The Necessary Being with the Idea of God - Research Paper Example

 Thomas Aquinas, the 13th century philosopher, Catholic saint and doctor of the Catholic Church proved God’s existence through five cosmological proofs which he did through logic. In this paper, three of the five proofs are presented in an exposition and critically evaluated. Aquinas may have successfully proven the first three proofs through logic but he fails to account for some of his a priori statements and for the possibility that the God whose existence he has proven must be greater than the first cause, the first mover and the necessary being that he has proven. Exposition Aquinas’ cosmological argument begins with an objection that concludes that God does not exist, and this is followed by the contention that there is no need to suppose God’s existence because everything is simply human reason or will. However, Aquinas quotes from the Book of Exodus in the Bible a statement that contradicts the first two conclusions. He then supports such contradicting statement with five proofs of God’s existence. The first objection to the question “Whether God Exists?” concludes that God does not exist: 1) Par. 1: God is infinite goodness; 2) Par. 1: If God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; 3) Par. 1: There is evil in the world; 4) Par. 1: God does not exist (Aquinas, 1998, p. 126). The first objection presents a negative answer to the question whether God exists. In fact, the second objection somehow supports the first objection. The second objection to the question presents a point of view which concludes that since everything can be reduced to human reason, then God’s existence must not be necessary: 5) Par. 1: If God did not exist, everything in this world can be accounted for by other principles; 6) Par. 2: All voluntary things can be reduced to one principle, which is human reason or will; 7) Par. 2: There is no need to suppose God’s existence (Aquinas, 1998, p. 126). Based on the preceding objection, the second objection begins with a supposition which implies that even if God did not exist, there would still be other principles that would explain the existence of all other things in this world. It then follows that all these principles can be reduced to one – human reason or free will. It then follows that God has no place in such a world where the only principle that exists is human reason or free will. However, surprisingly, Aquinas takes advantage of such a conclusion in his statements of contradiction: 8) Par. 3: It is said in the person of God: I am Who am (Exod. iiii.14); 9) Par. 2: All things can be reduced to human reason or will; 10) Par. 3: The existence of God can be proved in five ways [using human reason or will] (Aquinas, 1998, p. 126). Statement 8, or God’s declaration of Himself, is a contradiction of all the previous statements which reveal that God does not exist. However, for Aquinas, God’s declaration of Himself is not enough to account for His existence. Therefore, based on a previous a priori statement – All things can be reduced to human reason or will – Aquinas decides to support God’s declaration of Himself by proving His existence through human reason or will. Aquinas then proceeds with his five proofs of God’s existence: 11) Par. 4: In the world, some things are in motion; 12) Par. 4: Whatever is moved is moved by another; 13) Par. 4: But this cannot go on to infinity; 14) Par. 4: It is necessary to arrive at a first mover, who is God (Aquinas, 1998, pp. 126-127). The above proof is self explanatory and explicitly states the presence of an unmoved mover as the first mover, and this first mover is what “everyone understands to be God” (Aquinas, 1998, p. 127). Furthermore, Aquinas goes on to explain another proof of God’s existence, which is not linked to the first one: 15) Par. 5: There is an order of efficient causes in this world; 16) Par. 5: Nothing can cause itself because it would be impossible for it to be prior to itself; 17) Everything is caused by another thing other than itself; 18) Par. 5: In matters of efficient cause, it is not possible to go on to infinity; 19) Par. 6: If (18) is not true, there would be neither a first efficient cause nor an ultimate effect; 20) Par. 6: It is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, which everyone calls God (Aquinas, 1998, p. 127). In the preceding six statements above, Aquinas implies after Statement 16 that “everything is caused by another thing other than itself. Moreover, through Statement 19, Aquinas destroys the possibility that the series of efficient causes would go on to infinity. Therefore, through Statement 19, it was possible to conclude from Statement 18 that Statement 20 is true. After this, Aquinas goes on to prove God’s existence the third time through the idea of a necessary being: 21) Par. 7: All things are possible to be and not to be; 22) Par. 7: If everything was once not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence; 23) Par. 7: If at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; 24) Par. 7: That which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing; 25) Things exist now and things have existed since after that time when nothing existed; 26) Par. 7: There must exist something the existence of which is necessary for the existence of all other things except itself, for it does not receive its necessity from anything else other than itself, and this is what “all men speak of as God” (Aquinas, 1998, p. 127). Critical Evaluation Although they may seem logical, the premises of Aquinas’ arguments are actually mostly mere assumptions. Firstly, on the first objection, it would not be valid to assume from God’s infinite goodness that there would be no evil. God’s infinite goodness after all may actually mean allowing evil to coexist with the good, because God is so good that He allows the existence of everything, even that of evil. Secondly, God’s declaration of Himself in the Book of Exodus is actually a mere statement written by a human author, and so it cannot be taken as the word of God Himself. Thirdly, the statement that all things can be reduced to only one principle – that of human reason – is somehow unproven and is merely considered by Aquinas as an a priori statement. Fourthly, in his proofs of the first mover and the first cause, his a priori idea that the series cannot go on to infinity seems to require proof. It seems that it would be impossible for Aquinas to know exactly why something cannot go on to infinity. After all, numbers can go on to infinity, and numbers are used to count the series of efficient causes. Fifthly, although Aquinas has somehow successfully proven the validity of the first mover, the first cause, and the necessary being, it would seem like an entirely different story to use this as valid proofs of God’s existence. Perhaps, what Aquinas has proven was merely the existence of a first mover, first cause and necessary being but not necessarily the existence of God. God must be loftier than a mover, a cause and a necessary being. More importantly, human reason must not be enough to exactly prove God’s existence, if ever God really existed. Lastly, if God’s existence can be traced only through all moving things, all efficient causes, and all existing things, then it simply means that God’s existence must be dependent on other things, which will make one question God’s omnipotence. The point is, if nothing existed, then God cannot be called a first cause, because there is not even a second or third. In such a situation, how can one even call God as a cause because God has not caused anything. His existence therefore, based on Aquinas’ proof, depends on other things. If God is dependent, then this is hardly the all-powerful God that we know. Conclusion Aquinas has somehow successfully proved the existence of the first mover, the first cause and the necessary being, through a logical approach. Aquinas considered these proofs also as proofs of God’s existence. Firstly, God is the first mover of everything that is moved by something else. Secondly, God is the first cause of a finite series of causes. Thirdly, God is the first being on whom all other beings that first existed depended for their existence. However, although there is nothing wrong with Aquinas’ logical method, there is something wrong with most of his a priori statements like the idea that a series of causes is finite. There is also a problem with having to eventually equate the first mover, the first cause and the necessary being with the idea of God. Certainly, God must be more than what any human being must think it is. Bibliography Aqunas, T. (1998). “The Existence of God and the Beginning of the World.” Philosophy of Religion. 3rd ed. Eds. W. L. Rowe & W. J. Wainwright. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace and Company, 126-127. Read More