St. Thomas Aquinas, philosopher, theologian, priest, and jurist is known for one of the most controversial theories in the world of philosophy. Aquinas claims that the existence of God can be proven in five ways. The five ways Aquinas lists are known as the arguments from
Motion, Cause, Possibility and Necessity also known as Contingency, Perfection, and Intelligence. However, there are many people who disbelieve Aquinas’ theory. Claim four basically states that Aquinas’ five ways of proving the existence of God is incorrect, which simply means that none of the five ways he lists are solid or reasonable enough arguments to prove that God indeed exists. This claim addresses the doubt that many new age philosophers have towards this long-standing concept. The claim ‘The existence of God cannot be proven by reason’ is false.
Aquinas’ first way of proving the existence of God is known as the argument from motion. This first way follows from the notion that whenever something experiences change or is moved, it’s caused to do so by something else (a second thing), because nothing can change itself since it can’t be potential or actual simultaneously. To move something, that thing must already have been moved by a previous entity; Therefore, each moving thing has been previously moved by something else. Now exists this chain of non stop movement with each thing being moved by a previous mover. However, this seemingly continuous chain cannot go on infinitely. The chain will eventually require a mover who moves something but is unmoved itself. This unmoved mover is known in philosophy as God. God causes this chain of change and/or motion while being unmoved or touched by another previous thing.
The people who have established this disbelief in Aquinas’ theory (more specifically the first way) range anywhere from atheists to modern day philosophers.
One objection to the existence of God, that prompted the response of Aquinas’ five ways, was the argument that says if one is infinite (good) then the other is ‘destroyed’ or nonexistent (evil); if God is some infinite good, and what was said earlier is true then there must not exist any kind of evil in this world. However, evil does indeed exist in this world, in various forms too. Therefore, God does not exist.
A second objection to the existence of God that also prompted the response of Aquinas’ five ways, was the argument that says when things are ‘accomplished’ they are done so either naturally or by design. If that is true (which we will assume it is) then it must be true that natural things are accomplished by nature, and things that done intentionally are done so by design. Therefore, following the argument, God does not exist.
An objection to Aquinas’ five ways, made by a modern day atheist, states that the first argument (from motion) basically contradicts itself. Said atheist states that if nothing can move on its own, as mentioned in the first argument, then how is it possible that God is not moved and yet moves other things? Therefore, it contradicts the unmoved mover argument. Now, if the premise we built upon is not true, then the conclusion we came to could also not be true, and if the conclusion is not true, then it again reinforces that God does not exist. It also follows that if God can exist then it proves that things can move on its own. Now, if things can indeed move on their own, then there would not be a need for God to begin with.
Listed in Aquinas’ “The Treatise on the Divine Nature”, is a short and simple response to the overall objection listed above. The response follows a quote written in the Book of Exodus in chapter 3, verse 14; in the person of God: “I am who am”. This is basically stating that even God has announced that he is the ultimate God and does indeed exist.
Listed in the same section as above, is a response to first objection to the existence of God. The response basically states that God would only allow evil to exist if he was going to bring goodness out of it; Augustine stated in his Enchiridion: “God, since he is supremely good, would never have allowed anything evil in his works unless he were so omnipotent and good that he could bring forth good even from evil”. There he reinforces the idea that not only does God exist but He is so incredibly good that he can even bring goodness out of the most evil places.
Now listed right below that response is the response to the second objection to the existence of God. This response discusses things made by nature and by design. This argument follows the reasoning that things in nature act for a predetermined end that was directed by an intelligent being known as God; in that case anything that occurs naturally can be lead back to the unmoved moved we recognize as God.
Aquinas’ second way of proving the existence of God is known as the argument from cause, causation, or efficient causes. The first three ways of Aquinas’ ways are known as cosmological arguments. This second argument follows from the fact that everything that exists in the world, has been caused to come to to existence. Note that since nothing can cause its own existence, nothing can be its own efficient cause. Therefore, if nothing exists prior to itself, and whatever exists is brought to exist or whatever changes is made to change by an external force, that external force or efficient cause must itself have an efficient cause of its own. Aquinas is trying to explain, then we again come to a nonstop chain of moved movers moving other movers. The problem with this is that we cannot have this infinite regress of efficient causes bringing change to other movers, because eventually we’ll have to come to a halt. Aquinas then states that there must exist this immutable first cause that causes other things (moved movers) in this world to come into existence, but did not itself come into existence. This is what Aquinas understands as God.
An argument from a modern day Agnostic basically argued that on the prospect that any of the five contentions set by Aquinas are legitimate, then at that point atheism is false and it turns into a contention of which kind of belief in a higher power is valid. What this Agnostic is basically saying is that by reason and logic Aquinas’ five ways are false; he believes that since atheism is a common practice Aquinas’ ways do not concretely prove the existence of God.
A second argument from a modern day atheist, basically stated that if one accepts the argument Aquinas gives (5 ways), then resulting is the conclusion that an unmoved mover does indeed exist. However, there's no solid definition for what this unmoved mover actually is; therefore, it is disproved by it’s own obscurity.
A third atheist then expressed his opinion on why Aquinas is wrong. His argument was based on the fact, or rather the opinion of Aquinas’ arguments being dated. This atheist believes that Aquinas’ assumptions all trace back to aristotelian ideas. He conveyed that Aquinas’ arguments are outdated by centuries. He then goes on to argue that the arguments Aquinas gives are obsolete, and disproved by science (something that was notional at that time).
Disregarding the previously stated atheism arguments, Pro-Aquinas arguments are also at hand in the modern philosophical world. Some arguments more secure or solid than others.
For example, a response to the first atheistic argument mentioned, noted that Aquinas’ ways were in fact valid considering that some sort of God would be necessary in order to actualize other things.
A following argument for the existence of God is known as The Argument from Miracles. This argument follows: “A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God. There are numerous well-attested miracles.
Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God. Therefore God exists”. The creator of this argument, known as Dr. Kreeft, then goes on to say that if one believes that “some extraordinary event is a miracle, then you believe in divine agency, and you believe that such agency was at work in this event”.
Dr. Kreeft also gives a following argument that supports Aquinas’ five ways, known as the argument from truth. This argument he says comes directly from Augustine. To begin with we must note that “our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. Secondly, truth properly resides in a mind. Thirdly, the human mind is not eternal, and Lastly, then there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside. He also mentions that this argument could appeal more to someone who believes in a “Platonic view of knowledge”.
Aquinas’ third way of proving the existence of God is known as the argument from contingency. This argument follows the notion that it is impossible for contingent beings to exist forever. Therefore, there might have been a period where nothing existed. Hence, around then there would have been nothing to bring the present contingent beings into reality. If that were the case, nothing would exist now. Considering everything above is an assumption, the conclusion that everyone is a contingent being is preposterous and false. Therefore, there must exist beings that are planned, certain, or not contingent. Therefore, there must exist some being that does not cause its own existence nor gets it from another thing. It is assumed this being also responsible for the existence for other things. This is what Aquinas refers to as God.
An argument against aquinas’ third way was presented by a modern day atheist. The argument basically stood on the opinion that Aquinas’ ideas were unscientific and outdated;
The argument expressed how the specific jargon utilized and the thoughts communicated were informal, and lacking knowledge in present-day science.
A second argument following the previous one was proposed by another atheist, and mentioned that real things have limits and that only imaginary things can go on infinitely.
A following argument atheists use to try and disprove Aquinas’ five ways is based on the different perspectives on how the universe was created. It is assumed that if you are a scientist you would probably lean more into science, which is pretty concrete, than religion and faith, which is a bit less concrete but slightly more followed by people universally. Hence why this argument is slightly more popular amongst atheists than other ones. This argument follows that if the universe was created by the “big bang” billions of years ago and God did not in fact create it, then it will also be destroyed by some sort of black hole or some delusional scientific theory. If this is the case, and for this argument let’s assume it is, then it only proves that God was not necessary for the creation of the universe (nor the destruction of it) and if God played no role in the construction or destruction of our universe, then every change or cause of something in the world was created by another thing or was caused to do so by a previous thing, like a cause and effect. Therefore, according to scientists, atheists, and agnostics, God does not exist.
However, one long-standing argument that supports Aquinas’ five ways, and the general existence of God is known as the argument from reason, this argument comes directly from British writer, C.S. Lewis. In this argument Lewis questions the ability to trust your own thoughts. His argument follows the notion that if God did not exist, then He did not create your brain for the soul purpose of creating specific thoughts; therefore it was coincidence that when the neurons and chemistry in your brain act a certain way, we are able to think rationally and logically. Assuming that this is true, how can one trust their own thoughts if they were produced randomly by coincidence with no intention or purpose behind it? Lewis then used this example to further prove his point; “It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London”. Lewis then argues that if he can't confide in his very own reasoning, obviously he can't believe the contentions prompting Atheism, and in this way one has no reason to be an Atheist, or whatever else. Only if you have faith in God (who is the epitome of purpose), can you trust your own thoughts.
A common rebuttal atheists use against Aquinas’ third way (which argues from contingency) is the question, ‘If everything has a cause, then who caused God?’. To answer that question, Aquinas never contended that everything has a source, however that contingent beings specifically, have causes.
Aquinas’ fourth argument is known as the argument from degrees, perfection, or gradation. To understand this argument we must first note that there is a scale or range that is observed in everything. Some things get better, and some get worse as the progression continues. Secondly, from the words of Aquinas himself, “But more or less is said about diverse things insofar as they approach in their diverse ways something that is the maximum, as in the case where something is hotter the more it approaches what is maximally hot”. Thirdly, the entity in the sequence that has the maximum of that quality is considered the ‘cause’ since it has the highest degree of the rest in that chain or range. Lastly, this entity that has the highest degree in the sequence that has the maximum of something, is what Aquinas refers to as God. Sidenote: When Aquinas refers to God in all of his five ways, he is not referring to the God we think of today nor does he refer to Him as ‘A God’ like Greek Gods in Greek mythology. “Therefore, there must be something that is, for everything else, the cause of its existence, goodness, and every other perfection, and this we call God”.
Aquinas’ fourth argument, unlike the previous three arguments (which were known as cosmological arguments), is based on ontological and theological notions of perfection. Well, numerous arguments of Aquinas’ are based on Aristotelian Ideas and concepts (that are coincidentally also just as deconstructed by present-day atheists and agnostics.
As usual there are simple minded arguments by modern day atheists and agnostics trying to disprove Aquinas’ cogent arguments. Below is an example of argument by said atheists and agnostics.
One interesting argument established by an anonymous present-day atheist argued that it is always possible to add one to any natural number and get a number that is greater than the one you added to. Then by that reasoning there is always something more ‘great’ that follows. Therefore, according to this atheist, Aquinas’ fourth way is false.
One of the most famous atheists known today is Richard Dawkins. Dawkins’ book uses the complicated relationship between science and religion, the extremism that is typically found in most religions (and politics), and ‘evidence’ based arguments to prove that God does not exist. In his book, he subtly coaxes readers into agreeing with his perspective by stating some obvious truths. For example, throughout his arguments you find yourself slowly agreeing with him, because he is stating how harrowing it is that religious followers go to the extreme to prove their faith and following of God. However, that does not directly prove or disprove the existence of God, it is simply stating that there are a few bad people in every group of good ones. Then Dawkins expresses that truth or things labeled to be true, should be accepted or rejected according to the presence or lack thereof science based evidence. The previous statement subtly makes the reader continue to agree with Dawkins, based off of universally agreed concepts, which only makes it easier to agree with him once his arguments against religion (and Aquinas’ five ways) start to weaken. For example, it is common sense that if there is concrete evidence that Oxygen is what we need to live, then it is pretty much universally accepted. Therefore, in his claim that evidence is needed to accept truth, Dawkins is once again not disproving the existence of God. There seems to be quite a bit of subtle manipulation Dawkins uses, that is only visible to the trained eye expecting such.
One argument that supports Aquinas’ five ways is known as the argument from Kalam. The Kalam Argument states firstly that whatever starts to exist has a reason for its existing.
Secondly, the universe started existing. Consequently, the universe has a reason for its existence. Not only has this specific argument been avoided but it has been consistently ignored by the alleged leader of the modern day atheists, Richard Dawkins.
Aquinas’ fifth way is known as the argument from Intelligence, final cause or ends.
The fifth way is known as a “teleological argument”. The Fifth Way is based on Aristotle's final cause. The idea of final causes includes the idea of "ends": a specific objective or point towards which something endeavors. The goals and objectives of intelligent beings is easily clarified by the fact that they deliberately set those objectives for themselves. The suggestion is that if something has an objective or end towards which it endeavors, it is either on the grounds that it is intelligent or in light of the fact that something intelligent is guiding it. This everyone understands to be God.
One argument against Aquinas’ five ways, made by a present day atheist, does not yet have a name, but is still quite intriguing. This argument basically states that a newborn child does not have intelligence, yet a grown-up does, at that point by process the brain forms. Kids raised only by creatures, undomesticated kids, don't grow completely intelligent personalities, therefore, not having the capacity to use words or the ability to integrate well into society.
The mind is observed on a scale or range from thoughtless to thoughtful (or brainless to intelligent). It additionally gives the idea that the mind only structures with suitable social contact within society. Therefore, Aquinas' first argument or way is not correct, therefore, every argument that comes after that, or that is based off of that is essentially insignificant. Then it is mentioned that Aquinas’ ways demonstrate absolutely nothing. Aquinas in no way proves the existence of God. His theory simply does not prove that God does or does not exist.
However, what all atheists and deniers of Aquinas’ theory fail to realize is that those five statements given, are synopses that Aquinas elaborates more on in separate works. Aquinas’ five ways were not intended for proving solely that God exists, nor were they intended to address each conceivable protest against them; “Aquinas never intended stand alone, and would probably have reacted with horror if told that future generations of students would be studying them in isolation, removed from their immediate contact in the Summa Theologica and the larger content of his work as a whole”.
A following supportive argument is that of which critiques Dawkins’ evolution argument. Dawkins misjudges Aquinas' final argument. Dawkins trusts this contention is undermined by Darwinism, however in certainty the contention Aquinas is making is valid, even of inanimate things that aren't developing as living organisms. One could remove each living animal for the sake of the contention, and still the laws of present-day science would require an clear account/reason, regarding God.
Once again we come to the conclusion that Aquinas is not incorrect about proving the existence of God using reason. As we have deduced, the existence of God can not only be proven by reason, but by further explanations of Aquinas’ five ways in other works. Not only, are Aquinas’ arguments concrete, but there have arose numerous other arguments based off of and continued from his arguments as well. Although there stands various atheistic arguments by modern day atheists and agnostics (as well as scientists), most notably Richard Dawkins, none of them completely disprove the existence of God.
As Edward Feser has noted, most atheists currently try and pick holes in religious arguments and vice versa. Clever techniques will be used, such as manipulation and etc.. However, after all the science, ‘evidence’, and arguing is completed, we must still ask, who, what and why was this universe created? We find that the only answer is God.
Bibliography
Anonymous. "5 Arguments For and Against the Existence of God." Listverse. June 18, 2014. Accessed November 19, 2018. http://listverse.com/2012/04/18/5-arguments-for-and-against-the-existence-of-god/.
Feser, Edward. Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide. London: Oneworld, 2013.
Fradd, Matt. "Why Does Every Atheist Misunderstand Your Arguments for God's Existence?" Pints with Aquinas. February 27, 2018. Accessed November 19, 2018. http://pintswithaquinas.com/podcast/why-does-every-atheist-misunderstand-your-arguments-for-gods-existence/.
Kaczor, Christopher. "Library : Who's Deluded? An Atheist Just Doesn't Get Aquinas." Fathers of the Church | Catholic Culture. March 2009. Accessed November 19, 2018. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8848.
Kreeft, Peter. "20 Arguments For God's Existence." Strange Notions. January 21, 2014. Accessed November 19, 2018. https://strangenotions.com/god-exists/.
Vitruvius, Marcus Pollio. "The Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas Are All Dead Ends." Vorpal.us. October 16, 2007. Accessed November 19, 2018. http://www.vorpal.us/2007/10/the-five-ways-of-st-thomas-aquinas-are-all-dead-ends/.