GOD

    

 

GOD'S EXISTENCE

Here is the conception of classical philosophical theology: of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and other such thinkers.

God is not an object or substance alongside other objects or substances in the world; rather, He is pure being or existence itself, utterly distinct from the world of time, space, and things, underlying and maintaining them in being at every moment, and apart from whose ongoing conserving action they would be instantly annihilated. The world is not an independent object in the sense of something that might carry on if God were to “go away”; it is more like the music produced by a musician, which exists only when he plays and vanishes the moment he stops. None of the concepts we apply to things in the world, including to ourselves, apply to God in anything but an analogous sense. Hence, for example, we may say that God is “personal” insofar as He is not less than a person, the way an animal is less than a person. But God is not literally “a person” in the sense of being one individual thing among others who reasons, chooses, has moral obligations, etc. such concepts make no sense when literally applied to God.

Aquinas’s famous doctrine of analogy, on which the language we use to refer to God is not used in the same or “univocal” sense in which it is applied to things in this world (as might describe a fire engine and Stop sign as being “red” in exactly the same sense), but neither is it used in a completely different or “equivocal” sense (the way that a tree has “bark” and a dog has a “bark” in entirely different senses,). Rather, it is used in an analogical sense, as when you say hat you “see” the tree in front of you and also that  you can “see” that the Pythagorean theorem must be true. Obviously you don’t see the truth of the theorem in exactly the same sense in which you see a tree, but there is an analogy between vision and intellectual insight that makes the use of the term appropriate in both cases. Similarly, God is not personal, or good, or powerful, or intelligent in the same sense in which a human being is, but He can nevertheless  correctly be described in these terms if they are understood analogously.

We can know which terms apply by examining the arguments for God’s existence and their implications.

There are many various arguments for the existence of God.

The philosopher Alvin Plantinga has suggested that there are at least “two dozens or so”. He calls the following “the argument from the eternal truths.

Plantinga’s Eternal Truths Argument suggests that certain truths exist necessarily and eternally, independent of human minds. These truths include mathematical truths, logical truths, and moral truths. Plantinga argues that the existence of these eternal truths implies the existence of a necessarily existing mind, which he identifies as God.

1. Eternal truths exist: There are truths that are necessarily true in all possible worlds (e.g., 2+2=4, the laws of logic).

2. These truths require a grounding: Such truths cannot exist in a vacuum; they need a foundation or a mind to hold them.

3. A necessarily existing mind: The only sufficient grounding for these eternal truths is a necessarily existing mind, which is God.

Aquinas does not defend this argument himself, but he did endorse the idea that universals and the like exist as “thoughts” in the divine intellect.

Aquinas Scholastic realism leads him to prefer arguments for God’s existence that begin from premises more obviously known through sensory experience.

Thomas Aquinas’ Unmoved Mover Argument is one of his famous “Five Ways” to demonstrate the existence of God, outlined in his work Summa Theologica. This argument is also known as the First Way and is a type of cosmological argument.

Here’s a summary of the Unmoved Mover Argument:

1. Observation of Motion: Aquinas begins by noting that everything in the world is in motion. Motion, in this context, refers to change, which can be physical movement or any change in state.

2. Cause of Motion: He argues that everything in motion must have been set in motion by something else. Nothing can move itself from potentiality to actuality without an external cause.

3. No Infinite Regress: Aquinas contends that there cannot be an infinite chain of movers. If there were, there would be no first mover, and consequently, no subsequent movers. This would mean that nothing would be in motion, which contradicts our observation.

4. First Unmoved Mover: Therefore, there must be a first mover that itself is not moved by anything  else. This unmoved mover is what Aquinas identifies as God.

Aquinas’ argument builds on Aristotle’s concept of the Prime Mover but adapts it to fit his theological framework, emphasizing that this first mover must be a necessary being, without potentiality, and purely actual.

Do you find this argument convincing, or do you have any questions about it?

Thomas Aquinas’ First Cause Argument, also known as the Second Way, is one of his five proofs for the existence of God, presented in his work Summa Theologica. This argument is a type of cosmological argument and focuses on the concept of causation.

Here’s a summary of the First Cause Argument:

1. Observation of Causation: Aquinas begins by noting that in the world, we observe a series of causes and effects. Everything that exists has a cause.

2. No Infinite Regress: He argues that there cannot be an infinite chain of causes. If there were, there would be no first cause, and consequently, no subsequent causes. This would mean that nothing would exist, which contradicts our observation.

3. Necessity of a First Cause: Therefore, there must be a first cause that itself is not caused by anything else. This uncaused cause is what Aquinas identifies as God.                   

Aquinas’ argument is based on the principle that an infinite regress of causes is impossible, and thus, there must be a starting point, a first cause, which is God.

Do you find this argument compelling, or do you have any questions about it?

Thomas Aquinas’ Supreme Intelligence Argument, also known as the Argument from Design or the Fifth Way, is one of his five proofs for the existence of God, presented in his work Summa Theologica. This argument focuses on the apparent order and purpose in the world.

Here’s a summary of the Supreme Intelligence Argument:

1. Observation of Order: Aquinas begins by noting that non-intelligent objects in the world act towards an end or purpose. For example, natural bodies like plants and celestial bodies follow patterns and laws.

2. Purposeful Action: These objects, lacking intelligence, cannot move towards an end unless directed by something with intelligence. Just as an arrow requires an archer to direct it to its target, natural objects require a guiding intelligence.

3. Existence of a Supreme Intelligence: Therefore, there must be an intelligent being that directs all natural things towards their ends. This being is what Aquinas identifies as God. 

Aquinas’ argument suggests that the order and purpose observed in the natural world imply the existence of a supreme intelligence that designed and directs everything.

Do you find this argument compelling, or do you have any questions about it?

Aquinas’s argument for God’s existence show how certain Aristotelian metaphysical ideas that might seem at first glance to abstruse to have any practical relevance—such as the distinction between actuality and potentiality, the principle that effects are contained in their causes either “formally” or “eminently”, and that final causality pervades the natural order—in fact have the most dramatic consequences for the debate between religion and atheism.