Alex Webb PHIL 2350 10/24/2013 Midterm Paper Perhaps the most important concept to highlight when discussing

g the philosophy of religion is the stance an argument takes against potential counter-argument. When claiming the truth of God, the theist philosopher has a difficult task to perform. The nature of faith is such that formal arguments for the existence of God are designed not for believers, but for opponents. A successful theistic argument isnt necessarily one that merely makes the case for Gods existence, but one that can hold its ground against analysis and dismantling. Few arguments exemplify and succeed in demonstrating this concept more than Aquinas Five Ways. This paper will reconstruct the Five Ways, along with defining and analyzing the principles of Sufficient Reason and Infinite Regress to show how each functions and how each contributes to an effective argument. It will also show where the argument can be countered, and reveal the clever way in which Aquinas forces opponents to make concessions before their argument even starts. Aquinas argument for the existence of God begins with two key concepts that both support and allow for the rest of his logic. The first of these concepts is the Principle of Sufficient Reason, stating that no explanation can contain any brute or unexplained facts (Yitzhak Melamed, Martin Lin). Although simple on the surface, this principle is key. While internally important to maintaining the argument as a whole, the Principle of Sufficient Reason simultaneously defines the grounds on which counter-argument must take place. When attempting to dismantle the Five Ways, denying the Principle of Sufficient Reason makes ones argument appear less logical. For if we cannot adequately explain our arguments, why are we arguing at all? A contradiction appears in any argument that attempts to operate against the Five

Ways by refuting the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Any such argument would implicitly state that explanations are unimportant, now let me explain to you why that is the case... The second concept that supports the Five Ways is the Infinite Regress, or rather the denial of an infinite regress. Aquinas makes it clear that in order to satisfy the principle of sufficient reason, no series can go back in time forever. He argues that experience of the world around us is enough to prove that from nothing comes nothing, thus anything that can be observed can be demonstrated to have an origin. He claims that an infinite chain of origins does not adequately explain how the chain came to be in the first place (class notes). Now that the Principle of Sufficient Reason and Infinite Regress are adequately described, we can now begin to reconstruct Aquinas Five Ways. The first way argues for an unmoved mover based upon our experience of motion. Observation tells us that objects do not move unless acted upon by another object that is already in motion. The Principle of Sufficient Reason demands that we have an adequate explanation of motions existence. If we cannot have an infinite regress of motion, then there must necessarily be an entity who has within its capacity the ability to cause motion without moving. Aquinas then argues that if such an entity exists, then it takes only a small leap of faith to conclude that this entity is God. The second way argues for an uncaused causer based upon our experience of cause. Nothing that we observe in nature is ever the cause of itself. Humans are caused by parents, seeds are caused by trees and so on. In order to satisfy the Principle of Sufficient Reason we must conclude that there must be a complete explanation of these causes. That is to say the phenomenon of cause must be explained. As there cannot be an infinite regress of causes, then

there must necessarily be an entity who has within its capacity the ability to cause things while remaining uncaused. Call this entity God. The third way argues for the necessity of an ultimately existent entity based upon our experience of potential. Experience tells us that each observable thing has the potential to be or to not be. Through the act of existing, each observable thing demonstrates a change from potentiality, a state of flux, to actuality, a state of being. The Principle of Sufficient reason states that there must be a reason for this change, as if all things were potentiality, existence in and of itself would not be necessitated. That is to say, from nothing comes nothing. Therefore there must be an entity that is perfect actuality in order for anything to exist at all. Call this entity God. The fourth way argues for a maximal being based on our experience of human traits. We experience any number of human qualities in degrees. More or less loving, more or less intelligent, etc. We cannot experience the perfect expressions of these qualities, and yet we understand what such an expression would be like. The principle of sufficient reason demands that there be an explanation for the origin of this understanding. If these concepts cannot be experienced, but are simultaneously known, then there must be a being who maximizes these qualities with the ability to imbue us with that knowledge. Call this being God. The fifth and final way argues for a cosmic creator based upon our experience of design. Take, for example, an exquisitely functional watch. Simply observing this item would be enough to prove in your mind the existence of the watchs designer. An item so intricate could not simply appear by chance (William Paley). Aquinas applies the same concept to the natural world. Trees shed their leaves and conserve energy at precisely the right time. Gravity manipulates objects on our earth and in the universe in precisely the right ways to grant stability and form (class notes). Given the myriad ways in which the physical world seems to simply fit, the

Principle of Sufficient Reason states that there must be a reason for this to be so. Therefore there must be a cosmic creator that designed the universe and allows for these intricate operations to be. Call this creator God1. Aquinas admits that it takes a leap of faith to jump from an unmoved mover, etc. to God. However, with all five ways together he makes the leap substantially easier to make. The first three ways describe an entity with power beyond what is ordinarily possible. They describe omnipotence. The fourth way describes an entity of perfection in all great-making qualities. It describes omnibenevolence. The fifth way describes a being with the incredible knowledge necessary to create order in the universe. It describes omniscience. These three qualities are the same qualities that the Judeo-Christian God must have, making the connection between the entity that Aquinas argues for and the God he believes in more solid. However, as strong as Aquinas argument is, it is not unassailable. David Hume criticizes the Five Ways by identifying the gaps in Aquinas inductive reasoning in the fifth way, the argument from design. Inductive reasoning is reasoning from a subset of data to infer truths about the whole set. For example, imagine yourself in a grocery store. You select five random avocadoes from the available selection, and find that they are all rotten. By inductive reasoning, you would assume that the rest of the avocadoes were rotten, even if you didnt test each one. Of course the more avocadoes you test, the stronger your assumption becomes. Hume claims that Aquinas inductive leap in reason from what we observe and the God-entity that must necessarily exist is simply too large to be acceptable. For example, Hume identifies the gap in the amount of the universe that we can actually observe and the size of the universe that actually exists. Hume asks how we can infer with any degree of certainty the operations of the universe when we observe so little of it. We know only one world with one set
1

Five Ways information taken from a combination of Shawn Floyd and class notes.

of rules, we have no clear way of knowing if the rules that govern what we observe actually do apply to an entire universe of worlds (class notes). Additionally, Hume argues against the fourth way by arguing against the notion that we can actually conceptualize perfect qualities. The fourth way states that though we cannot experience perfect qualities of love, intelligence, etc. we can most certainly conceptualize perfection in these qualities. Since we know them without experience, there must be an explanation. Hume submits that perfection in these qualities cannot be truly conceptualized, for if we could conceptualize true perfection we would all have the same idea of what perfection is. Experience tells us this is not so. If we as humans have no concept of maximal human quality, then there is no necessity to explain it. Another key argument against the Five Ways comes from William Rowe. Rowe argues against the Five Ways by claiming that an infinite regress can and does satisfy the Principle of Sufficient Reason (Louis Pojman, Michael Rea). The Principle of Sufficient Reason simply states that each thing must have an adequate explanation for its existence. Rowe suggests that an infinite regress is not an unexplained fact at all. A quick glance at a number line will cement the concept of infinity as a rational and acceptable explanation. Math deals with infinite sequences all the time. There is no sufficient reason for why this fact should not also be represented in the physical world. Though I am personally convinced by the arguments presented by Hume and Rowe, overall I believe that Aquinas produces a more persuasive argument. I judge the persuasiveness of an argument not by whether or not I am convinced, but how I believe it would convince other people. I am also a firm believer that simplicity is strength, and the form by which Aquinas argument operates is much more easily understood than any of the refutations. Human experience is enough to grasp the carrying concepts that define the Five Ways. Understanding

the counter-arguments takes a great deal of severe logic. By the time Hume and Rowe have adequately explained their positions, would an audience still be listening? Even with a personal bias towards any refutation of an argument for the existence of God, I have to laude the logical beauty of Aquinas Five Ways.

Works Cited

Melamed, Yitzhak, Martin Lin. Principle of Sufficient Reason. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., 14 Sep. 2010. Web. 24 Oct. 2014 Floyd, Shawn. Aquinas Philosophical Theology. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., 7 Jul. 2010. Web. 24 Oct. 2014 Pojman, Louis, Michael Rea. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Baxter, 2012. Print. Paley William. Natural Theology. Deward Publishing, 2010. Print.