Saint Thomas Aquinas was one of the best scholastic philosophers of the Roman Catholic Church. Aquinas provided logical grounds for a significant number of Catholic dogmas. Hence, he is considered as a ‘doctor’ and one of the early fathers of the church. Like other scholastics, Thomas Aquinas used the Greco-Roman philosophy, particularly the Aristotelian logic, to provide rational foundation for faith. Aquinas greatest work was the voluminous Summa Theologica. In this work, Aquinas presented five logical ‘proofs’ about the existence of God. These proofs are more commonly known as the quinquae viae or five ways.
Here is the summary of these so-called proofs:
I. First Way: The Argument from Motion
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philosopher 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 argument 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
II. 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 argument this way:
1) There exist 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, there must be an uncaused first cause called God.
III. Third Way: Contingent and Necessary 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 necessitate 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.
IV. Fourth Way: The Argument 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 sculptures 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 a perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.
V. Fifth Way: The Argument 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 intelligent designer.
At first glance, the proofs of Saint Thomas seem very convincing. However, these arguments are full of logical loopholes and inconsistencies. Saint Thomas was guilty of jumping into conclusions without any empirical support. Hence, it was comparable to jumping from an airplane without a parachute. However, he cannot be totally blamed for this. His way of thinking was just the predictable product of Medieval Catholic Church theological and psychological conditioning, which during that time was the most reliable form of “science.”
Let me briefly discuss each argument:
I. First Way: The Argument from Motion
This argument has committed the logical fallacy known as begging the question. This argument posited more questions than answers. Aquinas concluded that the first mover must be God. However, what motivated God to make the first move? Although motion cannot have infinite regression, this argument assumed that God had been either not moving from infinity or he has been moving ever since. What then is the source of his energy? If nothing can move itself, how then God was able to move himself?
Cosmologically, it can also be equally valid that an impersonal, unconscious force or energy was the first unmoved mover. For instance, according to the Big Bag Theory, all motions, space, energy and matter can be traced back to a singularity at the beginning of the universe. This theory is supported by measurable and verifiable parameters such as the rate of expansion of the universe, the cosmic microwave background radiation and the distances between galaxies.
II. Second Way: Causation of Existence
Saint Thomas Aquinas was partially right into thinking that anything that exists is caused by another. In this argument, he again used the assumption that there could be no infinite regression of causes. However, if this assumption was correct, then what caused God to exist? If nothing can cause itself to exist, how was God able to cause himself? If God has been in existence from eternity, what is the problem with a universe that has been in existence from infinity? This latter assumption is equally logical but much simpler and more probabale. Remember the basic equation of Einstein?
E=mc2
This equation implies that matter can be converted into energy and energy can be converted to matter. It is logical to suppose that matter and energy have always been in existence. The universe as we know today might just be one of the many manifestations of the changes in matter and energy. On the other hand, apparent self-causation has been observed in sub-atomic particles in laboratory settings. Quantum fluctuations are better models that could explain the creation of particles ex nihilo (out of nothing).
III. Third Way: Contingent and Necessary Objects
In this argument Saint Aquinas made the distinction between contingent or potential beings and necessary or actual beings. However, modern physics has demonstrated that there are really no strict definitions of such things. In a universe of probability and chaos, things may exist without necessarily being dependent of other things. On the other hand, as demonstrated by Einstein’s equation, matter and energy are mutually dependent from each other. Hence, their contingency and necessity are reflexive. Furthermore, there are hypothetical situtions wherein backward causation is possible as long as they do not create temporal paradoxes. The best example of this in theoretical physics is the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory (also called the Wheeler–Feynman Time-Symmetric theory). Basically, this is an explanation of electrodynamics that is based onthe assumption that a solution to the electromagnetic field equations has to be symmetric with reference to time-inversion or retro-causality.
IV. Fourth Way: The Argument from Degrees and Perfection
In this argument, Saint Aquinas attributed all positive absolutes to God as the standard for all things. But it can also be logically possible that God is the absolute perfection of evil. For instance, if there are degrees of cruelty, then God must be the cruelest being. If there are degrees of insanity, then God must be the perfectly insane being. Hence, the so-called standard of “perfection” can be applied to both good traits and bad traits simply because these traits have gradations or degrees of perfection.
V. Fifth Way: The Argument from Intelligent Design
This argument is also known as the teleological argument. This argument is also expounded on the watch-maker argument. The argument from design is used by theologians and fundamentalist preachers as the best argument for the existence of God. This argument has even taken the form of the so-called “creation science.” However, this argument is scientifically and logically false.
Although the universe is admittedly complex and intricate, it does not necessarily mean that it requires a designer. Comparing the universe and biological systems to human-made objects such as a watch is committing a logical fallacy known as false analogy. The way the universe and biological systems operate is very different from the way man-made objects operate. If a complex object needs a creator or designer, what could be more complex than a super-intelligent, all-powerful God? Who then created God?
Contrary to the assumption of an intelligent and purposeful designer, the universe and biological systems exhibit randomness and probability. If the universe and biological systems were purposely designed, then they must not have any superfluous traits.
________________________
*Republished from this entry at http://much-ado-about-nothing-homar.blogspot.com/
17 comments
Ron says:
June 8, 2011 at 13:56 (UTC 8)
He has pretty significant logic however it seems that his logic had an end clearly in mind and that with every “I don’t know.” he inserted god.
EJ says:
August 25, 2011 at 14:03 (UTC 8)
God is pure act. He is infinite, right? He does not get tired.
Personally, if we ask ‘what motivates God to do that’, we are somehow putting ourselves into doubt that God is powerful, that He can do everything, and that He knows everything.
Another thing, we can’t wholly/absolutely know God but we can know ‘something’ about Him. Our minds are limited; God is not. :)
TabulaRazzah says:
August 27, 2011 at 00:45 (UTC 8)
Is that an attempt for bold statements and begging the question, EJ?
Questionnaire says:
February 12, 2012 at 20:26 (UTC 8)
“Personally, if we ask ‘what motivates God to do that’, we are somehow putting ourselves into doubt that God is powerful, that He can do everything, and that He knows everything.”
[1] Motivation has no connection with being omnipotent and omniscient.
“Another thing, we can’t wholly/absolutely know God but we can know ‘something’ about Him. Our minds are limited; God is not. :)”
How can you know something about him?
Questionnaire says:
February 12, 2012 at 20:26 (UTC 8)
“Personally, if we ask ‘what motivates God to do that’, we are somehow putting ourselves into doubt that God is powerful, that He can do everything, and that He knows everything.”
[1] Motivation has no connection with being omnipotent and omniscient.
“Another thing, we can’t wholly/absolutely know God but we can know ‘something’ about Him. Our minds are limited; God is not. :)”
How can you know something about him?
Sources:
[1] Definition of motivation
Dave says:
October 30, 2011 at 12:18 (UTC 8)
See, the problem with the arguments against I, II, and V is the assumption that our laws of physics apply to an all-powerful being – a completely nonsensical assumption.
Franz says:
November 2, 2011 at 08:24 (UTC 8)
The first three ways basically lean on an argument that had been postulated ever since the version of exodus was written that contained Moses’ conversation with the “burning bush.” The moment that he hypothesized that “God” was the fundamental causative agent, he stops. In fact we are told that to question beyond that would get us nowhere.
The basic nature of “God” that can be understood from Moses’ conversation with the “burning bush” is simply “God cannot be comprehended using human understanding.” In fact what “God” answers when Moses’ asks the “burning bush” to identify himself is, “I am what I am.” A modern equivalent phrase would be like, “FUCK OFF, and don’t even go there!!”
From there where can we go? Well if you believe in Thomas Aquinas, then you’re stuck. While those who don’t buy Aquinas’ arguments are free to ask questions you have nowhere to go.
On to the last two ways and a pattern can be seen. Both basically agree that there is a standard to things in nature. There is a “perfection”, a “design”, an ultimate object to which we compare ourselves and everything else to.
A simple study of biology will reveal that traits that are useful to some organisms are damning to others. Variety is a basic theme of life. If a living thing has something different it can to to survive better it must do it. There is no standard. There is no design.
Science has no room to stop. As long as there are scientists, it will not stop. It cannot stop! To science there is no room for “things uncomprehendable using human understanding,” we must try to comprehend things if we are to get anywhere. Science has no room for “an ultimate standard to which we can compare everything to,” everything must be able to change for the greater good. These things are what science is about.
Jaaz says:
May 3, 2012 at 12:33 (UTC 8)
Correction, God responds:
“I am who am,” and later he commands Moses to say to Israel : “I AM has sent me to you”
Will Malven says:
December 31, 2011 at 03:10 (UTC 8)
Your “refutations” fail, because you ignore the concept of origin. What is the origin of your impersonal, unconscious force or energy, your singularity?
Religion includes faith, mysticism, acceptance of the non-origin of God as a supernatural being. Religion requires the supernatural, the inexplicable, that’s where faith enters the picture. Religion admits it doesn’t know, because God is unknowable. He is taken on faith. God doesn’t require an origin as faith dictates that he is his own origin. That paradigm just won’t work in the atheist’s model.
In pure atheism, you must explain the source of your singularity–your unconscious force or energy. Claiming that such an material entity “came into existence,” or has always existed, fails the chain of causality and what you are actually doing is invoking mysticism and faith. “I believe what I believe because I believe it.” Or, “God doesn’t exist, because I say he doesn’t exist.”
Simply saying “I don’t know,” begs the question and immediately violates a primary tenet of science, everything must have an origin that can be scientifically explained. An atheistic, scientific origin narrative must provide a rational, clearly laid out source for everything in the chain.
Otherwise, you are invoking “magic” and thus admitting that your pure scientific-atheistic origin is in fact a religion–a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless. Pure science, pure atheism has no room for an “uncaused cause.” Additionally, if you simply reply that there is a scientific origin, but we just haven’t found it yet, then you have not ruled out the existence of God as that source.
The very best that science can say is “We simply do not know.” The claim that there is a non-mystical origin is then reduced to nothing more than a hypothesis until you can prove it using rigorous logic based on scientific evidence.
You haven’t “refuted” Acquinas’ argument, you have only moved closer to proving its validity.
Questionnaire says:
February 12, 2012 at 19:55 (UTC 8)
[1] “What is the origin of your impersonal, unconscious force or energy, your singularity?”
Isn’t asking the source of a singularity the same with the question “What was before the beginning?”. [2] It is clearly impossible to have an infinite regress of causes. If there is an infinite regress of causes, then the universe did not began to exist.
[1] “Religion requires the supernatural, the inexplicable, that’s where faith enters the picture.”
If it is inexplicable or can not be explained, then why do you believe in it/him/her, and why do people even bother to debate about God? How can this God be an explanation to an unexplained phenomena, if he is unexplainable to begin with?
[1] “Religion admits it doesn’t know, because God is unknowable.”
If God is unknowable, then why do theists bother to say that God is the first uncaused cause. Why would they even bother to say that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
[1] “He is taken on faith”
If you just simply rely on faith, then God is no different than the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
[1] “In pure atheism, you must explain the source of your singularity–your unconscious force or energy. Claiming that such an material entity “came into existence,” or has always existed, fails the chain of causality and what you are actually doing is invoking mysticism and faith.”
Why is “God” the only thing that is claimed to not begin to exist thus not have a cause? Why isn’t it possible that something else even unknown to us exists that doesn’t begin to exist thus doesn’t have a cause?
[1] “Simply saying “I don’t know,” begs the question and immediately violates a primary tenet of science,”
Simply saying “I don’t know” means it hasn’t been explained yet, or just lacks the knowledge to explain a phenomena.
[1] “Otherwise, you are invoking “magic” and thus admitting that your pure scientific-atheistic origin is in fact a religion–a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless”
Saying that atheism is a godless religion, is like saying “bold is a hairstyle” and “not collecting stamps is a hobby” or “Off is a T.V. channel”. [3] Atheism doesn’t even have a belief in a deity and set of beliefs to begin with.
[1] “Pure science, pure atheism has no room for an “uncaused cause.” Additionally, if you simply reply that there is a scientific origin, but we just haven’t found it yet, then you have not ruled out the existence of God as that source.”
Your inexplicable and unknowable God has no room for an uncaused cause, for what I said in my previous statements that he is unexplainable and unknowable to begin with. So you agree, once scientists can find a scientific origin that you need
rule out the existence of God. Meaning you agree that it is possible that God does not exist..
Sources:
[1] Your statements
[2] Kalam Cosmological Argument
[3] Definition of atheism
Christian says:
February 7, 2012 at 10:38 (UTC 8)
Actually, the Christian belief is that God exists outside of time. No beginning nor end, only being. An eternal present.
Questionnaire says:
February 12, 2012 at 20:11 (UTC 8)
“Actually, the Christian belief is that God exists outside of time. No beginning nor end, only being. An eternal present.”
Why can’t the cause of our universe be within space and time that is separate from our own?
John Grove says:
February 11, 2012 at 05:56 (UTC 8)
@Will Malven
“Religion admits it doesn’t know”
Actually, it does. And not only does it claim to know I would dare say you probably would tell me which god it is right? And which god saved you. Uh huh.
“God doesn’t require an origin as faith dictates that he is his own origin.”
This is nothing but a tautology.
“In pure atheism, you must explain the source of your singularity–your unconscious force or energy.”
Your right we shouldn’t study to find answers we should just assume the bible is correct and never look for any answers. Pathetic.
“Claiming that such an material entity “came into existence,” or has always existed, fails the chain of causality and what you are actually doing is invoking mysticism and faith.”
No form of cosmology makes claims without backing it up. In the cyclic model, according to Turok, the Big Bang was big, but it wasn’t the beginning, Cambridge University mathematical physicist Neil Turok says. He theorizes that the universe is engaged in an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction: There have been many Big Bangs, and there will be many more.
Other models like Stephen Hawkings attribute material to other possibilities. No model is dogmatic as it is mostly mathematical models. I find it ironic however that the universe needs a cause but a god(s) do not. And if you reply that your god is the cause of all causality without proof of any kind then you are not advancing anything whatsoever except your own credulity to superstitious notions.
“I believe what I believe because I believe it.”
Sounds just like what I hear almost daily from Christians.
“God doesn’t exist, because I say he doesn’t exist.”
Read an atheist book knucklehead. No evidence is ever given for god(s) existence except arguments from ignorance and appeals to things unknown. In other words “god of the gap” fallacy insertion.
“Simply saying “I don’t know,” begs the question and immediately violates a primary tenet of science, everything must have an origin that can be scientifically explained.”
Saying “I don’t know” violates nothing and shows humility. Scientists all the time say ” we don’t know” to a variety of things. This is how science advances but studying the “I don’t know” questions. And as far as your last statement, read Endless Universe by Neil Turok.
“you are invoking “magic” and thus admitting that your pure scientific-atheistic origin is in fact a religion–a godless religion,”
I would almost say I “hate” Christians for their outright idiotic and moronic thinking. No book I have ever read on cosmology (since you love speaking on “origins”) invokes anything without warrant from the facts of science. Some things are speculative to be sure and await confirmation but this is how advances get made. To suggest that scientists can’t make speculations to their models and further tests betrays what science is. BTW, Christians think they are experts in science and scientific thinking when 99.9% know absolutely nothing about science.
“Pure science, pure atheism has no room for an “uncaused cause.”
Not true. Virtual particles may be uncaused. The decaying of an atom may be uncaused too. You are merely spouting off your own ignorance. A mere rant, nothing more.
“The very best that science can say is “We simply do not know.”
I am assuming we are talking about “origins” still. That is the very best that any one can say. Didn’t you just say “religion doesn’t admit to know”? Now you are changing your tune and castigating those who study origins. I will cast my lot with those who study these things over the opinions of bronze age tribesmen sitting in a tent guessing on these things any day.
“You haven’t “refuted” Acquinas’ argument, you have only moved closer to proving its validity.”
Ah the religious, gotta love them…If you can’t win an argument just display your unfalsifiable faith to the world.
John Grove says:
February 11, 2012 at 05:58 (UTC 8)
“Actually, the Christian belief is that God exists outside of time. No beginning nor end, only being. An eternal present.”
Of course, the correct answer to a god who is not part of reality is “Who cares?”
Correction says:
February 11, 2012 at 09:09 (UTC 8)
Ontological Argument
1.)It is possible that a god exists
2.)If it is possible that a god exists, then a god exists in some possible world.
3.)If a god exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4.)If a god exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5.)If a god in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6.)Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
You see, your god is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient.. Then it is possible that your god exists not only outside of time. Your first statement contradicts your god’s attributes.
Abby says:
February 15, 2012 at 02:28 (UTC 8)
You say that God is really complex. You are wrong. He does not have thousands of body parts. He is one being. He doesn’t have conflicting emotions. He is actually so simple that our infinite minds cannot understand how simple he is; therefore, we find hm complex.
John Grove says:
February 16, 2012 at 02:58 (UTC 8)
“You say that God is really complex. You are wrong”
And exactly how do you know this? Where do you get this information about this god of yours?
“He does not have thousands of body parts. He is one being”
Cite your proof.
“He doesn’t have conflicting emotions. He is actually so simple that our infinite minds cannot understand how simple he is; therefore, we find [sic]hm complex.”
And these are the same Christians that get mad at atheists for having scientific postulates that have only mathematical support when in reality they make large claims without a shred of evidence to support anything. Claims that are only backed by their imaginations.