Aquinas Cosmological Argument For The Existence Of God

St. Thomas Aquinas’s first cosmological argument, the prime mover, defines things in the world as being either in a state of potentiality or in a state of actuality. Those things that are in potentiality are things that have the capability of being reduced to another form. Such as a boy is potentially a man, or tree is potentially a house. Things that are in a state of actuality are things that are currently reaching their potential; such as that boy becoming a man, or that tree becoming that house. Aquinas observed that all things in a state of actuality had to have been put into that state by something that was already in actuality. In thinking about this he concluded that there would have to be an infinite regress of actual things making potential things actual. He concluded that this would be impossible because given that, there would be no first mover. He instead, postulated that there must be a first mover. A being that never had potential but only has existed in a state of infinite actuality. That what we call God.

Therefore the universe (cosmos) has a cause c) That cause is God d) Therefore God exists. For this to follow Aquinas has to exclude the possibility of infinite regression; i.e. events with their previous causes going back in time forever).

In an attempt to justify the existence of God, Christian Philosopher, St Thomas Aquinas, has developed an argument which derived from his observation of the physical world. He evidently observed that everything in the universe is moving and that which is moving is certain that it must have been moved by something else which has also been moved by something else. However, he realizes that by tracing back who has caused the very first movement, he believes that there must

The arguments made by Aquinas at first seem to be powerful. However, when examining and taking a closer look the arguments don’t seem to be as

One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this

Aquinas sets up this argument in his discussion of whether or not God exists. His five proofs set up the framework for much of his later writings in the Summa

Than there has to be something that already existed to make everything exist and for that to happen that had to be someone, so that is God. Aquinas also pointed one in one of his earlier proofs of the First Mover. Aquinas says that anything moved is moved by another, so there must be a first mover (a mover that is not itself moved by another) and that first mover is God. Both of the philosophers used great methods to come to their conclusion about how god came into existence. They both used different thinking methods to get to their well respected arguments but did come to the conclusion that God does “exist”. I believe the key difference about the two philosophers was the time difference between the philosophers, Thomas Aquinas wrote his proofs in the medieval ages around the 1200’s while ( with no disrespect) Rene Descartes wrote his meditation in the 1600’s. There is a big 400 year gap between ideas are compared but that came down to the same conclusion

Without a first mover there can be no motions, this is Aquinas’ third arguments as to god existing through motion. Nothing can move itself. In other words, if you take away something that can actually be moved then you’re also taking away anything that can potentially be moved. For example, there is no milk without a cow. “the reason a student has the potential to be awake is that he had (actual) toast for breakfast. Toast has the potential to keep the student awake. But (actual) bread has the potential to become toast, and actual grain has the potential to become bread. Actual water, dirt, and air have the potential to become grain. To take away any of these actualities is ultimately to take away the potential for the student to be alert”

Therefore, it is more believable that the universe had a beginning and a personal creator. The third of Aquinas' ways is the argument of contingency. The world consists of contingent items- items that have a property are items referred to as 'being.' These items are generated and perish; they have a beginning and an end.

One famous objection to Aquinas' argument is put forward by Paul Edwards (1923-2004) in his work titled A Critique of the Cosmological Argument (1959). I will begin by briefly restating Aquinas' argument and then I will summarize Edward's objection to Aquinas' argument and Aquinas' response. I will conclude my paper

Theories have arisen from many different philosophers trying to explain the existence of God; the Cosmological Argument is one such theory. The Cosmological Argument has been changed and reviewed for years; however, the focus has always stayed the same. The universe is a prime example that there is a God. A simple Cosmological argument states that:

Does God exist? That question has been asked by people for centuries. Christians, Jews, and Muslims would all say that God exists. They would claim that He is the creator of all things and is of a higher being than man is. Others would claim either that God does not exist or that God is not what the Christians, Jews, and Muslims say He is. Both Anselm and Aquinas address this question: Anselm in his "Proslogion" and Aquinas in his "Summa Theologica." The opinions of Anselm and Aquinas as to the nature of God are the same, although Anselm lacks the proof to back up his claims.

St. Thomas' first proof is based on the argument of motion. By our natural senses, we know that the earth and the universe are always in motion. However for Aquinas, the term motion did not just mean physical motion but also change as in change from potential to actuality. He reasoned that all change is the result of a cause and as such nothing can move or change itself. He also noted that the sequence of motion cannot be traced back infinitely and so there must be a first mover who is unmovable and that being is God.

The final crucial proof of the existence of God is Aquinas fourth proof. This proof looks at qualities of humans; all humans possess many different attributes which we consider unique to each individual. This is when standards are formed humans began to have a certain criteria for how or what someone with a given attribute should act or how they should portray themselves. The only way this standard could come into existence is to believe that there is a perfect creation possessing all qualities and expressing them in the most precise and perfect way. This perfect creation is God, the person in which humans get the laws at which the obeyed by. Aquinas five proofs of the existence of God are much more extensive but just looking at the proof of motion and the proof of perfection it becomes unquestionable that there is an almighty creation. This superior creation creates laws at which

St. Thomas Aquinas is a famous philosopher from the medieval period who believed there was a god. One of Aquinas significant works in philosophy was his argument that God exists. In Aquinas' argument, or also known as Summa Theologica, he uses five arguments to support the claim that God exist and four of them are cosmological argument. Cosmological arguments are arguments that try to reason that god exists because of the universe or cosmos leads to the conclusion that god exists. His first argument is the Argument From Motion. In the argument of motion Aquinas observed that we live in a world and universe that things are continuously moving, and he also noticed that to make something move something has to move or start it moving. To Aquinas this means that everything that is moving must have been moved by something or someone and there had to be a time when the thing wasn't moving. The mover for the beginning of everything in Aquinas' argument is God. The second argument is the Argument From Causation which is very similar to the Argument From Motion. Aquinas thoughts were that everything that is caused had to be caused by something else. Nothing can cause it's self so there must be an thing that is uncaused and to Aquinas that thing is God because it can't go back forever. The Third argument is The Argument From Contingency. Contingency is a future or thing that could have not existed and Aquinas believe that the world can't always be contingent because then it could have