Reading: The Five Ways by Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas
Aquinas, Thomas. The "Summa Theologica" of St. Thomas Aquinas. R. & T. Washbourne Ltd., 1918.
Instructions:
Read the following essay. While reading, think about the answers to the questions in the boxes. Click on the tabs above for optional considerations.
Objectives:
- Explain Aquinas's reasons for believing in God.
- Analyze the arguments put forth by Aquinas.
- Debate the ideas presented by Aquinas.
- Demonstrate an understanding of the arguments for God's existence.
- Communicate ideas in the video and reading to your classmates.
Article 3. Whether God exists?
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The Argument from Motion
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 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 be itself put in motion, then this also must needs 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 a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The First Cause Argument
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.
Comprehension Questions:
- How does the potential of wood to become hot and its relation to fire relate to Aquinas' argument from motion?
- What is an efficient cause?
The Argument from Contingency
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 to 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 but 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 Argument from Degrees
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" and "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. 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 Teleological Argument (Argument from Design)
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.
How does the gradation of hotter things in relation to fire relate to the gradation of goo and God?
Reply to Objection 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 to Objection 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 back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.
Basic Questions (Optional)
This is an optional, non-graded, non-credit area. Explore the following for a better understanding of philosophy. Answers to these question can be found in the video and in the reading.
- Summarize in your own words the basic steps of Aquinas' "first cause" version of the cosmological argument.
- Give a brief account of Aquinas' argument from contingency.
- Explain your grounds for saying Aquinas' argument from motion is or is not a good argument.
- What is a cosmological argument? What is an infinite regress?
- What does it mean to say that God is a unmoved mover and an uncaused cause?
Advanced Questions (Optional)
This is an optional, non-graded, non-credit area. Explore the following for a better understanding of philosophy.
- Do you agree with Aquinas' point that if everything has the capacity to not exist, then at one time there was nothing in existence (proof number three)?
- Is an infinite regress impossible, as Aquinas says? Can you conceive of an infinite series stretching back in time or forward to the future? Explain.
- Why does Aquinas think that an infinite regress is impossible? What is his argument?
- Many scientists say that some events (on the quantum level, for example) are literally uncaused, and some say that the universe itself could have been uncaused. If these claims are true, how would they affect the cosmological argument?
Additional Considerations (Optional)
This is an optional, non-graded, non-credit area. Explore the following for a better understanding of philosophy.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
The temporal, kalam cosmological argument, dates back to medieval Muslim philosophers such as al-Kindi and al-Ghazali. It has recently been restored to popularity by William Lane Craig. Like all cosmological arguments, the kalam cosmological argument is an argument from the existence of the world or universe to the existence of God. The existence of the universe, such arguments claim, stands in need of explanation. The only adequate explanation, the arguments suggest, is that it was created by God.
What distinguishes the kalam cosmological argument from other forms of cosmological argument is that it rests on the idea that the universe has a beginning in time. Modal forms of the cosmological argument are consistent with the universe having an infinite past. According to the kalam cosmological argument, however, it is precisely because the universe is thought to have a beginning in time that its existence is thought to stand in need of explanation.
This argument has the following logical structure:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause.
(4) If the universe has a cause, then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
The first premise of the argument is the claim that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. In order to infer from this that the universe has a cause of its existence the proponent of the kalam cosmological argument must prove that the past is finite, that the universe began to exist at a certain point in time.
The crucial premise of the kalam cosmological argument, then, is the second: “The universe has a beginning of its existence”. How do we know that the universe has a beginning of its existence? Might not the universe stretch back in time into infinity, always having existed? The proponent of the kalam cosmological argument must show that this cannot be the case if his argument is to be successful.
Advocates of the kalam cosmological argument claim that it is impossible that the universe has an infinite past. In support of this claim, modern advocates of the argument often appeal to modern science, specifically to the Big Bang theory. Modern science, they say, has established that the universe began with the Big Bang.
“Philosophy of Religion.” The Cosmological Arguments, www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument.
Stundent Lounge Q & A
This is the place to ask and answer questions about the course and about technical issues. This is a lounge so anyone can ask or answer questions. Remember, you are part of a community of learners. As such, you are expected to help each other out as the need arises.
Q & A about Intro. to Philosophy
Ask and answer questions about the course here.
Help each other out with technical issues here.