8/12/2019 Criticisms on St. Thomas Aquinas' 5 Proofs of God's Existence

1/3

Criticisms on St. Thomas Aquinas five proofs of Gods 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 a mover. But still, there are things that are moved without the consent of an existent

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. We humans dont have the infinite capability of doing all things; therefore there is

someone whos 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

8/12/2019 Criticisms on St. Thomas Aquinas' 5 Proofs of God's Existence

2/3

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 isnt 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 Humes 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!

8/12/2019 Criticisms on St. Thomas Aquinas' 5 Proofs of God's Existence

3/3

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, were 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 hasnt proved the existence of God scientifically. He

hasnt because in science every hypothesis requires evidence. He doesnt give his readers

evidences but he has given us insight of how really great He is. Rejecters of Aquinas arguments

didnt 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.

Its 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 dont know. I cant 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.