Thomas Aquinas's proofs-Multiple Gods?

[Luke_K]

I’m pretty familiar with Aquinas’s demonstrations for God’s existence. I do not see however why there should only be one God based on his reasoning.

If God exists of his own accord outside of creation, why can’t there be other entities that “cause themselves” or are dependent on solely their own existence? Isn’t Aquinas’ reasoning just opening the door for any number of self-necessary, self-moving movers? They don’t necessarily have to have any affect on our universe to still exist.

Aquinas’ proofs just seem to have many holes in them besides this one. Like asking what’s before the universe is akin to asking what’s north of the north pole.

Is the existence of God really non-demonstrable through everyday experience, contrary to what Aquinas asserted? Is God’s existence only knowable through revelation and faith? What is the Catholic church’s stance on his proofs?

Sorry for all the random questions. I’m just having trouble with my faith right now because so much of it was dependent on these proofs. I still trust the Church and the revelation of the Bible, the metaphysics of it all just seems to have suddenly vanished for me.

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi Luke,

Welcome to the forum!

I, too, have struggled with these issues. However, the more I’ve read Aquinas (even at times when I didn’t completely understand), the more it’s made sense to me that there is only one God. The ‘First Way’ begins by demonstrating the existence of an unmoved mover, and then proceeds to infer a number of attributes that are typically associated with the God of classical theism: immutability, pure actuality, oneness, eternality, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Let’s start with the first proof. Consider this version of the argument from motion:

1. If there is no unmoved mover, then there is no regularity of motion.
2. There is regularity of motion.
3. Therefore, there exists an unmoved mover.

(2) should be uncontroversial. We constantly observe that things are in motion (‘motion’ simply means ‘change’). I also think that (1) is much more plausibly true than its negation. The reason why is that we’re not just talking about motion, but regularity of motion. ‘Regularity’ must correspond to something unchanging, or immutable (hence, the ‘unmoved mover’). If regularity were to change, then it would no longer be regular! Therefore, I believe we are amply justified in affirming the existence of an unmoved mover.

Now, if something is unmoved (or immutable), then there is no potentiality in it to change. This means that the unmoved mover must be purely actual. It must also be one, since if there were more than one pure actuality, then there would be distinctions between them. However, distinctions entails limitations, and limitations entail potentiality. Because there is no potentiality in the unmoved mover, it must therefore be one.

The unmoved mover must also be eternal, since only potential (or changing) beings can come into and out of existence. Hence, the unmoved mover must exist at all times.

As for omniscience, et al, let’s think of ourselves first. Being potential (or partly actual), we possess some knowledge. Now, if a partly actual being possesses some knowledge, it follows logically that a purely actual being would know everything there is to know (i.e. the unmoved mover is omniscient). The same goes for power and goodness. The most common objection goes like this: if God is all-knowing, must he also be all-ignorant? The answer is that ignorance is not an actuality, but a privation. An ignorant person doesn’t possess something a knowledgeable person lacks, but the other way around. Thus, to be purely actual is to be perfect in every actuality there is. God is the very fullness of being and can be distinguished from creation, since we exist in potentiality.

Does this make sense?

Blessings

 

[cpayne]

Hi!

There can only be one God if God is an absolutely perfect Being. Part of perfection would mean having no potential / unchanging. If more than one God existed as being equally perfect and Supreme, then each of them would have potential—namely, to be greater than the others. Because of this, none of them would actually be Supreme. Anything that has potential for improvement could not be the Supreme Being.

Therefore, if there is a God (separate question, you might note), there is only one.

 

[jerry117711]

this whole post is absolutely wrong look in the eyes of science and see the truth of god havent you ever wandered how god could be in two places at once. know look at cloans your all suggesting gods not part of science like religion is your suggesting man knows about cloans before god. give god some credit when credit is due he cloans him self and prepares level of supremeness one above the other one above many one taking care of boxes of universes and one of many after that a never ending recyled built on knowledge it expanse according to understanding of him so is always away from the grasp of man unnoticed.

 

[cpayne]

this whole post is absolutely wrong look in the eyes of science and see the truth of god havent you ever wandered how god could be in two places at once. know look at cloans your all suggesting gods not part of science like religion is your suggesting man knows about cloans before god. give god some credit when credit is due he cloans him self and prepares level of supremeness one above the other one above many one taking care of boxes of universes and one of many after that a never ending recyled built on knowledge it expanse according to understanding of him so is always away from the grasp of man unnoticed.

Don’t think so. Sorry. God’s omnipresence doesn’t mean there’s more than one God.

 

[Nan_S]

I, too, have struggled with these issues. However, the more I’ve read Aquinas (even at times when I didn’t completely understand), the more it’s made sense to me that there is only one God.

Wonderful, wonderful summary.

Some of this I figured out on my own, some of it touches on things I hadn’t yet pondered. Wow.

If you don’t mind, can you suggest some of your favorite Aquinas book(s) or writings for me to read? Don’t worry about complexity; I’ve finished college and prefer to tackle the tough stuff.

Thanks,
Nan

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi Nan,

Thank you for the kind words. If you want to read Aquinas himself, then I highly recommend the Summa Contra Gentiles (as opposed to the Summa Theologiae). It contains probably his most extensive thought on the philosophy of religion.

You might also consider checking out Norman Geisler’s Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal, and/or Etienne Gilson’s The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. The latter is much more complex, just to let you know.

Blessings

 

[Nan_S]

Hi Nan,

Thank you for the kind words. If you want to read Aquinas himself, then I highly recommend the Summa Contra Gentiles (as opposed to the Summa Theologiae). It contains probably his most extensive thought on the philosophy of religion.

You might also consider checking out Norman Geisler’s Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal, and/or Etienne Gilson’s The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. The latter is much more complex, just to let you know.

Blessings

Thanks. Looks like I have some bookstore homework now.

 

[Contarini]

I’m pretty familiar with Aquinas’s demonstrations for God’s existence.

By “familiar with” do you mean that you have actually read the texts, or just that you’ve seen them summarized? Because your objections don’t indicate much familiarity with what Aquinas is actually arguing. Also, to understand Aquinas’s doctrine of God you have to read more than the “five proofs”–he spends a lot of time addressing questions such as how we know there can be only one God, and you don’t seem to have read this material.

If God exists of his own accord outside of creation, why can’t there be other entities that “cause themselves” or are dependent on solely their own existence?

To understand what Aquinas has to say on this, you need to read not only Question 2 of the Summa Part I (where the five proofs occur), but at least questions 3, 4, 7, and 11, which lay out the basics of Aquinas’s understanding of God’s nature. (Ideally read questions 2-11 in their entirety). Aquinas thinks that he can prove that God is an absolutely simple (i.e., with no parts) act of perfect and infinite Being. Only one such Being can exist by definition.

Isn’t Aquinas’ reasoning just opening the door for any number of self-necessary, self-moving movers? They don’t necessarily have to have any affect on our universe to still exist.

Like asking what’s before the universe is akin to asking what’s north of the north pole.

Where does Aquinas do any such thing? Aquinas is quite aware of the difference between temporal and logical priority, and he does not think that he can prove that God temporally pre-existed the universe. If you had any understanding of Aquinas’s argument at all, you would know that.

Is the existence of God really non-demonstrable through everyday experience, contrary to what Aquinas asserted?

From Aquinas’s point of view, nothing whatever can be “demonstrated” (i.e., proved with mathematical certainty) from everyday experience. “Demonstrated” is a technical term for Aquinas. It doesn’t mean that experience can’t lead one to have a reasonable opinion about something–but reasonable opinion is not the same thing as proof.

Is God’s existence only knowable through revelation and faith? What is the Catholic church’s stance on his proofs?

Vatican I said that God’s existence could be proven from creation and by the natural light of human reason. It did not say that Aquinas’s particular arguments were correct.

I’m just having trouble with my faith right now because so much of it was dependent on these proofs.

That was probably a bad thing–one’s faith shouldn’t depend on particular philosophical arguments, I think.

I still trust the Church and the revelation of the Bible, the metaphysics of it all just seems to have suddenly vanished for me.

Well, with all due respect it’s not clear to me that you ever had a very clear understanding of Thomistic metaphysics, or you wouldn’t have asked the questions that you did above. There is no shame in that–metaphysics is complicated and I don’t have a great understanding of the subject myself (my limitations are a cause of some shame to *me *because medieval philosophy was one of my secondary areas of concentration in grad school, so I should understand the subject better than I do!). But it’s a bit early to give up on something you don’t appear to have studied in much depth!

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Luke_K]

Thanks for your responses. They have cleared things up for me.

Contarini, thanks for your reply, but I had read much more of the Summa than that one article, including other books on Aquinas. I was just particularly confused and frustrated at the time I wrote my original post.

On a side note, I realized my belief in God was a little too dependent on these demonstrations and other logical proofs for God’s existence. Not that there’s anything wrong with them, I just see now the greater emphasis I should put on my faith.

 

[LeonBloy]

the real hear of Aquinas, and where he is distinct from Aristotle (who actually came up with the whole unmoved-Mover thing) is his conception of Being (Esse). Esse is a verb, it is an act. And all things that are participate in being according to their nature and ability.

There is a kind of continuum of being from potential being to Actual being. And God is He who’s essence (potentiality) IS His Existence (His Being.) His Being is His Essence.

So as we go from potential being, and we are aware of there being things that are big, bigger biggest, best, better, Greatest, so there are things that be, and things that Be.

The most Being only allow for one thing-- to be the Greatest, or the Best (we understand that there can only be one Greatest or bestest… so there can only be one Being-ist.

Make sense?

 

[w_stewart]

There can never be two, much less, multiple gods:

If there are two or more gods, one can be distinguished from the other.

1. There can never be two, much less three or more infinites.
2. Because if there are two infinites, one can be distinguished from the other.
3. If one can be distinguished from the other, there are characteristics of one which the other may not have.
4. If there are characteristics of one which the other may not have, therefore, the other has limitation.
5. If the other has limitation, therefore, it is not infinite.

 

[packermann]

If God exists of his own accord outside of creation, why can’t there be other entities that “cause themselves” or are dependent on solely their own existence? Isn’t Aquinas’ reasoning just opening the door for any number of self-necessary, self-moving movers? They don’t necessarily have to have any affect on our universe to still exist.

I don’t think you are understanding Aquinas. If you did you would know that there is no self-caused being. That is a contradiction God is a uncaused being. He was not caused by another and he was not self-caused. A being cannot be self-caused, because would mean a being existed prior to itself in order to create itself.

 

[packermann]

Aquinas’ proofs just seem to have many holes in them besides this one. Like asking what’s before the universe is akin to asking what’s north of the north pole.

This is an argument from analogy. Analogy is good to help people to *understand * your position, not to prove your position is right. Anyone can argue from analogy.

Not only that but it is a very poor analogy, anyway. Asking what happened before the universe has to do with time. Asking what is north of the north pole is about spacial distance.

I can come up with an analogy that is much closer to asking what happened before the universe existed, and that is what happened before I was born. At least this analogy has to do with time. And there were events that happened before I was born. So it is valid to ask what happened before I was born. Then it would be perfectly valid to ask what happened before the Big Bang.

See how messy it gets when you argue from analogy? Someone can always come with up a better analogy than yours. And since your only argument is an analogy, you really have not come up with a logical argument why we cannot ask what happened before the universe started to exist.

 

[AnAtheist]

There can never be two, much less, multiple gods:

If there are two or more gods, one can be distinguished from the other.

1. There can never be two, much less three or more infinites.
2. Because if there are two infinites, one can be distinguished from the other.
3. If one can be distinguished from the other, there are characteristics of one which the other may not have.
4. If there are characteristics of one which the other may not have, therefore, the other has limitation.
5. If the other has limitation, therefore, it is not infinite.

This “infinite” god is mathematically impossible. In order to be “perfect”, “infinte”, “omni-x” God has to defy logic, something theists state often enough. If one god can defy logic, why not a multitude of them?
So, as gods are *beyond *logic, there actually can be more than one infinite god.

 

[w_stewart]

This “infinite” god is mathematically impossible. In order to be “perfect”, “infinte”, “omni-x” God has to defy logic, something theists state often enough. If one god can defy logic, why not a multitude of them?
So, as gods are *beyond *logic, there actually can be more than one infinite god.

Would you care to demonstrate how God defies logic?

 

[AnAtheist]

Would you care to demonstrate how God defies logic?

No, it is just something I regular hear from believers when I say that an omni-anything being is logically impossible.
So if one logically impossible god can exist in their opinion, why can’t many logically impossible gods exist although that is logically impossible?

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi there!

Most theologians would say that God is inherently logical. He is not beyond logic. Rene Descartes is an exception to this view.

 

[1holycatholic]

No, it is just something I regular hear from believers when I say that an omni-anything being is logically impossible.
So if one logically impossible god can exist in their opinion, why can’t many logically impossible gods exist although that is logically impossible?

Summa Theologica P1:Q7:A2
I answer that, Things other than God can be relatively infinite, but not absolutely infinite. For with regard to infinite as applied to matter, it is manifest that everything actually existing possesses a form; and thus its matter is determined by form. But because matter, considered as existing under some substantial form, remains in potentiality to many accidental forms, which is absolutely finite can be relatively infinite; as, for example, wood is finite according to its own form, but still it is relatively infinite, inasmuch as it is in potentiality to an infinite number of shapes. But if we speak of the infinite in reference to form, it is manifest that those things, the forms of which are in matter, are absolutely finite, and in no way infinite. If, however, any created forms are not received into matter, but are self-subsisting, as some think is the case with angels, these will be relatively infinite, inasmuch as such kinds of forms are not terminated, nor contracted by any matter. But because a created form thus subsisting has being, and yet is not its own being, it follows that its being is received and contracted to a determinate nature. Hence it cannot be absolutely infinite.
While I have posted just part of Q7, the rest is worth reading.

Additionally, you might want to peruse David Hilbert’s “proofs of the impossibility of an achieved infinity of sequential parts” as they demonstrate the impossibility of infinite past time.

 

[Contarini]

This “infinite” god is mathematically impossible. In order to be “perfect”, “infinte”, “omni-x” God has to defy logic, something theists state often enough.

We (the theists on this forum) ought to make more allowances for you guys given the dumb things that believers in God regularly say.

I suppose we tend to assume that on a philosophy forum, when you say “theists” you mean serious theistic philosophers. But to be fair, when we say “atheists” we should then mean serious atheistic philosophers

Atheists say a lot of dumb things too, after all

Edwin