From the Summa Theologica, written in the 13th century. No one has improved on these since. The existence of God can be demonstrated through natural reason, apart from religious texts.
"I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
First let me say I have no idea what you are talking about, but that when I shared with my husband your earlier posed questions, he said, oh, let me tell you about Aquinas. And now here is your entry--I need to get it translated ;-) As I said to my husband, debating this stuff with someone who never took the class (me) is a tough thing. My husband always has to describe these ideas to me.
Truthfully, God is about as foreign to me as aliens. I don't mean that to be insulting. Despite the fact that my grandparents were deeply Catholic and my parent were educated by nuns, the information stopped with them.
Why are there so many religions on this planet? Which group has got it right? To me it seems more plausible to imagine that people create religion to help them deal with the mysteries of life. I just can't imagine that our brains really comprehend any of this. I know mine can't.
If I was to say what I do believe, in my own conscience that is, using the thoughts of Ernest Becker, psychological inquiry is inevitably and belief systems must be invoked to satisfy the human psyche.
So glad to see your note. I was looking forward to it.
I know the feeling. I was an agnostic in college. I was pretty outspoken about it, and I know it hurt my mother. I know life in a world with no God. I didn't look down on people who were religious, but thought they did tend to use their faith as a crutch to get through difficult times, to put more meaning into life than what there really was.
There are definitely a lot of religions. Many or most of them are still confusing to me. I wouldn't lump them all together. If you look at them closely, they do propose things which all can't be true at the same time. Christians say Jesus was God, everyone else says he was just a man. He either was or he wasn't, right? Christians, Jews, and Muslims say God is a unity; everyone else says either he didn't exist, or there are many gods. They all can't be right. I think it would be fair for an athiest to say some religions are at least more sensible than others.
Aquinas's arguments boil down to two. We now also have the hindsight of Newton for one of them. Newton says nothing moves unless it is acted upon. Aquinas looks at life and sees motion. Something had to put things into motion. There had to be a "first mover" before which there was no other. His second argument was about cause and effect. He looked around at everything in the world and saw it as an effect of something else. Not everything can be an effect, though. There had to be a "first cause". Aquinas says there logically has to be something bigger than us that always existed, that had no previous mover and no previous cause.
The Catholic Church proposes that faith isn't opposed to reason. It also says that faith is a gift. It's something you ask for. It's an awkward thing to do. More or less talking to yourself into space, going against what your mind is telling you that there is no God, and still going through the motion of having those words come out of the mouth.
There was a Jewish boy who was dared by his friends to go into one of the confessionals at Notre Dame in Paris and give the priest a hard time. He did so, cursing profanities at the priest. After he calmed down, the priest said to the boy, he had one request. Would the boy march out into the church in front of the giant crucifix suspended over the altar, and yell at the top of his lungs three times: You up there on the cross, you are not God!
The boy obliged.
You up there on the cross, you are not God! You up there on the cross, you are not God! You up there... why are you on that cross?
As this boy later told it, he eventually came back to that confessional, eventually became a priest. It was just a couple of decades ago that this boy took posession of the Archdiocese of Paris as Archbishop Lustiger. He recently passed away.
No one I think can argue you into believing in God. They can only explain their own paths and reasoning. But who knows what would happen if you asked for it.
Post a Comment