Thomas Acquinas' Five Ways

by ignorance is strength 4 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  ignorance is strength

  Acquinas had five ways to prove that God existed (summarized)

  1. Motion. Since things like planets are moving, something must've put them into motion.

  2. The Cause of Existence. All things are cause by other things, nothing can cause itself to be, there cannot be an endless line of obejects causing others to exist, therefore there must be an uncaused first cause (God)

  3. Contingent and Necessary Objects. There are two types of beings in the universe. Contingent beings can't exist without a necessary being causing its existence. So contingent beings are caused, not every object can be contingent, therefore there must be a necessary being to bring about these contingent beings.

  4. Degrees and Perfection. Humans percieve different degrees of beauty, beauty is a quality. Therefore for any quality there must be a perfect standard.

  5. Intelligent Design. The unviverse works in such a way that one can conclude it had an intelligent designer. All physical laws and the order of nature and the universe were set in motion by God.

  (Source: http://members.aol.com/plweiss1/veritas.htm)

  So, what do you think?
• 

  Francois

  I'd be willing to bet that my friend JanH could dismiss those without so much as working up a sweat.
• 

  Euphemism

  #1, #3, and #4, are, IMHO, examples of the futility of ontological or metaphysical arguments about the existence of God. There is no such thing as a provable ontology or metaphysic, hence any conclusions derived are totally hypothetical.

  #2 is a tautology. The first cause could be the universe itself, matter, etc.

  I agree with #5, although I probably wouldn't argue it in the same way that Aquinas would have.
• 

  refiners fire

  Arguments 2 and 3 are surely the same thing in my mind. They are the argument from first cause. If I am to ask “who made me?” I may as well go further and ask “who made God?”. If everything must have a cause then God must have a cause as well. If one is to suggest that God had no cause, then it is just as valid to say that the universe and physical matter has no cause and exists spontaneously.

  The natural law argument is a line of thinking that was very popular under Newtonian influence. But currently the understanding of the natural world is far beyond Newton. As an example, consider the world of subatomic particles. There can be no doubt that this world exists and operates in the manner understood by modern science, yet what do we find there other than a world of apparent confusion , and chaotic chance.?

  Any 'laws' that you find there are just such laws as result from statistical averages.

  The argument from design goes: “The world is made just so hot, and with so much rain fall as to render the earth a fit place for human habitation” But since Darwin we have understood that humans and animals and microbes adapt to the available environment , not the other way around. One might say we have lungs suited to breathe oxygen because the planets atmosphere comprises oxygen . Indeed, relative to rainfall and temperature the world is undergoing current rapid change. Shall man adapt or shall God step in to save him? If one thinks upon the argument from design and then contemplates the amount of time God has had to generate the utopia that has been promised can anyone doubt that they would do a much better job if they had omnipotence themselves?

  I think the God of ‘design’ has not done too good a job.
• 

  greven

  OK here I go:

  1. Motion. Since things like planets are moving, something must've put them into motion.

  'Something' can be any kind of force like gravitation. Something is not automaticly something with a personality.

  2. The Cause of Existence. All things are cause by other things, nothing can cause itself to be, there cannot be an endless line of obejects causing others to exist, therefore there must be an uncaused first cause (God)

  For clarity let's split this one up:

  a) All things are caused by other things

  b) Nothing can cause itself to be

  c) There cannot be an endless line of objects causing others to exist

  Conclusion: therefore there must be an uncaused first cause (God)

  The conclusion that there must be an 'uncaused first cause' is in contradiction with both a) and b). If God is a thing then it follows from a) that it (or he/she) must have a cause. This is strenthened by b) stating that nothing can cause itself to be. The conclusion here seems to be based entirely on c) which is a conclusion on it's own, derived from unstated premises and therefore unproven.

  3. Contingent and Necessary Objects. There are two types of beings in the universe. Contingent beings can't exist without a necessary being causing its existence. So contingent beings are caused, not every object can be contingent, therefore there must be a necessary being to bring about these contingent beings.

  Seems to play the same game as 2. Stating hard and unproven premises like:

  "There are two types of beings in the universe" (just two? says who?)

  or the conclusion:

  ...therefore there must be a necessary being to bring about these contingent beings.

  again why 'being' and not force, energy or simple matter? Being suggests personality and a high level of organisation and complexity.

  4. Degrees and Perfection. Humans percieve different degrees of beauty, beauty is a quality. Therefore for any quality there must be a perfect standard.

  This is plain silly! There must be a perfect standard...hmm yes, at least in our mind. It doesn't mean that this standard must exist in reality. For example: there are lousy cars, good ones and better ones. This means we use a certain standard to 'measure' this, however it does not mean that the perfect car actually exists outside of our mind. And again, can we substitute 'standard' for 'God'? Does a perfect standard have a personality? Does it care? etc.

  5. Intelligent Design. The universe works in such a way that one can conclude it had an intelligent designer. All physical laws and the order of nature and the universe were set in motion by God.

  It has been proven time and again that randomness combined with natural selection can and does yield complexity and fitness for the surroundings without intelligence causing or steering this process. Junk DNA and other examples from the biological world demonstate 'bad design'.

  That was my quick reply to these arguments. Time prevents me from further elaboration.

  Greven