Evaluation of Aquinas
on the
Existence of God
First and foremost, there is no overlooking the more than possible bias that Aquinas has. I may be assuming when I say this, but if your entire life is based around the Church and becoming a priest, then more than likely you believe in God already. But I am not here to advocate either side of the argument; my role is to simply examine Aquinas' logic and follow it until it doesn't make sense anymore - at which point I'll critique. Is his argument air-tight? Not by any means. But was he on to something? Most definitely.
Article 1: Is it self-evident that God exists?
Aquinas says that it is not God that is implanted in us naturally but desire, and I can live with that. But what if (in the case of Aquinas and really all philosophers) God was the desire? That what you yearned for in life was God and the knowledge about God? In this case God's existence is completely self-evident, but only to the ones who want to figure it out.
Article 2: Can we demonstrate that God exists?
Aquinas argues that God is demonstrated through faith or belief; that since we are living perpetually in an effect of God, living is how we come to know God. But part two of his reply to Article 1 states that "if we do not grant that something in fact exists than which nothing greater can be thought, the conclusion that God in fact exists does not follow." Keeping in mind that there are plenty of Atheist out in the world, I'd say he just shot himself in the foot.
Article 3: Does God exist?
Other than thinking that the first three Ways (Change, Causation, and the Possible and Necessary) are just three different ways to describe potentiality and actuality, I find Aquinas' "Five Ways" to be the hardest to criticize, the logic follows almost perfectly. Almost.
The Fifth Way is pretty solid even though he does not really specify what he means by "lacking intelligence." A living plants lacks intelligence when compared to me, but we would say that the plant is more intelligent than a 2x4 because it can photosynthesize and turn its leaves - it all works in levels. It follows then that God would be more intelligent than humans.
The Fourth Way is even better. He combines both Aristotle's and Plato's views on God into a working theory.
The last three Ways would be great arguments (despite their redundancy) if it wasn't for one thing, why does it have to stop? There is no reason for me not to believe that this game of "What Created It?" could go on forever without a beginning or an end and that there is just an infinite chain of causes. In fact, this infinite sequence stays more to the logic of potentiality and actuality than having a completely actualized God since you can always ask the question "what created God?" So I guess the debate rages on.
Sources: "Medieval Philosophy: Essential Readings with Commentary," Allhoff, Klima, Waidya, Blackwell Publishing 2007
Home | Biography | Intellectual Background | Overview | Evaluation | Back to Project Tapestry
Site Last Updated: 11/01/2005