Saint Thomas Aquinas was one of the best scholastic philosophers of the Roman Catholic Church. Aquinas provided logical grounds for significant number of Catholic dogmas. Hence, he is considered as a doctor and one of the early fathers of the church. Like other scholastics, Thomas Aquinas used the Greco-Roman philosophy, particularly the Aristotelian logic, to provide rational foundation for faith. Aquinas greatest work was the voluminous Summa Theologica. In this work, Aquinas presented five logical proofs about the existence of God. These proofs are more commonly known as the quinquae viae or five ways.
I.
1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God
II.
1) There exist things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God.
III.
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way:
1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.
IV.
V.
At first glance, the proofs of
Let me briefly discuss each argument:
This argument has committed the logical fallacy known as begging the question. This argument posited more questions than answers. Aquinas concluded that the first mover must be God. However, what motivated God to make the first move? Although motion cannot have infinite regression, this argument assumed that God had been either not moving from infinity or he has been moving ever since. What then is the source of his energy? If nothing can move itself, how then God was able to move himself?
Cosmologically, it can also be equally valid that an impersonal, unconscious force or energy was the first unmoved mover. For instance, according to the Big Bag Theory, all motions, space, energy and matter can be traced back to a singularity at the beginning of the universe. This theory is supported by measurable and verifiable parameters such as the rate of expansion of the universe and the distances between galaxies.
Saint Thomas Aquinas was partially right into thinking that anything that exists is caused by another. In this argument, he again used the assumption that there could be not infinite regression of causes. However, if this assumption was correct, then what caused God to exist? If nothing can cause itself to exist, how was God able to cause himself? If God has been in existence from infinity, what is the problem with a universe that has been in existence from infinity? This latter assumption is equally logical but much simpler and more probabale. Remember the basic equation of Einstein?
This equation implies that matter can be converted into energy and energy can be converted to matter. It is logical to suppose that matter and energy have always been in existence. The universe as we know today might just be one of the many manifestations of the changes in matter and energy. On the other hand, apparent self-causation has been observed in sub-atomic particles in laboratory settings.
III.
In this argument Saint Aquinas made the distinction between contingent or potential beings and necessary or actual beings. However, modern physics has demonstrated that there are really no strict definitions of such things. In a universe of probability and chaos, things may exist without necessarily being dependent of other things. On the other hand, as demonstrated by Einstein's equation, matter and energy are mutually dependent from each other. Hence, their contingency and necessity are reflexive.
IV.
In this argument, Saint Aquinas attributed all positive absolutes to God as the standard for all things. But it can also be logically possible that God is the absolute perfection of evil. For instance, if there are degrees of cruelty, then God must be the cruelest being. If there are degrees of insanity, then God must be the perfectly insane being. Hence, the so-called standard of "perfection" can be applied to both good traits and bad traits simply because these traits have gradations or degrees of perfection.
V.
This argument is also known as the teleological argument. This argument is also expounded on the watch-maker argument. The argument from design is used by theologians and fundamentalist preachers as the best argument for the existence of God. This argument has even taken the form of the so-called "creation science." However, this argument is scientifically and logically false.
Although the universe is admittedly complex and intricate, it does not necessarily mean that it requires a designer. Comparing the universe and biological systems to human-made objects such as a watch is committing a logical fallacy known as false analogy. The way the universe and biological systems operate is very different from the way man-made objects operate. If a complex object needs a creator or designer, what could be more complicated than a super-intelligent, all-powerful God? Who then created God?
Contrary to the assumption of an intelligent and purposeful designer, the universe and biological systems exhibit randomness and probability. If the universe and biological systems were purposely designed, then they must not have any superfluous traits.
This fifth argument is addressed and refuted by the Theory of Evolution. This argument deserves more detailed discussions. Hence, I will post a separate article for this.
Claiming that it posits more questions than answers is a red herring.
ReplyDeleteyou are actually accusing the argument of contradicting one of its own premises, the premise that nothing that moves can move itself. That is not begging the question.
Thomas' argument does not make the assumption that he claims. We examine the objects around us and see that things are moving. But we also notice that they do not move themselves. In fact, it is not possible for something to move itself (we discussed that in class and Thomas demonstrated it in the Summa). Since there cannot be infinite regress, as he admits, the conclusion is that a first mover, an unmoved mover must exist. Nowhere was an unmoved mover assumed to exist, but concluded to by the argument.
your question about the source of God's energy is a red herring.
you misunderstands the conclusion. The unmoved mover is not moving, which is why it is called the unmoved mover, so God did not move Himself. That is what we mean when we say that God is pure actuality. I think he is thinking of locomotion, not actualizing potentiality.
Except that the force and energy in the universe is moving, it is changing, it is actualizing its potential, so it cannot be the unmoved mover. The singularity that you describe moved, otherwise it would still be a singularity, so it had to have been moved by something other than itself, but at that point, that singularity was the universe, so it had to have been moved by something supernatural, i.e., other than the universe. This being that is supernatural and pure actuality is what people mean by God.