jump to navigation

Aquinas’ Five Ways: Proofs for the Existence of God from General Revelation April 21, 2008

Posted by preacherwin in Apologetics, Reflections.
Tags: , , , ,
trackback

St. Thomas Aquinas listed what he saw as five intellectual proofs of the existence of God—proofs that were dependent on reason and observation, not the revealed word of God.

 

Aquinas and the First Way:

 

Aquinas recognized that for motion to take place, there had to be something that interacts with it to cause it to move.  For a ball to move, for example, it must be struck by another object, for example, the foot of a child kicking it.  The ball has the potential to move, but that potential cannot reach its actuality until something else acts upon it.  Aquinas argued then, that as the original object that was moved needed to have something act upon it to move, so too does the second object have something act upon it.  The boy swings his leg, which moves his foot which in turn moves the ball.  And the chain continues backwards from there.  He also recognized that without a first mover, the chain of cause and effect must, by definition, go eternally back.  Since that idea is absurd to the ordered mind and is not consistent with observable evidence, there must be a first mover upon which nothing is needed to act to cause him to move.  This, in turn must be an infinite being outside of creation and hence is God.

While it is not my purpose to go into a detailed critique of these proofs, it is important to point out what Aquinas is doing.  It is clear from the language that this is designed to be an intellectual argument for the existence of a god, but it does not point clearly to the existence of the Biblical God.  This proof could just as easily be applied to Allah, Odin, or Jupiter.  The point is simply to argue that it is impossible to rationally look at our world without seeing the reality of a creator God.

 

Aquinas and the Second Way:

 

The second approach that Aquinas mentioned is similar to the first, but focuses on cause and effect rather than on potential motion being converted into actual motion.  Every effect must have a cause, if you eliminate the cause you eliminate the effect.  Once again, since an infinite series of cause and effect is irrational, the principle posits that there must be an original cause that in itself does not need a cause:  hence God.  Again, this does not posit the God of the Bible, or even a good and benevolent God for that matter, it only posits that a God exists who is the cause of all things and who is the effect of nothing.

 

Aquinas and the Third Way:

 

The third approach deals with a question of being and not being.  Aquinas argued that from observation, the things around him had the possibility of being (or existing) or not being.  The chair that you are sitting on exists, but it has not always existed.  There was a time when the chair was not.  He went on to observe that for something to move from not being to being, that action had to be brought about by something that was being.  In other words, for the chair we spoke of earlier to come into being, it had to be manufactured.  To manufacture something you must “be.”  Something that does not exist cannot make something come into existence, the idea of such is nonsensical.  Thus, all things that exist must be brought about by that which exists.  Just as in the question of causation, there must be a first being.  Yet, if that first being exists, he must necessarily not have the possibility of not being.  In other words, as non-existence cannot bring about existence, the first being necessarily has to have always existed.  And this entity that necessarily exists and cannot not-exist, is God.

 

Aquinas and the Forth Way:

 

Aquinas points out that we recognize that there are degrees of things.  Some things are better than others; some things are shorter or taller or colder or hotter, etc… than others.  And thus we rate them as good, better, and best.  Yet, for us to have the idea that one thing is better than another, we must have a standard by which all things are measured and that can never be exceeded.  That standard, then, is God.  Note that this is not the suggestion that we get the idea of goodness or hotness from God, but simply that there must always be something that is more good or more hot than that which we are viewing and since there is a gradation, there must always be a top to the gradation that can never be surpassed.  Such a top or asymptote, by definition, requires an infinite being, hence it must be God.

 

Aquinas and the Fifth Way:

 

Fifthly, Aquinas points out that there are entities in creation that have no consciousness at all, yet still act in a regular fashion and in such a way that it is beneficial to their continued existence.  Trees, for example, have no consciousness of their own to direct themselves, yet they will sink their roots deeply into the soil to collect water, they will spread their branches wide to collect light for their photo-synthetic leaves, and they will drop seeds by which they may propagate their kind.  Aquinas observed that since they act with some sense of direction in terms of self-preservation, yet are unguided by their own consciousness, they must be guided by the consciousness of another.  This, once again, is the role of God.

Comments»

1. DrBonnette - June 14, 2009

Just a couple points of clarification to your fine presentation: (1) The causal regress in these arguments is not one going back in time, but rather one in which all links in the chain of intermediate causes are simultaneous. That is why he says that to take away the cause is to take away the effect. An infinite causal regress going back in time is at least conceivable in principle, provided the causes are what St. Thomas calls, “per accidens.” But simultaneous causation requires a First Cause Uncaused to account for the causality which runs through the entire thread of causation to the final effect. (2) While St. Thomas does not claim that each of these “ways” proves the existence of the Biblical God, he does end each argument with a statement to the effect that this is de facto what all men call God (a nominal definition). Shortly after completing the Five Ways, he offers another text in which he proves that the Being which his Five Ways reaches is in fact the God of the Bible: “I AM WHO AM,” the Infinite Pure Act of Existence Who is Lord and Creator of all finite things.

Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy
Youngstown, NY

preacherwin - June 14, 2009

Dennis,

Thanks for the clarifications, they are appreciated. From a philosophical perspective, let me pose the question, with respect to an infinite God, what is the difference between a chain of intermediate causes that is simultaneous and one that has a temporal progression. Certainly, when it comes to finite humans, bound by time, I can see the distinction, but what of an infinite God who is not bound by time? How would you mark the distinction?

Thanks again,

Win

2. DrBonnette - May 21, 2011

Preacherwin,
Sorry to miss your reply by two years! Just found it. God is eternal, which means the simultaneous and complete possession of infinite life. He is outside of time and thus “stands above” the entire temporal sequence of per accidens causes running through time. But the causality which leads to God is not temporal. It is the simultaneous “vertical” causality which sustains in being and act each and every moment of created time’s contents. At each moment, there is a causal regress that leads at that very moment to God as First Cause. Temporal regression needs no first. But neither does the past explain the present. Present effects need present causes, not past ones. An effect is a being that does not fully explain itself, and a past cause cannot make up for a present existential deficit. Thus we need present causes to explain present effects. It is in that order of simultaneous causality that God is needed as a presently existing First Cause.

preacherwin - May 23, 2011

Dr.Bonnette,

Thanks for the reply, however long belated. :-)

In terms of your comment, the first part I am in agreement with. God is eternal and not bound by time or any sequential set of events, concepts, or even ideas. “God never learns,” as one of my old professors used to say somewhat tongue in cheek given the double entendre. God sees all at once.

But the next step of your reasoning is where we depart. The implication of present effects needing present causes, which is derived from the eternal “now” of God does not follow for the logical end of your line of thinking would seem to be that the past is non-existent or that it ceases to be as soon as it happens. This is the approach that many Open Theists have sought to take when trying to explain their rejection of a sovereign God who has superintended all things. Know that I am not trying to poison the well here by throwing open theists into the discussion, but it would seem that their reasoning falls short in the same ares. Just because God exists outside of any temporal sequence of events, that does not mean a temporal sequence of events cannot exist outside of God. In fact, God did create the temporal sequence (beginning to end), thus being Aquinas’ First Cause with the additional ability (as he is outside of time) of being an interrupting cause in any sequence of events within the temporal sequence.

This posits the real existence of the future and the past, but this is a position that has been affirmed by theology, philosophy, and science for generations, and if I am understanding String Theory correctly (and there is a good chance that I don’t as I have not kept up with all of the developments), it would affirm the existence of a real series both past and future. Because they really exist, they exist as a result of various causes (miraculous, providential, and mechanical) that can be traced back through the temporal sequence and do not demand that God be the the first cause of every present event.

I welcome your further discussion…even if it is not for another two years… ;-)

Blessings,

w.

Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D. - March 22, 2012

Dear Preacherwin,

As usual, I only noticed you reply by accident long after its posting — this time through the help of a friend.

I am trying to grasp what you are saying as you intend it. I suspect the problem may be that you are somehow allowing the existence of effects outside of God without His actual and immediate causality. Past (and future) events and things do exist when they exist, but always with God being the First Cause of their existence and coming-to-be, even though He may employ secondary causality in the process. When He no longer causes them to be, they cease to be in reality. Yet, all things — past, present, and future — exist in God’s mind. He knows them either as merely being in His mind, or as actually existing in their own reality when, and only when, they do.

In metaphysics, we know that an effect is a being whose sufficient reason for being is not totally within itself. Hence, it needs an extrinsic sufficient reason (cause) to account for that existential reality within itself which is not fully explained by itself. Hence, you can NEVER have any aspect of reality which is not fully explained in a thing without an extrinsic adequate explanation or cause. This applies even to a thing’s very existence, which, in finite beings, is never self-explained. This is why you cannot ever have past events (or future events) existing somehow in their own right without God’s actual effective causality positing them in being. They cease to be in actuality when they cease to be in time (or before they come to be), and hence then exist only in the mind of God Who did create them in the past, or will create them in the future.

String theory is merely a physical hypothesis, which, even if true, does not escape the metaphysical laws of existence and causality.

If you want to avoid our exchanges taking place over vast periods of time, feel free to use my email address directly to me.

3. Shalom - May 05, 2012

Please would you continue your argument through this blog so that we can learn by reading your interesting and intellectual arguments.

Student.

preacherwin - May 07, 2012

Shalom, I am glad you are finding our discussion edifying. I will email Dennis and see if he is okay with me posting the pertinent excerpts from our dialogue so you can read the whole of the discussion.

For me, the most interesting idea conceptually is Aquinas’ concept of the past and future only existing in the mind of God, that they only are real insomuch as the design and plan of God is real, though the future has no real existence to us until we happen to be in that particular moment. Having been a student of physics in a former season of my life, the concept of the reality of the past and future is one that is curious to me.

Again, I will email Dr. Bonnette and confirm that he is okay with the non-personal elements of our discussion being posted in this forum.

Thanks for your interest,

win


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 194 other followers