Mr

Are Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God convincing? Do they have any value?

Needless to say, Aquinas upset many of the popular theological ideas prevalent before him. Even though his work was unfinished at the time of his death, his ideas were brought into the theology of the church, giving Christianity a genuine intellectual and rational foundation. Aquinas' work influenced the philosophical climate of the day and gave reason a legitimate place in Christian theology.

One of Thomas's most important proofs is based on the idea that all movement has a cause. For a body to move, there must be something to cause the movement. Obviously, there is an abundance of movement in the world. According to Aquinas, it is clear that some being must have initiated the first movement. It follows that because God is this First Mover, God exists.

It seems to me that if all movement must be caused by some being, it follows that even God would have to have a mover in order to move. This supports the idea of an infinite succession of movers. Even though this type of critique is fully justified, most people and cultures have a line of thought that makes us believe that a definite beginning and end exist - an alpha and an omega - I think that it is more sensible to think that movement has always existed, and that there is thus no need for a First Mover.

Another interesting argument Aquinas presents is based on a conception of possibility and necessity. Thomas thought that every possible event occurs at some point in time. As all existing things could also not exist, there was once a time when nothing existed. If such a point in time did exist, then nothing could be created either, as nothingness cannot become anything by itself. It is evident, that at least some things exist in the present moment, which means that even in the time when nothing existed, something had to exist in order to create something out of the nothing. Therefore, God had to exist even when nothing else existed to create everything in existence now.

It is not logically contradictory to say that some event is possible, even though it never happens. It is possible for me to rise up from my chair right now - sitting and writing instead does not change this. Even if I never rose up from my chair this would not mean that rising from the chair is impossible. The same holds the other way round - if something has happened, it does not mean that it might not have been possible that the event in question had not happened. We cannot change the past, but that does not mean that the past had to unfold the way it did. Even if we accepted his view of possibility, the critique of the first mover would be valid here as well.

The last of Saint Thomas's proofs is the most interesting and convincing. It is based on the notion of the purposefulness of nature. Animals behave in very sensible ways even though their intelligence can be assumed rather limited. For example, several species of birds fly south to escape the cold of winter. They clearly do not have the capacity to reason that this would be a sensible course of action, so how is it possible that in spite of this they behave in this very wise way? The answer Aquinas gives to this problem is that God makes the birds fly to the south, and all other animals to behave in sensible, life-preserving ways therefore God exists.

Before Darwin, this was a very convincing argument. The probability that the animals would act this way by chance is too low. Darwin however, has led people to believe that the methods of natural science are sufficient to explain the seemingly sensible behavior of animals. Darwins claims seem to me to be more ridiculous that Aquinas' and also has been proven mathematically improbable since Darwin's assertions.

I. The existence of God

A. Of God

1. Whatever concerns the Divine Essence;

a) Whether God exists?

(1) Whether the proposition "God exists" is self-evident?

(2) Whether it is demonstrable?

(3) Whether God exists?

b) The manner of His existence, or, rather, what is NOT the manner of His existence;

c) Whatever concerns His operations--namely, His knowledge, will, power.

2. Whatever concerns the distinctions of Persons;

3. Whatever concerns the procession of creatures from Him.

B. Of the rational creature's advance toward God

C. Of Christ, who as man, is our way to God

II. Whether the existence of God is self-evident?

A. It seems that the existence of God is self-evident

1. Reply to Objection 1: To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude

B. when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part

1. Reply