St Thomas Aquinas Essay Research Paper What

St. Thomas Aquinas Essay, Research Paper

What is the Best Manner to Prove God? A Comparison of St.

Thomas Aquinas St. Thomas Aquinas is one of the greatest

theologists that has of all time been. He recognized that there

were some people who doubted the being of God because,

to them, logic did non let for or explicate God & # 8217 ; s being. Bing a

devout Christian, he of course believed in God, but he wanted to

prove God & # 8217 ; s being to those who could non accept things on

religion entirely. As a consequence, we have five cogent evidences of the being of

God by St. Thomas Aquinas, all of which are based on logic and

observation of nature. One of his cogent evidence is based on the thought of

a first mover and another is based on the thought that intelligence

is necessary to direct non-intelligent objects. I believe that

this 5th statement is better that the first. St. Thomas

Aquinas & # 8217 ; first statement attempts to turn out that there must be a

foremost mover. He calls this first mover God. He proves this by

stating that whatever is in gesture must hold been put in gesture

by something else. He so defines one type of gesture as the

decrease of something from potency to actuality, and says

that nil can do this motion except by something that

is already in actuality in the same regard as the first object is

in potency. He goes on to state that no thing can be both

existent and possible in regard to the same facet and, therefore,

that nil can be both moved and mover. In this, he means

that nil can travel itself. Therefore, if something is in

gesture, it must hold been put in gesture by something else, which

must hold been put in gesture by yet another thing, and so on.

However, this can non travel on to eternity, as St. Thomas Aquinas

explains, because there would ne’er hold been a fist mover and,

therefore, no subsequent movers. This leads to the decision that

there is a first mover, and this first mover is what is called

God. His 5th statement is really much more simple. Merely by

detecting the universe, we see the non-intelligent things ever

act toward an terminal. ( It is this observation of the existence that

is the footing for the scientific disciplines, particularly the scientific discipline of natural philosophies. )

We besides see that non-intelligent things can non travel toward

their terminal unless directed by an intelligent being. As an illustration,

St. Thomas Aquinas uses an pointer. An pointer will non accomplish its

intent ( that of making its grade ) unless directed to make so by

an bowman. Obviously, worlds are the intelligent existences that

direct the little objects of our universe, but there must be a

greater intelligence that directs the larger organic structures of the

existence, such as the stars and the planets, since we evidently

hold no control over them. This higher intelligence is what we

call God. These two statements approach the job of turn outing

God & # 8217 ; s being in two wholly different ways. One goes the

path of stating there must be something that started

everything, and the other says there must be something that

controls the things that are here, even if & # 8220 ; it & # 8221 ; did non make

them. Both of these statements seem, at first, to be good and

valid in their separ

Ate attacks. However, the first on does

hold one major defect as I see it. St. Thomas Aquinas says that

the line of movers can non travel on to eternity, which common sense

would state you to be true. He therefore establishes the arbitrary

end point of God. The job I see is that this statement could

ever be tested to be false by inquiring the inquiry, & # 8220 ; What

Moved God? & # 8221 ; St. Thomas Aquinas would likely reply that

nil mover God because God has ever existed. I personally

believe this to be true, but, to turn out his first statement, St.

Thomas Aquinas must attach to it by another statement that

proves God has existed everlastingly. Then, God would non necessitate to

have been moved since He would hold ever been. This would

brand for a sort of round defect in logic or paradox, in that he

could non turn out God existed until he proved God has existed

everlastingly, and he evidently can non turn out that God has existed

everlastingly until he proves that God exists at all. Because of this, I

make non believe God can be proved by agencies of St. Thomas

Aquinas & # 8217 ; first statement or by any similar agencies. In St. Thomas

Aquinas & # 8217 ; 5th statement, nevertheless, I do non see any defects in

logic and I do non thing it needs to trust on any other statements

to be valid. Merely by detecting the existence, we have found that

it operates harmonizing to certain regulations or Torahs. However, it

seems really improbable that these Torahs merely appeared out of

nowhere, that they emerged with the creative activity of the existence.

Harmonizing to presently accepted scientific theory, the existence

started with the large knock. This theory besides states that, if

anything existed before the large knock, we can non foretell what it

was like because physical Torahs did non regulate the existence at

that clip. So, it seems, physical Torahs must hold merely appeared as

a consequence of the large knock. Science, which traditionally tries to

explicate the existence without the & # 8220 ; crutch & # 8221 ; or engagement of

God, can non and could ne’er explicate why these Torahs exist in the

foremost topographic point. The lone account I can see is that God has put

them at that place to regulate the existence. This is the same statement

St. Thomas Aquinas uses, and it seems to be wholly self-

back uping and free of any defects in logic. For these grounds, I

believe this statement to be better than the first statement.

Proving the being of God is a worthwhile undertaking. If person

did come up with a complete, unfailing statement for the

being of God, the people of the universe would hold no pick

but to believe in His being. However, even though St.

Thomas Aquinas makes a worthy attempt, I believe that such a

undertaking is non possible through logic and concluding entirely. There is

an component of religion that must be present for people to believe,

and if that component is non at that place, no affair how foolproof an

statement seems to be, there will ever be those who do non

believe. In his 5th statement, St/ Thomas Aquinas makes as

near to goofproof statement that I believe anyone could do,

and, for me, it does turn out God & # 8217 ; s being. However, if that

component of religion is non at that place, I do non believe you can wholly

prove God & # 8217 ; s being to everyone.