Last updated: September 22, 2019
Topic: LawIntelligence
Sample donated:

St. Thomas Aquinas Essay, Research PaperWhat is the Best Manner to Prove God? A Comparison of St.Thomas Aquinas St.

Thomas Aquinas is one of the greatesttheologists that has of all time been. He recognized that therewere some people who doubted the being of God because,to them, logic did non let for or explicate God & # 8217 ; s being. Bing adevout Christian, he of course believed in God, but he wanted toprove God & # 8217 ; s being to those who could non accept things onreligion entirely.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

As a consequence, we have five cogent evidences of the being ofGod by St. Thomas Aquinas, all of which are based on logic andobservation of nature. One of his cogent evidence is based on the thought ofa first mover and another is based on the thought that intelligenceis necessary to direct non-intelligent objects. I believe thatthis 5th statement is better that the first.

St. ThomasAquinas & # 8217 ; first statement attempts to turn out that there must be aforemost mover. He calls this first mover God. He proves this bystating that whatever is in gesture must hold been put in gestureby something else. He so defines one type of gesture as thedecrease of something from potency to actuality, and saysthat nil can do this motion except by something thatis already in actuality in the same regard as the first object isin potency. He goes on to state that no thing can be bothexistent and possible in regard to the same facet and, therefore,that nil can be both moved and mover.

In this, he meansthat nil can travel itself. Therefore, if something is ingesture, it must hold been put in gesture by something else, whichmust hold been put in gesture by yet another thing, and so on.However, this can non travel on to eternity, as St. Thomas Aquinasexplains, because there would ne’er hold been a fist mover and,therefore, no subsequent movers.

This leads to the decision thatthere is a first mover, and this first mover is what is calledGod. His 5th statement is really much more simple. Merely bydetecting the universe, we see the non-intelligent things everact toward an terminal. ( It is this observation of the existence thatis the footing for the scientific disciplines, particularly the scientific discipline of natural philosophies. )We besides see that non-intelligent things can non travel towardtheir terminal unless directed by an intelligent being.

As an illustration,St. Thomas Aquinas uses an pointer. An pointer will non accomplish itsintent ( that of making its grade ) unless directed to make so byan bowman. Obviously, worlds are the intelligent existences thatdirect the little objects of our universe, but there must be agreater intelligence that directs the larger organic structures of theexistence, such as the stars and the planets, since we evidentlyhold no control over them. This higher intelligence is what wecall God. These two statements approach the job of turn outingGod & # 8217 ; s being in two wholly different ways. One goes thepath of stating there must be something that startedeverything, and the other says there must be something thatcontrols the things that are here, even if & # 8220 ; it & # 8221 ; did non makethem.

Both of these statements seem, at first, to be good andvalid in their separAte attacks. However, the first on doeshold one major defect as I see it. St.

Thomas Aquinas says thatthe line of movers can non travel on to eternity, which common sensewould state you to be true. He therefore establishes the arbitraryend point of God. The job I see is that this statement couldever be tested to be false by inquiring the inquiry, & # 8220 ; WhatMoved God? & # 8221 ; St. Thomas Aquinas would likely reply thatnil mover God because God has ever existed.

I personallybelieve this to be true, but, to turn out his first statement, St.Thomas Aquinas must attach to it by another statement thatproves God has existed everlastingly. Then, God would non necessitate tohave been moved since He would hold ever been. This wouldbrand for a sort of round defect in logic or paradox, in that hecould non turn out God existed until he proved God has existedeverlastingly, and he evidently can non turn out that God has existedeverlastingly until he proves that God exists at all. Because of this, Imake non believe God can be proved by agencies of St. ThomasAquinas & # 8217 ; first statement or by any similar agencies. In St.

ThomasAquinas & # 8217 ; 5th statement, nevertheless, I do non see any defects inlogic and I do non thing it needs to trust on any other statementsto be valid. Merely by detecting the existence, we have found thatit operates harmonizing to certain regulations or Torahs. However, itseems really improbable that these Torahs merely appeared out ofnowhere, that they emerged with the creative activity of the existence.Harmonizing to presently accepted scientific theory, the existencestarted with the large knock. This theory besides states that, ifanything existed before the large knock, we can non foretell what itwas like because physical Torahs did non regulate the existence atthat clip. So, it seems, physical Torahs must hold merely appeared asa consequence of the large knock. Science, which traditionally tries toexplicate the existence without the & # 8220 ; crutch & # 8221 ; or engagement ofGod, can non and could ne’er explicate why these Torahs exist in theforemost topographic point.

The lone account I can see is that God has putthem at that place to regulate the existence. This is the same statementSt. Thomas Aquinas uses, and it seems to be wholly self-back uping and free of any defects in logic. For these grounds, Ibelieve this statement to be better than the first statement.Proving the being of God is a worthwhile undertaking. If persondid come up with a complete, unfailing statement for thebeing of God, the people of the universe would hold no pickbut to believe in His being. However, even though St.

Thomas Aquinas makes a worthy attempt, I believe that such aundertaking is non possible through logic and concluding entirely. There isan component of religion that must be present for people to believe,and if that component is non at that place, no affair how foolproof anstatement seems to be, there will ever be those who do nonbelieve. In his 5th statement, St/ Thomas Aquinas makes asnear to goofproof statement that I believe anyone could do,and, for me, it does turn out God & # 8217 ; s being. However, if thatcomponent of religion is non at that place, I do non believe you can whollyprove God & # 8217 ; s being to everyone.