Criticisms on St. Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs of God’s Existence
Does God really exist? This was an on-going debate centuries before „til now, for everyone wants an answer about it. St. Thomas Aquinas has made 5 arguments for the proof of existence of God, summarized in his book, Summa Theologica. But are his arguments plausible? In his first argument about the Unmoved Mover, he states that everything is moved because of o f a mover. But still, there are things that are moved without the consent of an existent ex istent mover. Therefore, there is an unmoved, infinite mover who controls all things called God. In the first place, I thought this was the movement of natural objects. I was about to ask the first group about the First Law of Motion by Newton which is the Law of Inertia, if that applies in this argument. But it was not literally the natural locomotion of things; rather it is the motion of changes inside the world. It is right that we are sometimes unconscious of some changes in this world. world. We humans don‟t have the infinite capability of doing all things; therefore there is someone who‟s capable: He is God. I personally agree with this one. The second argument talks about Him, being the cause of all things. And everything that is caused is caused by something else. And, an infinite regress of causation is impossible; therefore He is the Cause and Creator of everything. I have read the argument of Hume in his posthumously published book, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779) about the chain wherein he proposed that the chain is caused by another chain and then it goes infinity. It was connected to the principle of integers wherein there is a number higher than a given number. We can see that this sequence will never end, because for every number n there is a larger number n + 1.
Similarly we can trace the number backwards 1,0,-1,-2... and so on. This sequence too, has
no end, because for every negative number -n there exists a larger negative number -n-1. Looking at it this way, "first cause" has as much meaning as the "largest positive number". The largest positive number still isn‟t established, therefore there is no God. Furthermore, Hume argued that even if the argument is valid, i.e. that there is a first cause, it would not establish the existence of God. For one thing, why shouldn't the first cause be the universe itself rather than God? My reaction at Hume‟s argument is who created the universe, then? And God can establish the largest possible number as He wishes. Just remember that everything starts on a beginning and finishes in an end. The third argument states that there is a necessary being versus the contingent beings. And that necessary being is God. We are all finite, and that is the composition of contingency. We also came from nonexistence, to existence, and then again to nonexistence. In this argument, I thought of what really is the reason why I lived in this world full of challenges, for we shall not exist without His consent, and He shall exist without our consent. And I thought only of one thing: we will live with our free will but we shall praise Him all our life for He has made us perfectly, and saved us from eternal death. Perfection has degrees, as told on the fourth argument of Aquinas. For everything has a variation of perfection and there is an ultimate standard of perfection, which is God. We shall admit that we are imperfect beings for we have committed sins. Yes, different cultures and societies define what is therefore good or bad for them as a rejection argument on class, but still perfection here talks about being freed from mistakes. And our own concept of perfection, defines God!
And the teleological argument or argument from "design" of Aquinas is his last argument. It talks about how God governs everything, even the laws of nature, and how we are created. I even contradicted this on class for the Natural Selection and Evolution Theories of Charles Darwin can explain this, for adaptation can be a factor in changes in the nature of a particular organism. Still, we‟re too perfect to live in this world! What I mean is that, our construction of body, how our several organ systems are arranged inside us, and the planets follow their own orbits. Planets themselves have no conscience, so there must be someone who guides them. Also, the Fibonacci numbers and the Golden Ratio in organisms give us insight of patterned and well-made creations wherein nature itself follows a certain computation of living. In general, St. Thomas Aquinas hasn‟t proved the existence of God scientifically. He hasn‟t because in science every hypothesis requires evidence. He doesn‟t give his readers evidences but he has given us insight of how really great He is. Rejecters of Aquinas‟ arguments didn‟t persuade me of opposing it but rather has given me stronger faith to God. Ever since I was a child, I believed in an omnipotent and an omniscient God. Apparently, I doubted in Him not because by a posteriori (experience), but a priori (logically). “If really God exists, then everything is ECCENTRIC!” I always tell myself before. But He never failed me by experience. For example, He has given me a chance to study here at UP because of His guidance. It‟s just the time came that I became jealous on Him. I even wanted to become a god. But then, I realized that everything is going wrong: I have committed and I will commit sins; for He has not. He governs everything; I cannot. He created the Heaven and the Earth; and I am here, living in His world for a given purpose that until now I don‟t know. I can‟t even create anything, for He is the only being that is capable of. We shall be grateful that He has given the chance to live with free will and even died for us: for He loved and will always love us, eternally.
