The Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas Saint Thomas Aquinas, a widely known cognoscente in philosophy and theology of the medieval period, wrote a very influential work entitled “Summa Theologica” and in which he provided five ways for proving God’s existence. At first, Aquinas stated two objections to deny that God exists. The first was that if God does really exist, and since His name means that He is all-good, then why do evil things exist? The second is that why do we have to suppose that something ultimately independent to whom we rely on exists if we could point out that everything that is happening is caused by either nature or human will? Next, he moved on to laying out his five arguments. The first and most recognizable is the argument from change or motion. It was said in this argument that something cannot move on its own. Movement or motion is done by having something with a possibility of moving be moved by something that is real and in existence. Although, it cannot be that something that has the potential to move is also the one moving itself. With …show more content…
Just like a chain reaction, when something is, then something will be. It has been, and will always be, ordered that way. This is so because if something was the cause of itself, then it would only mean that it had happened before its presently existing self, which is impossible. Now, if these causes were to be arranged according to which came first, the first cause would be followed by the second cause, then the middle cause, and so on until the final effect comes through. In this second argument from causation, it cannot be that the number of causes is infinite because then there would be no first cause and taking away the cause would consequently be taking away the effect and therefore, everything that’s existing now, even nature and human will, is caused by something that came before anything else known as the first efficient cause
In the article, “The Five Ways,” from Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas argues whether God exists, which
Further, Aquinas states “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”, showing here how nothing can be the cause of itself (711). Imagine a line of dominoes, for example, one cannot cause itself fall on its own. Rather, it needs to be acted upon by a prior force. Every event must have a cause, however, that cause cannot be itself. For if something were to be the cause of itself, it would need to, Aquinas says, impossibly exist prior to its own
Well unfortunately some believe their (omnipotent) God has all the answers and knows of every person’s next moves and what’s yet to come. I can somewhat agree with that but I don’t believe it is my duty to judge or prove the existence, and the all mighty power God has. I certainly am a believer of faith and that the existence of good and evil lies in all of us, regardless of the control God has over us. My opinion relates to how Aquinas believes that everyone’s consequences and endings they choose are because of the free choice God gives us all. As mentioned in the book, a great example that I find makes a perfect analogy is when he states, “He can create in a multitude of ways, No
Aquinas argued the existence of God with five main points. Aquinas began by saying that nothing can be a cause of itself; rather every event was caused by some prior event. Therefore event A causes event B that leads to event C and so forth. He believed in this cause and effect relationship but believed that there must be a first cause as a starting point. When contemplating this starting point Aquinas rejected the possibility of an infinite series of events. This means that the universe has not existed forever and there must have been something from which every single event stems. There must be an uncaused first cause, which Aquinas concluded to be God. The first cause is called the unmoved mover. The unmoved mover is what set all other events and beings in motion.
The first part in which one can prove that there is a God is based on change. In the first part, Aquinas mentions that things change and that there has to be something which brings about that change, but at the same time is changeless. Aquinas states that “a thing in process of change cannot itself cause that same change; it cannot change itself” (Aquinas 45). For example, he gives an example about wood and fire. The wood is able to be hot but simply cannot make itself change without having an outside source that will cause it to become hot. The fire, that is naturally hot, will indeed make the wood hot and as a result, will change the wood.
The series also can not have a cause from within because no one being within the series is necessary. An example of this would be the set of real numbers we use today. Taking one number away from the set would not cause the set to cease in existence. There is no beginning to the number set and no end as well. If we view the Universe with the same concept then Aquinas’ theory can be seen to have a major flaw.
The third argument Aquinas makes is that of possibility and necessity. This argument holds that everything in this world has possibility to be and not to be. If there is the possibility that everything at one time or another cannot be, then at one time there was nothing, because everything that could have been, wasn 't^(et if there was nothing at one time, then there was nothing that could be^and so there would still be nothing. Therefore, there had to be something that existed to cause all the possibilities
As one of most valuable works on this topic one can name St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae, in which he states that existence of God, can be demonstrated in five different ways.
The second argument is for the notion that the existence of God can be demonstrated. It states that everything has a cause. He claims that by using the theory of cause and effect we can demonstrate the existence of God. If we say that every effect has a cause, we can go further and further to infinity. But because of our own logic, we know that this is not true. We know that it must end somewhere. That somewhere is a first cause, and that cause is God. This is very similar to the idea of the unmoved mover. He goes on to say that through the effects, we can demonstrate that God does exist, but we cannot know what God is like.
Than there has to be something that already existed to make everything exist and for that to happen that had to be someone, so that is God. Aquinas also pointed one in one of his earlier proofs of the First Mover. Aquinas says that anything moved is moved by another, so there must be a first mover (a mover that is not itself moved by another) and that first mover is God. Both of the philosophers used great methods to come to their conclusion about how god came into existence. They both used different thinking methods to get to their well respected arguments but did come to the conclusion that God does “exist”. I believe the key difference about the two philosophers was the time difference between the philosophers, Thomas Aquinas wrote his proofs in the medieval ages around the 1200’s while ( with no disrespect) Rene Descartes wrote his meditation in the 1600’s. There is a big 400 year gap between ideas are compared but that came down to the same conclusion
Aquinas sets up this argument in his discussion of whether or not God exists. His five proofs set up the framework for much of his later writings in the Summa
Thomas Aquinas’ five ways are his arguments of the five proofs that God exists in some form, these five ways have standard abjections. The arguments are named as follows: argument from motion, arguments from causation, arguments from contingency, argument from gradations of goodness, and the argument of governance. These are Aquinas’ theories of why things change, whatever is changing is being changed by something else.
When St. Thomas wrote this section of his ground breaking essay what he ultimately was claiming, was that through philosophy and observation, there is a way to see how the natural world points to there in fact being a God. Although to some it may seem absurd, modern day science based upon observation and experimentation, does not completely discredit or debunk the first, second, third, and fifth arguments from St. Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways, but rather it suggests substantial evidential credibility, in regards to his theories on God’s existence.Concepts, theories, and laws drawn from the
He believed in natural theology and thought that man could not understand God without God's assistance and guidance. The foundations of his proofs of God’s existence were based on his five basic beliefs about God. Aquinas wrote that God was: 1) simple as in having no parts, 2) perfect therefore lacking nothing, 3) infinite having no beginning and no end, 4) immutable as in never changing, and 5) one in essence and existence.
1.) Thomas Aquinas believes that humans are born with a clean slate in a state of potency and acquire knowledge through sense experiences by abstraction of the phantasms. His view on how man acquires knowledge rejects Plato’s theory that humans are born with innate species. Along with Plato’s theory of humans understanding corporeal things through innate species, Aquinas also rejects Plato’s theory that in being born with innate species, humans spend their lives recollecting their knowledge.