Five arguments for the existence of God.
Thomas Aquinas is best known for his attempted synthesis of Christian and Classical thought. A member of the Dominican order and therefore holding high value to scholarly pursuits, Aquinas studied the rediscovered texts of Aristotle at a time when many other institutions forbade their examination. Instead of pagan idolatry, as many had labeled the Greek philosopher, Aquinas saw much that he could base a coherent Christian theology upon, thus joining Classical reason with Christian faith. In addition to his commentaries on the works of Aristotle, Aquinas’ prime work was his Summa Theologica, in which he laid out his five proofs for the existence of God, which were to become very important in Catholic and even Protestant doctrine. Despite his emphasis upon reason and the value of rational proofs, Aquinas still fell back on faith when it came to issues that could not be either verified or denied by observation, or those that were just beyond human comprehension, such as the nature of God himself. Later critics were to attempt to break even the synthesis that he had created. Summa Theologica was left unfinished by Aquinas, who proclaimed after setting down its last page, “I can do no more; such things have been revealed to me that all I have written seems as straw, and I now await the end of my life.” He died the next year, and was canonized after his death.
Argument 1: Prime Mover
“It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; 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… Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must needs be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity… Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”
Taken directly from Aristotle, this argument is essentially identical to the second argument of the Uncaused Cause, though instead dealing specifically with movement and its causation. Aquinas states that it is impossible that an object can be both mover and moved, that is, move itself, therefore all objects in motion or action must have had their motion initiated by the motion of another object. He then relies upon the acceptance of the idea of infinite progression of motion with no prime mover as inherently absurd, and then relies upon God to be the prime mover, thus avoiding the tracing back of causation through infinity.
Problems: Aquinas does not explain why God is free from the contradiction that he claimed must apply to all objects in motion, that is that they cannot be both mover and moved simultaneously. See following argument for more problems that also apply to this one.
Argument 2: Uncaused Cause
“In the world of sensible things, 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 one only. 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 intermediate, cause…Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.”
This proof of God states that since reality follows the law of cause and effect, that since things are in motion, activity, etc., something must have caused them to be, and something must have caused that, and so on. Aquinas argues that we must recognize that there was an original uncaused cause, else one is lead to the absurdity of an infinity of causes preceding back in time, and an infinity of effects proceeding forward.
Problems: Aquinas never provides an argument as to why it is an absurdity to have an infinity forward and backwards. Such a thing does in fact exist in our numerical system, with numbers reaching into the negative infinity below zero and into the positive infinitely above, with an infinity between each integer as well as one calculates the decimal placing farther and farther. Thus far our mathematical system has proved to be very good at reflecting what is real; one cannot then rule out a potential correspondence in this situation either. Furthermore, Aquinas argues against the absurdity of an infinity, then accepts it within the body of God, as a being that supposedly has no beginning and no end. One can then ask why if this is conceivable, could it not then be applied to what is actually empirically observed, thus avoiding the necessity of an unseen cause. The same could be said of the idea of God as Prime Mover; if one accepts that there is an initial cause, why then can what is observed in the real world not be identified as such?
Argument 3: Necessary Being
“We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is possible for them to be and not to be. But is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now, if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing…Therefore we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity [of existence], and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.”
Aquinas states that for all objects, they have the potential of not existing, and so therefore at some point in time they have or will not exist. He induces this to mean that at one time there was nothing, which would then mean that nothing could come into existence because something exists only through something else that exists. Because Aquinas does not want to accept the idea of an infinite progression back of things existing because other things that exist caused them to, that in turn were caused to exist because something else that existed had caused them to, ad infinitum. So, once again, God is called in to save the day as an avoidance of the absurdity of infinite contradiction and to ignore the contradiction by holding God as a necessary being, i.e., that which can not not-exist.
Problems: As has been noted above, Aquinas never proves why it is an absurdity for there to be an infinite causation. Also, as has been illustrated by the Law of Conservation, energy never ceases to exist; it is instead forms that are transitionary. Energy or substance, then, is Necessary Being itself. Within the context of his knowledge and argument, however, it still does not follow that if all objects have the potential to not exist, that they must all do so simultaneously, then having nothing in existence. Neither does it follow that if they have the potential to not-be, that they necessarily will not-be (likewise, something that has the potential to be does not meant that it necessarily will).
Argument 4: Hierarchy of Excellence
“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 most being…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.”
Aquinas argues that because there is a gradation of hot to hottest, good to best, etc., it necessarily follows that there is an ultimate standard by which these must be measured, or a final end by which we then compare how much they stack up in comparison. Ergo God.
Problems: It does not necessarily follow that even though we could potentially conceive of the best thing, or the hottest thing, that there is such an actual entity. If such a thing did exist, it would then place the best as an actual quantity, and therefore a measurable one. Given the nature of numbers, it would then be possible to exceed this best quantity, therefore not making it the ultimate. The final or ultimate example of a standard therefore exists as an abstraction, and not an actuality. That one has an idea of what qualities are necessary for a trait in order for it to be in conformity with it does not prove that this idea or concept of the highest form is expressed in a concrete reality. We only need to compare two objects in order to set up a relationship between them, and determine that one is in fact hotter than the other, rather than comparing the two to some unobserved ultimate standard of “hottest”.
Argument 5: Argument from Design (also called the Teleological Argument)
“We see that things which lack knowledge, 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 they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence…Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”
We observe that natural objects act towards a foreseeable and consistent end. Aquinas states that things can only act towards an end if they possess knowledge; inanimate objects obviously do not possess knowledge, therefore they must be governed by an external intellect that directs them to their end. Ergo God.
Problems: When we say that objects act towards an end, they do not behave in such a way so that they might reach the end, that is, the end is not the cause of their acting. In the case of humans, who can plan and deduce courses of action that will achieve certain ends, then the desired end could be said to direct, or cause their behavior. Inanimate objects cannot be said to have intention, however, because they do not have the awareness with which to guide their action (nor to change it). There is simply a reaction to what has provoked their movement or activity, and therefore the action of the object is the cause of the end. No knowledge is then needed, at least not in terms of human knowledge, for knowledge would only be needed if it is presumed that they should reach the end that they do, or that they intend to reach the end that they do. Instead, an object behaves as it does in reaction to other stimuli and then achieves the end that it does from that behavior because of its nature as an object, what it is.
Criticisms common to all:
1. Automatic refusal to accept possibility of infinite regression, though it is reflected in the numerical system and so such a thing can exist.
2. Automatic crediting of Christian God as the only being that fits the criteria of his arguments, when in fact all the greater deities of all the major religions could, as well as many beings that we haven’t yet imagined. Furthermore, he offers no proof as to why there is only ONE of these beings.
3. Building of argument through absolute description of reality that supposedly leaves a contradiction without God. God is introduced to sit outside the contradiction, but there is no reason given as to why God should not have to follow the same rules as nature, or as to why nature cannot ignore them as does God.
4. Limited, linear way of looking at the world: strict cause and effect, things happening for an end (meaning, so as to bring about a particular result) rather than the end happening fortuitously.