Amanda Le

Ciel Chavarin
PHI 1
3 March 2015
Thomas Aquinas and the Arguments for Gods Existence
Despite the common practice of keeping logic out of theology, Thomas Aquinas
employs natural reasoning in order to develop five proofs for the existence of God in his
13th century work known as Summa theologica. The five arguments are as follows: the
argument from movement, the argument from causality, the argument from contingency,
the argument from gradation, and the argument from design, all but one of which (the
argument from design) I disagree with almost completely. From these proofs, Aquinas
establishes that there exists a being who is an unmoved mover, a cause that is not an
effect, is unable to not exist, possesses the highest degree of goodness, and is the director
of all natural things. In this paper, I will be explicating the argument from contingency
and consequently revealing the fatal weaknesses in two of its premises.

Aquinass Argument from Contingency

Aquinas first reasons, on the basis that nothing existing is absurd, that not
everything is contingent. From this, he postulates that something is necessary, or existing
at all times. This being, he claims, is God.
The premises by which Aquinas makes this argument purportedly prove that a
highest being must exist because it is unable to not exist. The first premise introduces the
concept of contingency, which is that (1) what is contingent might or might not exist at

any time, or has an existence dependent on any number of factors. Consider, for example,
a certain apple. The apple may not come to exist if a bee pollinating an orchard happened
to move onto another tree without pollinating the one flower that was to become this
certain apple. Because its existence is dependent on factors such as the bees pollination,
it can be said that the apple is contingent. Next in Aquinass proof is the supposition that
(2) everything is contingent. In other words, all things may or may not exist. From the
first two premises, then, it follows that (3) it is possible for nothing to exist at any time.
Supposing that all things are contingent, Aquinas states that (4) nothing can come
to exist from nothing, or, it is impossible for something to arise without a prior cause
begetting its existence. Thus (5) it is possible that nothing ever exists. According to
Aquinas, it is a priori that (6) such a notion is absurdit need not be explained that the
possibility of nothing ever existing is false. So, if nothing ever existing is absurd, then (7)
not everything is contingent, and something must be necessary, or existing at all times.
The eighth premise that Aquinas gives is that (8) there cannot be an infinite chain of
causality by necessary things; alternatively, if there is a being that is necessary or has
always existed, then its existence cannot have been caused by a prior event. Given that
there cannot be an infinite chain of causality, (9) there must be a being that is necessary in
itself and the cause of all necessity. (10) Such a being is God, so (11) God exists.

Plausibility
I disagree with Aquinass argument from contingency; its premises are weak at
best, with its major assumptions and logical discrepancies. Although most of the
argument is technically valid, several of its premises lack soundness. For example,

Premises 6 and 7, which conclude that not everything is contingent, assume that the
absurdity of nothing existing necessitates that not everything is contingent. While the
notion of nothing ever existing can be considered false given the universe that we
currently live in, it does not negate the possibility of nothing ever existing, in the case that
all things are indeed contingent. Contrary to Premise 6, the possibility isnt actually
absurd, but merely an outcome that is not in effect. Thus, Premise 7 is founded upon a
weak assumption. Aquinas formulates this premise in an If not P then not Q format
where it does not apply.
The third instance of faulty reasoning occurs in Premise 9, according to which
there is a being that is the cause of all necessity. By Aquinass definition, a necessary
thing is one that exists at all times. Premise 9 assumes that such a permanent being is
required for a thing to exist; however, as is evidenced constantly in nature, temporary
beings give rise to other temporary beings perpetually. It is entirely conceivable that an
original being, or being that is not an end, could give rise to something else and some
time thereafter cease to exist itself. That Aquinas claims that the necessary cause is one
that exists for all time, which is an assumption that cannot be justified.
Finally, a conflict between Premises 4 and 9 potentially invalidate the entire
argument. Premise 4 postulates that nothing can come to exist from nothing, yet by
definition, the God to whom Aquinas alludes in Premise 9 is by definition a being that is
necessary in itself. Whether Aquinas intended on proving God as the exception to his
statement in Premise 4 is never explicitly mentioned. Therefore, one could reasonably
conclude that he claims both premises to be true simultaneously, which creates a serious
discrepancy.

Commentary
Provided that all five of Aquinass arguments are completely sound, it can only be
established that a divine being with all of the qualities mentioned in the introduction
exists. However, all five of the arguments are easily debated, which is why it remains that
the existence of God is a mystery, at least scientifically. While I am a believer, I do not
claim to be able to prove the existence of a divine being, nor do I feel the need to defend
my belief to others. Regardless of whether it can be definitely proven that such a being
exists, I am of the opinion that religion, spirituality, and philosophy are extremely
personal experiences. If via divine revelation an individual becomes assured of Gods
existence, then that person need not waste time trying to change the minds of others.
Similarly, if another goes an entire lifetime without ever experiencing a spiritual state,
then it is perfectly reasonable for such a person to hold the belief that a higher being does
not exist. While it is an admirable effort to attempt to make God accessible to everyone,
the reality is that whatever God that may currently exist affects people in different ways,
and simply revealing Gods existence may not be enough to change anyones life. If the
God of Western theology exists, then God has not thus far been intent on being revealed.