--Blaise Pascal, philosopher and scientist
St. Thomas Aquinas proposed five proofs in which humans can use natural reason to prove the existence of God through extrinsic evidence. Through the use of natural reason we can logically conclude in the existence of God.
First Way: The Argument From Motion
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philsopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the agrument this way:
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.
Second Way: Causation Of Existence
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:
1) There exists 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, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.
Third Way: Contingent and Neccessary Objects
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 neccesitate 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.
Fourth Way: The Agrument From Degrees And Perfection
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble scultures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.
Fifth Way: The Agrument From Intelligent Design
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer.
http://members.aol.com/plweiss1/aquinas.htmDo you side with his arguments? If not not which can you disprove. I agree with the the first four proofs, but the fifth seems to be a matter of opinion and can be refuted.
5 comments:
I tend to side with all five of the arguments. It all relates to a superior being, God. I particually like the first one.
I feel the first 3 arguements all say basically more or less the same thing of infinite regress. Though the assumption that a GOD was the creator is entirely unwarranted especially when implying GOD is immune to regress. Assuming it has to be GOD who created the universe it becomes misleading and at best will only be unhelpful in finding the real truth. Although finding the real truth is very very unlikely. Therefor the assumption of a omniscient or omnipotent god is a irrational approach. That brings up anotehr fact that 'GOD' cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. If god may be omniscient he will already know how he may intervene to change history using omnipotence. So that means he cant change his mind about intervention, hence he cant be omnipotent. Argument 4 isnt an arguement at all. Couldnt you also say there is the perfect maximum for ugliness, smelliness or stupidity? Any comparison could be used and isnt all opinion anyhow? Arguement 5 is still a widely used 'proof'. However any biologist can tell you how intricately species have been designed by natural selection in evolution. This illusion of GOD's design is an easy assumption for irratonal and unknowlegdable persons to make. "If you dont understand Evolution, you dont understand Evolution" Thomas Aquines was witty, however he made the mistake of answering an unanswerable question of whether GOD exists or not. Use your mind critcally in creative and provable ways, or your wasting your time.
I also wanted to say thank you and goodjob for posting these, it always makes for great discusion
I also like the first rule. There has to be another force moving the planets. I know there something we don't know but that when faith comes in. All we know is that there is an unknown force out there that we all call GOD, our only hope is too be right about GOD so we can go to the "paradise".
Just recently I started reading Anne Rice's "Memnoch the Devil". It is the second Anne Rice book I read, and so far, the best way to describe it is "a madhouse version of the Bible and Paradise Lost". For as you read the book, it forces you to think and reflect about the stories, particularly where God and his Adversary are concerned...
Post a Comment