Phil question
The second objection states that it is superfluous to explain things in a complicated way when we can explain things in a simple way; in other words, if science can explain the patterns and the phenomena of nature adequately, why do we need to posit a Divine Principle? For many people (then and now) this objection is enough to convince that theology is no longer necessary, as it is being replaced by the progressive discoveries of science.
Thomas responds that the existence of God can be proven in Five Ways:
Argument from Motion—Something in motion must be put in motion by another, but this line cannot go back to infinity, otherwise nothing would ever have been put into motion. Therefore we must posit the existence of an Unmoved Mover, which everybody understands to be God. This is a well-known argument, but some critics think that the argument contradicts its own basic premise: “Whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.”
Argument from Efficient Causality—This argument is similar to the first proof because again the impossibility of going back to infinity is the consideration that forces us to conclude to the existence of a first efficient cause.oArgument from Possibility and Necessity—This is a different argument from the first two in that the language of infinity is not present. A possibility (a contingency) need not exist, and everything that is a mere possibility at some time does not exist (otherwise it would not be a mere possibility, but rather a necessity). If all there were in the world were possibilities, and there were no necessities, at one time it would have been the case that there was nothing at all. But this is absurd, because we can see now that there is something in existence. Therefore we must posit the existence of a necessary being, which is God.
Argument from Gradations—There are gradations in being, such as the hottest, the most beautiful, etc. In any genus the maximum is the cause of all else in that genus, so therefore there must be some supreme being that is the cause of the being and goodness of all lesser beings, and this we all know as God.
Argument from Design—Non-intelligent beings (beings other than human beings) all move towards their proper end as if programmed that way. In other words, there appears to be an inherent design to the natural phenomena of this world, and there cannot be design without a Designer, which we all know as God.
Notice how proofs #1 and #5 address the objections that Aquinas starts the question with – the concern about the existence of evil and the concern about the adequacy of science. Discuss this approach offered by St. Thomas: Do his arguments (any one of them) prove that a benevolent God exists despite the presence of evil, and/or that God’s existence is necessary to explain the natural phenomena that we see with our sense? Do you find his effort compelling?
Your Reflection Essay should be 200-250 words.
