The existence of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter MontChevalier
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MontChevalier

Guest
Hello everyone,

This is my first time posting in the Philosophy section of Catholic Answers, and today I would like to share this from St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.
St. Thomas Aquinas:
Third Article*
Whether God exists?
Objection 1:* It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore, God does not exist.

Objection 2: Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence.

On the contrary, it is said in the person of God:“I am Who I am.” Exodus 3:14
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
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. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both a mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion, then this also must need 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 the first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Continue below.
 
St.Thomas Aquinas:
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 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 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.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But more or less are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says(Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Reply Obj. 2: Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.
Any comments on the above?

-MontChevalier
 
Arguements against proofs of God’s existance.
  1. Prime mover. A prime mover is not required if the Universe always existed. Oscillating universe - big bang, expansion, contraction, big bang again, infinately.
  2. Efficient cause. This is the same as arguement 1.
  3. While it is true that if nothing existed at one time it would be impossible for something to start existing. This proof assumes that at some point nothing existed. The atheist position is that something has always existed, therefore this proof does not work.
  4. Gradation arguement. This is a very weak argument. Embarrassing actually. This begs the question.
If something is true you can’t have something else be truer. That just doesn’t make any sense. Concepts such as nobility are just plain weird. That the color red could be more noble than blue is just an opinion with no basis in reality. You can have plenty of things which are equally hot or equally cold. The uttermost hot thing is not the cause of heat.
  1. This is another weird arguement. It seems that things in nature happen more or less randomly. There are physical laws which limit what is possible. I do not see intentionality in nature.
None of Thomas Aquinus’s proofs are considered valid proofs by anyone who cares about what constitutes a proof. They are arguements which might convince some people that God exists but that is not the same as a proof.

The only things that we have actual proofs for are mathematical formulas and some cause and effect relationships.

Much of science has no actual proofs but rather strong amounts of evidence that something is true. For example Einstein’s specific theory of relativity is not proven, it has simply been tested and found to not contradict any observations. That is not really the same thing as a proof. There is always a possibility that any theory is just a good mathematical approximation (Classical mechanics was good at one point in history but some modern technology, GPS for example, must use special and general theory of relativity to get an accurate result.) There is always a possibility that a newer more complete theory will be discovered.

I do not believe that the existance of God can be proven. If God exists then creation is a much smaller thing than God. How could the lesser prove the greater?

What we can do is give arguments for the existance of God.
  1. An everlasting universe if not scientifically verifiable.
  2. If it is true that God does not exist then life loses all it’s meaning. If life means whatever you want it to mean then it means nothing.
  3. If anything can happen, just how is that different from nothing happening? Everything and nothing collapse to the same thing.
  4. Science really does not point to an ever existing universe, it does point to a universe that seems to have started 13.7 billiion years ago and arose out of nothing.
 
Arguements against proofs of God’s existance.
  1. Prime mover. A prime mover is not required if the Universe always existed. Oscillating universe - big bang, expansion, contraction, big bang again, infinitely.
The open universe theory has been vindicated, so we can now rest assured that the Universe had a beginning.
  1. Efficient cause. This is the same as arguement 1.
If there’s no such thing as causality, there’s no such thing as science, because science depends on causality for its method.
  1. While it is true that if nothing existed at one time it would be impossible for something to start existing. This proof assumes that at some point nothing existed. The atheist position is that something has always existed, therefore this proof does not work.
The theist position is also that something has always existed, namely God. So the question is not whether something has always existed but rather whether the first thing to exist is infinite or finite. See the next answer.
  1. Gradation arguement. This is a very weak argument. Embarrassing actually. This begs the question.
If something is true you can’t have something else be truer. That just doesn’t make any sense. Concepts such as nobility are just plain weird. That the color red could be more noble than blue is just an opinion with no basis in reality. You can have plenty of things which are equally hot or equally cold. The uttermost hot thing is not the cause of heat.
Really? You might want to review the Big Bang and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Per the latter, an infinitely energetic universe requires a more than infinite First Mover.
  1. This is another weird arguement. It seems that things in nature happen more or less randomly. There are physical laws which limit what is possible. I do not see intentionality in nature.
The fact that there ARE physical laws is evidence of intentionality, especially when you consider the anthropic principle.
None of Thomas Aquinus’s proofs are considered valid proofs by anyone who cares about what constitutes a proof. They are arguements which might convince some people that God exists but that is not the same as a proof.
Sure, you can’t empirically test whether God exists. But then again, you can’t empirically prove whether justice exists. The fact that you cannot empirically prove the existence of justice does not justify tearing down all the courthouses. The fact that there are courthouses, even though justice is not empirically provable, is evidence that there exist things that cannot be empirically observed and that scientism, the reduction of everything to empirical evidence, is an error.
The only things that we have actual proofs for are mathematical formulas and some cause and effect relationships.
Aquinas’s proofs are examples of the latter.
Much of science has no actual proofs but rather strong amounts of evidence that something is true. For example Einstein’s specific theory of relativity is not proven, it has simply been tested and found to not contradict any observations.
Two words: Speeding neutrino.
 
Arguements against proofs of God’s existance.
  1. Prime mover. A prime mover is not required if the Universe always existed. Oscillating universe - big bang, expansion, contraction, big bang again, infinately.
Aquinas pointed out that his argument would hold even if the world was eternal. This has to do with the metaphysical concepts of act and potency that he uses, following Aristotle. In order to understand his “proofs” you need to understand the underlying metaphysical concepts of act and potency, substance and accidents, “esse” and “actus essendi”, as well as the different kinds of causes (he distinguishes four, with the efficient cause that science uses being only one of them). I suggest to read Feser’s compact and clearly written book Aquinas (dirt cheap at Amazon) in order to understand Aquinas’ philosophy.

Just glancing over the naked texts of the “proofs” without knowledge of the underlying concepts is not sufficient to judge their merit and potency. It is like trying to judge the concept of biological evolution (the merits of which are considerable) without some necessary knowledge of chemistry, genetics and biology.
 
The first two ways beg the question, the third commits a quantificational fallacy, the fourth is non-sequitur and the fifth has a false premise.

The first and second ways beg the question against an infinite regress because they each assume that the series in question is such that if it didn’t have a first cause, then it couldn’t exist. But if these series’ were infinite, then of course they wouldn’t have a first mover/cause. So, they assume the series’ are finite in order to show that they’re finite. Nice.

The third way commits a quantificational fallacy by inferring from “every contingent object has a time at which it doesn’t exist” that “there is a time at which no contingent object exists.” There is no such logical relationship between these propositions though. It’s possible that each contingent object overlaps each other such that at no time t is there no contingent object. (btw, these objections I’ve posed are rather common)

The fourth way is non-sequitur since it doesn’t follow from the fact of gradation that there is a cap. Perhaps there is no greater than after the highest grade we can observe. There’s simply no way to tell. Highly speculative.

The fifth way contains a false premise: “Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence” it doesn’t take much strain of the mind to think of counter-examples to this.

This isn’t to even get into the logical problems with these arguments: none of them are logically valid. It’s quite difficult to translate these into logically valid arguments and retain the original argument.
 
Perplexity,

most of your objections are answered too in Feser’s Aquinas.
 
Perplexity,

most of your objections are answered too in Feser’s Aquinas.
Hmm, well I don’t doubt that there are replies, but I’d wonder how good they are. I’m skeptical that feser says things the other Thomists don’t. But, would u mind sharing one such response? I’d like to give them a go.
 
Hmm, well I don’t doubt that there are replies, but I’d wonder how good they are. I’m skeptical that feser says things the other Thomists don’t. But, would u mind sharing one such response? I’d like to give them a go.
If i were to take your objections as being anything but trolling, i would have to conclude that it is impossible that you have ever spoken to a real educated thomist; and if you have, then evidently you have ignored all of their arguments!!😃
 
If i were to take your objections as being anything but trolling, i would have to conclude that it is impossible that you have ever spoken to a real educated thomist; and if you have, then evidently you have ignored all of their arguments!!😃
Typical. Well, tell ya what, when you get a hold of this esoteric thomist communities replies, get back to me. My objections have been lodged by major philosophers in big publications. If there are any good replies, they’re certainly not well known. So, save us the suspense and enlighten us :] I’d be happy to consider responses but I doubt you’ll find anything that hasn’t already been said.
 
Typical. Well, tell ya what, when you get a hold of this esoteric thomist communities replies, get back to me. My objections have been lodged by major philosophers in big publications. If there are any good replies, they’re certainly not well known. So, save us the suspense and enlighten us :] I’d be happy to consider responses but I doubt you’ll find anything that hasn’t already been said.
No, they’re right. Feser hit it out of the ballpark in that book. Actually it’s impressive that it only took 130 pages for him to deliver, though I look forward to a more detailed work of his going deeper into the proofs and on the Summa, at least on prima pars.

Might want to look into Brian Davies as well.
 
No, they’re right. Feser hit it out of the ballpark in that book. Actually it’s impressive that it only took 130 pages for him to deliver, though I look forward to a more detailed work of his going deeper into the proofs and on the Summa, at least on prima pars.

Might want to look into Brian Davies as well.
I guess the only thing I can get from your guys’ remarks here is that you’ve found his exposition of the 5 ways particularly compelling.

But, perhaps I’ve seen these objections presented by a different author and have found them uncompelling, or even if I haven’t, I might find them to be inadequate given other things which I believe and know. So, on the one hand I’m grateful for the reference and will consider what he says when I can, but on the other I don’t see this as any reason to doubt my objections.
 
I guess the only thing I can get from your guys’ remarks here is that you’ve found his exposition of the 5 ways particularly compelling.

But, perhaps I’ve seen these objections presented by a different author and have found them uncompelling, or even if I haven’t, I might find them to be inadequate given other things which I believe and know. So, on the one hand I’m grateful for the reference and will consider what he says when I can, but on the other I don’t see this as any reason to doubt my objections.
The mere fact that you think the first cause argument is an argument for the existence of a “temporal first cause” (which is evident by the fact that you raise infinite regression as a rebuttal) shows to us that you haven’t given Aquinas or Thomism any serious study. Yet you arrogantly blow of the arguments as if you have. Richard Dawkins does exactly the same thing and only succeeds in showing the world that he a bitter scientist who doesn’t know anything about metaphysics. It wouldn’t surprise me if you was his clone. The fact that you assert that big names have refuted Thomism means nothing to me when it is evident that they don’t even understand what they are refuting.
 
The mere fact that you think the first cause argument is an argument for the existence of a “temporal first cause” (which is evident by the fact that you raise infinite regression as a rebuttal) shows to us that you haven’t given Aquinas or Thomism any serious study. Yet you arrogantly blow of the arguments as if you have. Richard Dawkins does exactly the same thing and only succeeds in showing the world that he a bitter scientist who doesn’t know anything about metaphysics. It wouldn’t surprise me if you was his clone. The fact that you assert that big names have refuted Thomism means nothing to me when it evident that they don’t even understand what they are refuting.
The fact that you think I’m speaking about temporality when I say infinite regression tells me you haven’t given any serious consideration to the objection. :confused:
 
The fact that you think I’m speaking about temporality when I say infinite regression tells me you haven’t given any serious consideration to the objection. :confused:
Neither do you understand the rational implication of an infinite regression. The infinite regress argument only makes sense in so far as you are trying to refute a temporal first cause; this is to say that there is no necessary first cause in time, since you can simply say that there is an infinite regression of contingent events in time.

Again, you don’t know what you are talking about.
 
Neither do you understand the rational implication of an infinite regression. The infinite regress argument only makes sense in so far as you are trying to refute a temporal first cause; this is to say that there is no necessary first cause in time, since you can simply say that there is an infinite regression of contingent events in time.

Again, you don’t know what you are talking about.
Interestingly, my infinite regression objections are not so much concerned with ‘temporality’ as with ‘causality’; but, since you understand my own objections better than I do, I’ll defer to your judgment I guess. :rolleyes:

I’m not sure why I bother to continue dialoguing with you, all of our previous interactions ended the same.
 
Interestingly, my infinite regression objections are not so much concerned with ‘temporality’ as with ‘causality’
The causality of a “temporal first cause”. The infinite regression argument would apply to such a cause.

But you see, the thing is, Aquinas is not defending the kind of cause that is first in the line of temporal events. If he was arguing for such a cause then an infinite regress, if logically possible, would be a valid alternative. However, since this is not the position of Thomas Aquinas, the infinite regression argument is not a valid rebuttal. If you had given Aquinas or Thomism any serious study you would know that.

I know you don’t want it to be true because you and your staw-men are very close indeed; like brothers. They have helped you to be an atheist all these years.😃

I only bother with you in the hope that deep down somewhere in that brain of yours their might be a glimmer of Gods light.
 
The causality of a “temporal first cause”. The infinite regression argument would apply to such a cause.

But you see, the thing is, Aquinas is not defending the kind of cause that is first in the line of temporal events. If he was arguing for such a cause then an infinite regress, if logically possible, would be a valid alternative. However, since this is not the position of Thomas Aquinas, the infinite regression argument is not a valid rebuttal. If you had given Aquinas or Thomism any serious study you would know that.

I know you don’t want it to be true because you and your staw-men are very close indeed; like brothers. They have helped you to be an atheist all these years.😃

I only bother with you in the hope that deep down somewhere in that brain of yours their might be a glimmer of Gods light.
I’ve explicitly told you that my objections aren’t concerned with temporality; so, the fact that you continue to insist they are tells me at the moment you’re unable to grapple with my objections as they are but only with as you need them to be.

Aquinas says in his first way, “But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover” and in his second way “Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity”

My objections go after these. I sincerely wonder whether you’ve read any of the contemporary objections to Aquinas or whether you’re one of those Thomists who think philosophy died with Aquinas and philosophers haven’t made any progress since then.
 
I’ve explicitly told you that my objections aren’t concerned with temporality; so, the fact that you continue to insist they are tells me at the moment you’re unable to grapple with my objections as they are but only with as you need them to be.

Aquinas says in his first way, “But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover” and in his second way “Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity”

My objections go after these. I sincerely wonder whether you’ve read any of the contemporary objections to Aquinas or whether you’re one of those Thomists who think philosophy died with Aquinas and philosophers haven’t made any progress since then.
Your objection works against accidentally ordered series, but he was speaking of essentially ordered series and they cannot go infinitely deep. Why? There would be no motion/change because each member of the series is potential and requires an external force to actualize their potentials. If there is no first mover, the series cannot move. We do not arrive at God yet with this proof, and must be read in context of the other four.
 
Aquinas says in his first way, “But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover” and in his second way “Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity”
A thing taken out of context can be misunderstood. Hopefully that is not your intention (it probably is, and if it is not, then you are incredibly ignorant of what Aquinas actually teaches).

When Aquinas makes statements such as the one you have quoted, he is not saying that a temporal infinity cannot hold; he is not arguing for the existence of a “temporal first mover”. He is speaking about the fact that potentiality depends on actual reality for its existence. Since all potentiality needs actual reality in-order to possibly exist, it really does not matter if there is an infinite regression of events, since they are all potential events; they all borrow reality. Therefore none of those events, nothing dynamic - infinite or not, can be said to be the source or cause of its reality, since they all at one point lacked reality. It would be a contradiction to say that an infinite regression of potential events is the source of actual reality because potentiality cannot exist without an actual reality that is not itself a potential event. Thus an infinite regression of events does not explain the existence of that infinite regression.

If you study Aquinas properly, you will understand this. My feeling is that you simply don’t have the capacity to grasp the concepts involved and will continue to make bad judgments on that which you clearly don’t understand.
My objections go after these. .
You are ignoring my objection to your straw-man of Aquinas. It seems that all you can do is moan and assert that he has been refuted.

Ridiculous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top