Last updated: September 19, 2019
Topic: ArtBooks
Sample donated:

St. Thomas Aquinas Essay, Research PaperSt. Thomas Aquinas First Two Ways in Proving the Being of GodIt is my position that God exists, and I think that Aquinas foremost two ways presents asuccessful statement for the being of God. No uncertainty, the statements have weak pointswhich are subjected to unfavorable judgment but however, in my sentiment, these propositions bySaint thomass do so carry through their intent in set uping the being of a GreatestConceivable Being that is the unaffected mover and causeless cause. I believe that thisultimate Being is unchanging and started the existence, clip and all affair and constructsof being. In my position, this Being is what we understand to be God.

St. Thomas Aquinas recognized that there were some people who doubted thebeing of God because, to them, logic did non let for or explicate God s being. Hisforemost two ways are two cogent evidences based on logic and observation of nature in turn outing God sbeing to those who could non accept or believe God on religion entirely. Aquinas first manneris based on gesture. He calls it the most obvious manner. This first statement, the Argumentfrom Motion, tries to turn out the being of God as the first mover which is unaffected.

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


order now

Now, it is certain as a affair of sense-observation that some things in this universe are ingesture. Whatever is in gesture, Aquinas provinces, is moved by something else. Aquinas sodefines one type of gesture as the decrease of something from potency to actuality,and says that nil can do this motion except by something that is already inactuality in the same regard as the first object is in potency. For illustration, somethingwhich is really hot, like fire, makes something which is potentially hot, like wood, tobe really hot. In this manner the fire moves and alters the wood. Now, it is non possible forthe same thing to be, at the same clip and same regard, in actuality and in potency.For case, what is really hot can non at the same time be potentially hot, though it mayat the same time be potentially cold.

So, it is impossible that in the same regard and samemode anything should be both mover and moved. In this, Aquinas means that nilcan travel itself. Therefore, if something is in gesture, it must hold been put in gesture bysomething else, which must hold been put in gesture by yet another thing, and so on.However, this can non travel on to eternity because there would ne’er hold been a first moverand, accordingly, no subsequent movers.

After all, 2nd movers do non travel exceptwhen moved by a first mover, merely as a stick does non travel anything except when movedby a manus. Therefore, this leads to the decision that there is a first mover which is nonmoved by anything, and this first mover is what we understand to be God.Sum uping Aquinas first manner, the statement states that objects are in gesture,and if something is in gesture, so it must be caused to be in gesture by somethingexterior of itself. That is, an object in gesture is put in gesture by some other object orforce. There can be no infinite concatenation of movers/movees so there is a first, unaffectedmover. Therefore, in decision, the unaffected mover exists and is called God.Aquinas 2nd manner in turn outing God s being is based on the nature ofefficient causing. Now, causing itself is doing to be in the sense that the causemakes at that place be the consequence.

Efficient causing, nevertheless, is the production of the consequence, orthe activation from being simply possible or possible into complete fact. Therefore, theefficient cause is what brings about the consequence to be efficaciously realized as existent. In thediscernible universe we discover an order of efficient causes, but no instance is found, or of all timecould be found, of something expeditiously doing itself. Such a thing would hold to beprior to itself, which is impossible. Now, it is impossible to travel on everlastingly in a series ofefficient causes. This is because in every ordered series of efficient causes the firstmember of the series causes the intermediate member or members ( whether theintermediate be one or many members ) , which in bend cause the concluding member. If youextinguish a cause you eliminate its effects, so at that place will non be concluding or intermediatemembers in the series unless there is a first member.

Given if the series goes on forever,so there will be no first efficient cause, and so there will be no intermediate efficientcauses and no final/last consequence, and this would be an unfastened error which is evidentlyfalse. For illustration, a tabular array is brought into being by a carpenter, who is in bend caused byhis parents. Obviously, we can non travel on to eternity. Therefore, one is forced to saysome first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name God.

In drumhead, Aquinas 2nd manner provinces that no object created itself, or is foundto be the efficient cause of itself because if this was the instance, the object would hold to beprior to itself, which is impossible. Consequently, we see that one object s being isat the same time dependent on the other. However, there can non be an eternal twine ofobjects doing other objects to be so there must be an causeless first cause.

Therefore,in decision, the causeless cause exists and is called God.What are the chief thoughts in Aquinas foremost two ways? Basically, I perceive that hisstatements are tantamount to the proposition, There is no thing that came from nil.The first statement is about gesture, which means every sort of alteration, non merely localgesture or alteration of topographic point, but besides maturing, warming, etc. There must ever be a causefor any alteration, a moving cause. The 2nd statement is really similar, approximately efficientcauses. The difference between a moving cause and an efficient cause is that thetraveling cause produces another province of something while the efficient cause green goodssbeing. Therefore, it is my position that without a moving cause and an efficient causeat that place would merely be nil and the existence and construct of clip would discontinue toexist. On that history, Aquinas foremost two ways seem to show a successful statement forthe being of the Godhead God.

As with all statements trying to turn out the being of God, Aquinas foremosttwo ways are subjected to possible unfavorable judgments, expostulations and/or weak points. To get downwith, see Aquinas first manner, the Argument from Motion. Aquinas says that the lineof movers can non travel on to eternity, which common sense would state you to be true.

Hetherefore establishes the arbitrary end point of God. A job arises in that this statementcould ever be tested to be false by inquiring the inquiry, What moved God? Aquinaswould likely reply that nil moved God because God has ever existed. Still, toturn out his first statement to atheists, Aquinas must attach to it by another statement thatproves God has existed everlastingly. Then God would non necessitate to hold been moved since Hewould ever hold been. This would do for a sort of round defect in logic or paradox,in that Aquinas could non turn out God existed until he proved God has existed everlastingly, andhe evidently can non turn out that God has existed everlastingly until he proves that God exists atall.In defence against this and other unfavorable judgments, it is my point of view that a step ofreligion is necessary to believe in God s being. My strong belief is that God s eternityproves that he has existed everlastingly. When seeking to understand certain of God sinexplicable properties, like how He has existed everlastingly, it is necessary to recognizethat we as worlds are finite existences who are incapable of to the full groking the spacebeing of God.

God is the infinite God. Nothing or no one created Him, or brought himinto being. God is the Greatest Conceivable Being, without family tree, and holdingneither beginning of yearss nor terminal of life. Unmistakably, it is critical to hold an component ofreligion to believe in God s being for it is impossible for finite heads to understand howGod can be without holding a beginning. When atheists and other non-believers try tosee God, they try to do the facts about Him tantrum within their limited capacity tocomprehend and understand.

It appears they do non desire to believe that there is more ofGod than their heads can incorporate and grok. Apparently, the effort to to the fullunderstand God is like seeking to put the infinite One into a finite infinite ; that isimpossible.Another weak point that appears in Aquinas statements is that even if they dosupply certainty about the being of an unchanging modifier or Greatest ConceivableBing that could non hold failed to be, the statements fail to turn out the being of thetheistic God.

Since the theistic thought of God is a Being of perfect goodness, omnipotence,and omniscience, an issue arises. How do we cognize, for illustration, that the unchangingmodifier International Relations and Security Network T immorality or somewhat nescient? Well, aside from utilizing logic and our naturalpowers of concluding to infer whether the ultimate Being is supremely good or non,observe that an component of religion is one time once more necessary in this scenario. Finally,sing the Argument from Motion, who is to state there was merely one original PrimeMover? Why non two? Better still, why non a whole squad of Gods, working on the undertakingtogether? Possibly our existence is one of many efforts, some good, some botched. Indefence against this unfavorable judgment, I believe that it is difficult for worlds to accept that somethings may non hold a ground, but there might be cases where this is really the instance.It is my position that there may be some inquiries that merely may non be answeredright or known in our life-time as persons, or contingent existences.

Criticisms sing Aquinas 2nd manner, the nature of efficient causing, besidesconsequence in assorted expostulations to the statement. First of wholly, it seems like Aquinas decides,randomly, that the first efficient cause is called God by everyone. One may reason thatgiven there is some First Cause, it does non follow that there is God. It does non followeither that there is merely one such cause, or that this being has the other properties normallyascribed to God. The defence against this unfavorable judgment could be to analyse what is involvedin holding full spontaneousness, free from any conditions or motivating. That is, the First Causehas all the independency, capablenesss, and profusion involved in absolute spontaneousness andfreedom from conditions.

In other words, if these exalted claims did non use to God, whatso? Would that prospect involve dragging down God from the exalted position andcharacter involved in being the First Cause? If so, so that really fact is proof plenty thatthese traditional thoughts of God are true after all.Besides, one may reason that in this statement, even though each being in the spaceseries has a cause, the space series itself has no causal account. For illustration, peopleimagine that, by doing the concatenation of causes reach back to eternity, they can somehowhedge the force of this statement. For case, if the series went back everlastingly, the demandfor something to get down it is irrelevant.

However, and in defence against this unfavorable judgment,Aquinas had argued that the universe in rule could hold existed everlastingly. In fact, theuniverse began to be, but that need non hold been so. If the universe had existed everlastingly, itwould still be wholly dependent on God to be.

It would still non hold existed ofitself. The universe would still be created as being made to be by God. Indeed, since Godis non capable to clip, and so is non in clip, one might good state there is no time-relatedor temporal precedence of God to the universe.Finally, Aquinas foremost two ways seem related to inquiries about the existence. Thestatement from gesture and statement from the nature of efficient causing give rise toinquiries like Has the existence ever existed, or did it hold a beginning in clip? Ifthe existence did hold a beginning, so what was there before? And what about the sizeof the existence.

Is it infinite or finite? It is difficult to conceive of eternity, but if the existence isfinite, it does non do sense to inquire what is beyond it, because the existence is all there is.In decision, I believe that a individual would hold to be all-knowing andomnipresent to be able to state there is no God from his ain pool of cognition. We asworlds are contingent, or finite existences, and merely person capable of being in all topographic pointsat the same clip with a perfect cognition of all that is in the existence can do such astatement that there is no God based on the facts. In other words, a individual would holdto be God to state there is no God.Still, turn outing the being of God to atheists and non-believers is a worthwhileundertaking. If person did come up with a complete, unfailing statement for the being ofGod, the people of the universe would hold no pick but to believe in His being.However, even though St. Thomas Aquinas makes a worthy and in my sentiment successfulattempt, I believe such a undertaking is non yet possible through logic and concluding entirely.

There isan component of religion that must be present for people to believe, and if that component is nonat that place, no affair how foolproof an statement seems to be, there will ever be those whomake non believe. For me, Aquinas foremost two ways are successful in turn outing God s beingbut my belief in the being of God is on the footing of religion. Therefore, if that component ofreligion is non at that place, I do non believe you can wholly turn out God s being to everyone.BibliographyAquinas Five Ways.

15 October 2000.Aquinas Refutations. 13 October 2000.

Bonnette, Dennis. Aquinas Proofs For God s Existence. The Hague, Netherlands:Martinus Nijhoff, 1972.

Buber s Basque Page. 13 October 2000.Craig, William Lane.

The Cosmologic Argument From Plato to Leibniz: Thomas Aquinas. Great Britain: The MacMillan Press LTD, 1980Exposing The Atheist. 15 October 2000.Feinberg, Joel and Shafer-Landau, Russ. Reason & A ; Responsibility Aquinas, Saint Thomas: The Five Ways and Rowe, William L: The Cosmological Argument.United statess: Wadsworth Printing Company, 1999Is a Proof of the Non-Existence of a God Even Possible? 15 October 2000.

Kenny, Anthony. The Five Wayss: St. Thomas Aquinas Proofs of God s Existence.New York: Schocken Books, 1969Second Way to God of Saint Thomas Aquinas. 13 October 2000.Swinburne, Richard. Is There A God? New York: Oxford University Press, 1996PHILOSOPHY 100 ESSAYST.

THOMAS AQUINAS FIRST TWO WAYS IN PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.Name: EUGIN MAKStudent NUMBER: 43513001St. Thomas Aquinas First Two Ways in Proving the Being of GodIt is my position that God exists, and I think that Aquinas foremost two ways presents asuccessful statement for the being of God. No uncertainty, the statements have weak pointswhich are subjected to unfavorable judgment but however, in my sentiment, these propositions bySaint thomass do so carry through their intent in set uping the being of a GreatestConceivable Being that is the unaffected mover and causeless cause.

I believe that thisultimate Being is unchanging and started the existence, clip and all affair and constructsof being. In my position, this Being is what we understand to be God.St. Thomas Aquinas recognized that there were some people who doubted thebeing of God because, to them, logic did non let for or explicate God s being. Hisforemost two ways are two cogent evidences based on logic and observation of nature in turn outing God sbeing to those who could non accept or believe God on religion entirely.

Aquinas first manneris based on gesture. He calls it the most obvious manner. This first statement, the Argumentfrom Motion, tries to turn out the being of God as the first mover which is unaffected.Now, it is certain as a affair of sense-observation that some things in this universe are ingesture. Whatever is in gesture, Aquinas provinces, is moved by something else. Aquinas sodefines one type of gesture as the decrease of something from potency to actuality,and says that nil can do this motion except by something that is already inactuality in the same regard as the first object is in potency. For illustration, somethingwhich is really hot, like fire, makes something which is potentially hot, like wood, tobe really hot.

In this manner the fire moves and alters the wood. Now, it is non possible forthe same thing to be, at the same clip and same regard, in actuality and in potency.For case, what is really hot can non at the same time be potentially hot, though it mayat the same time be potentially cold.

So, it is impossible that in the same regard and samemode anything should be both mover and moved. In this, Aquinas means that nilcan travel itself. Therefore, if something is in gesture, it must hold been put in gesture bysomething else, which must hold been put in gesture by yet another thing, and so on.However, this can non travel on to eternity because there would ne’er hold been a first moverand, accordingly, no subsequent movers. After all, 2nd movers do non travel exceptwhen moved by a first mover, merely as a stick does non travel anything except when movedby a manus. Therefore, this leads to the decision that there is a first mover which is nonmoved by anything, and this first mover is what we understand to be God.

Sum uping Aquinas first manner, the statement states that objects are in gesture,and if something is in gesture, so it must be caused to be in gesture by somethingexterior of itself. That is, an object in gesture is put in gesture by some other object orforce. There can be no infinite concatenation of movers/movees so there is a first, unaffectedmover. Therefore, in decision, the unaffected mover exists and is called God.Aquinas 2nd manner in turn outing God s being is based on the nature ofefficient causing.

Now, causing itself is doing to be in the sense that the causemakes at that place be the consequence. Efficient causing, nevertheless, is the production of the consequence, orthe activation from being simply possible or possible into complete fact. Therefore, theefficient cause is what brings about the consequence to be efficaciously realized as existent. In thediscernible universe we discover an order of efficient causes, but no instance is found, or of all timecould be found, of something expeditiously doing itself. Such a thing would hold to beprior to itself, which is impossible. Now, it is impossible to travel on everlastingly in a series ofefficient causes. This is because in every ordered series of efficient causes the firstmember of the series causes the intermediate member or members ( whether theintermediate be one or many members ) , which in bend cause the concluding member.

If youextinguish a cause you eliminate its effects, so at that place will non be concluding or intermediatemembers in the series unless there is a first member. Given if the series goes on forever,so there will be no first efficient cause, and so there will be no intermediate efficientcauses and no final/last consequence, and this would be an unfastened error which is evidentlyfalse. For illustration, a tabular array is brought into being by a carpenter, who is in bend caused byhis parents. Obviously, we can non travel on to eternity. Therefore, one is forced to saysome first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name God.In drumhead, Aquinas 2nd manner provinces that no object created itself, or is foundto be the efficient cause of itself because if this was the instance, the object would hold to beprior to itself, which is impossible. Consequently, we see that one object s being isat the same time dependent on the other. However, there can non be an eternal twine ofobjects doing other objects to be so there must be an causeless first cause.

Therefore,in decision, the causeless cause exists and is called God.What are the chief thoughts in Aquinas foremost two ways? Basically, I perceive that hisstatements are tantamount to the proposition, There is no thing that came from nil.The first statement is about gesture, which means every sort of alteration, non merely localgesture or alteration of topographic point, but besides maturing, warming, etc. There must ever be a causefor any alteration, a moving cause. The 2nd statement is really similar, approximately efficientcauses. The difference between a moving cause and an efficient cause is that thetraveling cause produces another province of something while the efficient cause green goodssbeing.

Therefore, it is my position that without a moving cause and an efficient causeat that place would merely be nil and the existence and construct of clip would discontinue toexist. On that history, Aquinas foremost two ways seem to show a successful statement forthe being of the Godhead God.As with all statements trying to turn out the being of God, Aquinas foremosttwo ways are subjected to possible unfavorable judgments, expostulations and/or weak points. To get downwith, see Aquinas first manner, the Argument from Motion. Aquinas says that the lineof movers can non travel on to eternity, which common sense would state you to be true. Hetherefore establishes the arbitrary end point of God. A job arises in that this statementcould ever be tested to be false by inquiring the inquiry, What moved God? Aquinaswould likely reply that nil moved God because God has ever existed.

Still, toturn out his first statement to atheists, Aquinas must attach to it by another statement thatproves God has existed everlastingly. Then God would non necessitate to hold been moved since Hewould ever hold been. This would do for a sort of round defect in logic or paradox,in that Aquinas could non turn out God existed until he proved God has existed everlastingly, andhe evidently can non turn out that God has existed everlastingly until he proves that God exists atall.In defence against this and other unfavorable judgments, it is my point of view that a step ofreligion is necessary to believe in God s being. My strong belief is that God s eternityproves that he has existed everlastingly. When seeking to understand certain of God sinexplicable properties, like how He has existed everlastingly, it is necessary to recognizethat we as worlds are finite existences who are incapable of to the full groking the spacebeing of God. God is the infinite God. Nothing or no one created Him, or brought himinto being.

God is the Greatest Conceivable Being, without family tree, and holdingneither beginning of yearss nor terminal of life. Unmistakably, it is critical to hold an component ofreligion to believe in God s being for it is impossible for finite heads to understand howGod can be without holding a beginning. When atheists and other non-believers try tosee God, they try to do the facts about Him tantrum within their limited capacity tocomprehend and understand. It appears they do non desire to believe that there is more ofGod than their heads can incorporate and grok. Apparently, the effort to to the fullunderstand God is like seeking to put the infinite One into a finite infinite ; that isimpossible.Another weak point that appears in Aquinas statements is that even if they dosupply certainty about the being of an unchanging modifier or Greatest ConceivableBing that could non hold failed to be, the statements fail to turn out the being of thetheistic God. Since the theistic thought of God is a Being of perfect goodness, omnipotence,and omniscience, an issue arises.

How do we cognize, for illustration, that the unchangingmodifier International Relations and Security Network T immorality or somewhat nescient? Well, aside from utilizing logic and our naturalpowers of concluding to infer whether the ultimate Being is supremely good or non,observe that an component of religion is one time once more necessary in this scenario. Finally,sing the Argument from Motion, who is to state there was merely one original PrimeMover? Why non two? Better still, why non a whole squad of Gods, working on the undertakingtogether? Possibly our existence is one of many efforts, some good, some botched. Indefence against this unfavorable judgment, I believe that it is difficult for worlds to accept that somethings may non hold a ground, but there might be cases where this is really the instance.It is my position that there may be some inquiries that merely may non be answeredright or known in our life-time as persons, or contingent existences.Criticisms sing Aquinas 2nd manner, the nature of efficient causing, besidesconsequence in assorted expostulations to the statement. First of wholly, it seems like Aquinas decides,randomly, that the first efficient cause is called God by everyone.

One may reason thatgiven there is some First Cause, it does non follow that there is God. It does non followeither that there is merely one such cause, or that this being has the other properties normallyascribed to God. The defence against this unfavorable judgment could be to analyse what is involvedin holding full spontaneousness, free from any conditions or motivating. That is, the First Causehas all the independency, capablenesss, and profusion involved in absolute spontaneousness andfreedom from conditions. In other words, if these exalted claims did non use to God, whatso? Would that prospect involve dragging down God from the exalted position andcharacter involved in being the First Cause? If so, so that really fact is proof plenty thatthese traditional thoughts of God are true after all.Besides, one may reason that in this statement, even though each being in the spaceseries has a cause, the space series itself has no causal account. For illustration, peopleimagine that, by doing the concatenation of causes reach back to eternity, they can somehowhedge the force of this statement.

For case, if the series went back everlastingly, the demandfor something to get down it is irrelevant. However, and in defence against this unfavorable judgment,Aquinas had argued that the universe in rule could hold existed everlastingly. In fact, theuniverse began to be, but that need non hold been so. If the universe had existed everlastingly, itwould still be wholly dependent on God to be. It would still non hold existed ofitself. The universe would still be created as being made to be by God. Indeed, since Godis non capable to clip, and so is non in clip, one might good state there is no time-relatedor temporal precedence of God to the universe.

Finally, Aquinas foremost two ways seem related to inquiries about the existence. Thestatement from gesture and statement from the nature of efficient causing give rise toinquiries like Has the existence ever existed, or did it hold a beginning in clip? Ifthe existence did hold a beginning, so what was there before? And what about the sizeof the existence. Is it infinite or finite? It is difficult to conceive of eternity, but if the existence isfinite, it does non do sense to inquire what is beyond it, because the existence is all there is.In decision, I believe that a individual would hold to be all-knowing andomnipresent to be able to state there is no God from his ain pool of cognition. We asworlds are contingent, or finite existences, and merely person capable of being in all topographic pointsat the same clip with a perfect cognition of all that is in the existence can do such astatement that there is no God based on the facts. In other words, a individual would holdto be God to state there is no God.Still, turn outing the being of God to atheists and non-believers is a worthwhileundertaking.

If person did come up with a complete, unfailing statement for the being ofGod, the people of the universe would hold no pick but to believe in His being.However, even though St. Thomas Aquinas makes a worthy and in my sentiment successfulattempt, I believe such a undertaking is non yet possible through logic and concluding entirely.

There isan component of religion that must be present for people to believe, and if that component is nonat that place, no affair how foolproof an statement seems to be, there will ever be those whomake non believe. For me, Aquinas foremost two ways are successful in turn outing God s beingbut my belief in the being of God is on the footing of religion. Therefore, if that component ofreligion is non at that place, I do non believe you can wholly turn out God s being to everyone.BibliographyAquinas Five Ways. 15 October 2000.Aquinas Refutations.

13 October 2000.Bonnette, Dennis. Aquinas Proofs For God s Existence. The Hague, Netherlands:Martinus Nijhoff, 1972.Buber s Basque Page.

13 October 2000.Craig, William Lane. The Cosmologic Argument From Plato to Leibniz: Thomas Aquinas. Great Britain: The MacMillan Press LTD, 1980Exposing The Atheist. 15 October 2000.Feinberg, Joel and Shafer-Landau, Russ. Reason & A ; Responsibility Aquinas, Saint Thomas: The Five Ways and Rowe, William L: The Cosmological Argument.

United statess: Wadsworth Printing Company, 1999Is a Proof of the Non-Existence of a God Even Possible? 15 October 2000.Kenny, Anthony. The Five Wayss: St. Thomas Aquinas Proofs of God s Existence.New York: Schocken Books, 1969Second Way to God of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

13 October 2000.Swinburne, Richard. Is There A God? New York: Oxford University Press, 1996PHILOSOPHY 100 ESSAYST. THOMAS AQUINAS FIRST TWO WAYS IN PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.