of legislature is: a body of persons having the power to [legislate]

Does persons mean the Trinity?

How can I explain this to 6th-8th graders?
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by order.

In simple terms i think there are two ways in which this argument can be understood as correct.
  1. There are operations in nature that implies knowledge of an end; the production of certain effects prepossesses an intelligent plan… Since physical reality fundamentally has no knowledge of an end and act’s blindly in terms of what it produces, it must follow that an intelligent being is the cause of why physical reality behaves the way it does as such that it will act to end’s that it does not know. This fact is quite evident in the function of living organisms since they produce qualities and behaviors that are ordered toward ends that physical reality itself is not aware of, such as the preservation of life…
  2. Physical natures act consistently towards particular ends and produces particular effects. So we can say there are laws. But because physical causes are only a potential physical instantiation.of those laws, they cannot be said to be the cause of those laws or the existence of their natures, and neither can it be said that physical laws necessarily exist in respect to their natures since physical laws is only what physical natures are potentially doing and those natures are not necessary. Therefore there must be a cause of physical natures and it must be intelligent insomuch as it is the cause of physical laws.
 
Last edited:
jeeter said:
40.png
RochesterMN:
How can I explain this to 6th-8th graders?
Click to expand...
If you mean how to explain proof of a higher plan of creation, mention the complexity of design found in the all aspects of the natural world, and how it couldn’t have developed that way unguided/unplanned. Think about throwing logs in the air in a field: it could be shown that it’s theoretically possible for the logs to land in the shape and function of a cabin or fence, but we all know that ain’t happening.
Click to expand...
What you have done here is to assume that a particular result is requred BEFORE the process occurs. If you were to throw the logs in the air and I said the result was EXACTLY as I envisaged then you’d appreciate the faux pas.

If you then said that cabins look designed so that a one-off event of logs falling to make a cabin is impossible then I would agree with you. But if you think that what exists today is the result of a one off event then you’d be making another error.

See above for IWG’s more detailed interpretation of the first error.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
40.png
Wozza:
See above for IWG’s more detailed interpretation of the first error.
Click to expand...
What error?
Click to expand...
That there is direction in nature. It’s not a position we can really discuss because it is a fundamental position for both of us and cannot be proved one way or the other.

But I reserve the right to class your position, as I see it, as an error.
 
Wozza said:
That there is direction in nature. It’s not a position we can really discuss because it is a fundamental position for both of us and cannot be proved one way or the other.
Click to expand...
You are assuming that there is a rational alternative that is just as reasonable, and that we just have a difference of opinion. I disagree…

It is evident that physical reality produces effects that have direction in their activity, such as the preservation of life. Of course, the physical processes of which organisms are fundamentally comprised are blind to that end. Once we understand that, It’s simply a question of whether or not that makes intelligible sense if there is no intelligent plan behind it all.

I argue that it doesn’t. Therefore i don’t think it’s reasonable to think there is no intelligent plan. You have yet to produce an argument proving otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
But I reserve the right to class your position, as I see it, as an error.
Click to expand...
If you see an error, then you should be able to identify it and expose it in a manner that is consistent with the nature of the argument you intend to refute. Otherwise it’s just an empty word and possibly stated in reference to a straw-man, which is itself a real error… .
 
IWantGod said:
It is evident that physical reality produces effects that have direction in their activity, such as the preservation of life. Of course, the physical processes of which organisms are fundamentally comprised are blind to that end. Once we understand that, It’s simply a question of whether or not that makes intelligible sense if there is no intelligent plan behind it all.
Click to expand...
To me the argument for an intelligent first cause, based upon the fact that things in nature work towards an end to which they have no knowledge, is like arguing that water flowing downhill is evidence for an intelligent first cause because the water is working toward an end to which it too has no knowledge. The fact that things in nature work towards an end isn’t evidence of an intelligent first cause. It’s merely evidence of a set of laws that allow for the emergence of some semblance of order. But one shouldn’t regard that order in any way as being evidence of an intelligent cause. Order doesn’t, in and of itself, imply design.
 
Delusioned said:
To me the argument for an intelligent first cause, based upon the fact that things in nature work towards an end to which they have no knowledge, is like arguing that water flowing downhill is evidence for an intelligent first cause because the water is working toward an end to which it too has no knowledge.
Click to expand...
But that would be a straw-man of my argument. Organisms acting for the preservation of their existence is not like water flowing down a hill, evidently. We ourselves have goal direction in our activity. When taking into account that the fundamental processes of any organism is blind to the ends to which an organism is in act, one can only understand that in terms of there being an intelligent plan behind physical reality and it’s existence. Otherwise it makes no sense that physical objects would act for the preservation of an existence that it is fundamentally blind to. Such behavior only makes sense if there is a life to preserve, and only an intelligent being can understand that.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
When taking into account that the fundamental processes of any organism is blind to the ends to which an organism is in act, one can only understand that in terms of there being an intelligent plan behind physical reality and it’s existence.
Click to expand...
Not at all, things naturally work toward an end that ensures their survival because things that don’t act towards that end die. It’s as simple as that. Natural selection at its finest. Things that don’t work towards the end of self-preservation don’t survive.
 
Delusioned said:
Not at all, things naturally work toward an end that ensures their survival because things that don’t act towards that end die.
Click to expand...
That’s not an argument. Saying that a thing will die if it doesn’t act towards the preservation of it’s being is just an observation. That doesn’t change the fact that there are physical beings that are in fact acting for the preservation of their existence. That makes sense if an intelligent being intended physical nature to behave that way, because the preservation of “life” as a concept is an intelligent end not a physical end… But given the fact physical processes are fundamentally blind to that end, if there is no intelligent cause, then the existence of such activity makes no intelligible sense.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
But given the fact physical processes are fundamentally blind to that end, if there is no intelligent cause, then the existence of such activity makes no intelligible sense.
Click to expand...
Of course it makes sense that physical processes would tend toward those attributes that lead to survival. What wouldn’t make sense, and what would imply an intelligent cause is if things acted toward an end that didn’t promote their survival. That would imply a force other than natural selection. But that’s not what we see. Instead we see things acting towards an end which ensures their survival, just as natural selection dictates.

There’s nothing supernatural in natural selection.
 
Delusioned said:
Of course it makes sense that physical processes would tend toward those attributes that lead to survival.
Click to expand...
Why? Atoms don’t die. Physical processes by themselves don’t have “life” as a goal in mind. In fact, taking blind physical processes by themselves, without intentionality behind it, one cannot say there is such a thing as life because life as a goal is meaningless without intentionality. So why would physical objects act to preserve it, and why would physical qualities emerge that are consistent with that end. Why would we as intelligent beings have qualities and desires that cause us to act within the context of their being a life to preserve. This all speaks to life, as an end, being the purpose or the goal of these qualities. And it is clear that this goal directed activity exists, most evidently in ourselves.

So no, if blind physical processes - having no purpose - is all that exists, then the emergence of life as a goal directed end makes no rational sense at all.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Atoms don’t die.
Click to expand...
Yes, unstable ones die. It’s stable ones that don’t.

So if we begin with simple atoms. Stable ones survive, and unstable ones don’t. There you have natural selection in a nutshell. Those things best suited to survive…do. Those things least suited to survive…don’t.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top