Atheists, Does this explanation allow for the possible existance of God? (Read Entire Description)?

Question

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument

The great Catholic thinker, philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas summarized his cosmological argument in the Summa Theologia. In this theological masterpiece, St. Thomas writes five "ways" that we can know God exists. His first three ways deal with the cosmological argument:
St. Aquinas argues that there are things in the world in motion (this simply means that things are changing) and that whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by another thing in motion. Aquinas holds that, "whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another," and that, "this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover." Hence St. Thomas argues that in order to eliminate the infinite chain of motions, there must be a first mover and source of all motion, God.
The second way is very similar to the first. It argues that," 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." By this he means that any thing, circumstance or event cannot change itself, but can only change something else (concept of efficient cause). Since there is a string of causes in which the string cannot be infinite (see premise #1), then all causes must attribute themselves to a first cause: God.
The third way also argues using the notion of a chain of causes. St. Thomas notes that things in our world owe their existence to something else in the world. Aquinas calls this the way of "possibility and necessity," meaning that all things made possible, necessarily attribute their existence to some pre-existing thing. Only God can be the source of all things since he is a being having its own necessity and does not need a pre-existing thing to cause him to exist. All things existing can trace themselves in a chain back to God.

A second shorter version of the cosmological argument can be formulated as:
Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being.
Not every being can be a dependent being.
So there exists a self-existent being.

Finally, a third rendition of the cosmological argument (extracted from the book Philosophy for Dummies by Dr. Tom Morris):

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.
2. The existence of the universe is thus either:
a. unintelligible or
b. has an explanation
3. No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality
4. A rational person should accept (2b), that the universe has some explanation for its being.
5. There are only three kinds of explanations:
a. Scientific: physical conditions plus relevant laws yield the Event explained.
b. Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c. Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.
6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can’t be scientific because there can’t be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained. Event the Big Bang theory fails to explain the existence of the universe because modern science cannot explain where the original Big Bang singularity came from. The universe as a sum total of all natural conditions and laws cannot be explained unless we have an Archimidean reference point outside the system.
7. The explanation for the existence of the universe can’t be essential because the universe cannot exist necessarily. This is because, it could have been possible for the universe not to have existed (if the Big Bang had been slightly different it is possible for large-scale structures to not have existed). Thus the universe is not something the must necessarily or essentially exists.
8. Thus a rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.
9. No personal agent but God could create the entire universe.
10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.

The Teleological Argument

The teleological argument, or argument from design, is also summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Here is the extract from the Summa:

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things that 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

Answer 1

To my mind none of these arguments work, because for any one of them one can simply substitute the word "world" or "universe" with the word "god", and we are back at square one. We have explained nothing, just added an extra layer of complexity called "god" to the universe.



The most sensible part of that is Morris's point 7. I would say yes it can be essential, and the existence of the universe be inevitable, if we allow every possible universe. Problem solved.

Answer 2

All of Aquinas's arguments have been debunked as lacking in one or more logical components. For example, in his cosmological argument, he posits a supernatural being as the cause of the universe, yet he doesn't prove the existance of this being nor does he explain how this being came into existence. If a god can exist without cause, then why can't the universe?



Aquinas wrote in a time when science was in its infancy--modern cosmology and the biological sciences were nonexistent. The beginning of the universe, abiogenesis, and evolution all have natural causes; thus, no need for a supernatural being living in a supernatural realm as agent is necessary.

Answer 3

"St. Aquinas argues that there are things in the world in motion (this simply means that things are changing) and that whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by another thing in motion."



how do you know the natural state of things isn't to be in motion and lack of motion isn't a state caused by existing in this universe when in contact with other matter? Remember things only stop with respect to other things.



All in all I understand the argument but it begs the question of were god came from and then if god can always be there why cant the universe have the same timeless quality?

Answer 4

"this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover."---argument from personal incredulity.

2nd way is similar to the 1st ? But the 1st is flawed so...

Only God can be the source of all things since he is a being having its own necessity and does not need a pre-existing thing to cause him to exist.----Oh, his imaginary attributes assigned to God to make himself feel better about the mysterious universe are the answer to why God escapes the logic he applies to everything else. Special pleading.

even assuming that I let all that crap slide and get to #10,

A rational person should believe that there is a God.

We still have a God who lets babies starve to death. Either we have no God or God is a monster.Case closed. Still, props for using lots of words.

Answer 5

No. Short answer: Each of his arguments springs from an unsubstantiated assumption. If you challenge his initial assumptions, his arguments fall apart.



First argument: St. Aquinas argues that there are things in the world in motion (this simply means that things are changing) and that whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by another thing in motion.



That is an unsupportable assumption. Back in Aquinas' day, he could get away with that kind of sh*t, because disagreement would get one burned at the stake. Now, we have knowledge of science. Electrons are apparently waves and matter (existing simultaneously) in motion and stationary. Explain that with Aquinas' logic. He lived in a macro world. He didn't even know what atoms are.

Answer 6

Your story illustrates an interesting point. Of course, you accept that it is out of your imagination, and is metaphor. But many people do not accept the story of God and Satan as metaphor. They take it literally. God and Satan are both imaginary characters created a very long time ago for a variety of reasons, some perhaps useful at the time, and some downright wrong. One important one was to give the priests power. Life is NOT a mathematical puzzle with only one right answer.

Answer 7

I am believer but have you tried reading david hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion? He dismissed every single argument by Aquinas and also paley's argument from design. I must say that he does this very well.

Answer 8

I stopped reading after the first point. This argument has been used SO many times, but it fails to prove anything. Why is God the one exception to your cause and effect logic? I can say that a magical green dragon created the world, and was the first thing in existence, and you can't disprove me.

Answer 9

His first argument is flawed right away. If God was the first mover, then how did He come to be there? And what caused Him to move? And if no cycle can go on indefinitely, then he claims not even God is eternal.



So no, it is not convincing from the very start.

Answer 10

You copypasta'd so much that you ran out of space. Fortunately, I'm familiar with the cosmological argument and I already know it's bull, so I don't have to read your giant wall of words.

Answer 11

Aquinas' arguments were debunked centuries ago.

Answer 12

Nope it doesn't. He was assuming that the universe is not infinite

Answer 13

I would rather a picture over a wall of text.

Answer 14

That made my head hurt. You need to simplify it if you want us to read all that.

Answer 15

justification of assumption to look like possible.

Answer 16

If it takes that many words, then it probably does not exist.

Answer 17

i stopped at "great catholic thinker"

Answer 18

It didn't convince me.