Kayla Benson

November 2, 2017
PHIL 2350

Midterm Paper- Aquinas

Is God real? That is one of the hardest questions to ask in a group of people. A

philosopher by the name of Thomas Aquinas believes that he has a good argument to prove the

existence of God. He has five parts to his argument and I am going to explain those throughout

this paper. But, of course there will always be people who disagree so I will touch on that as

well.

The first way is the the argument from motion. Aquinas states that something already in

motion can only put another thing into motion. For example, when our own bodys move we

follow this rule. When we move, we are only moving a part of us. When each part moves, it

sets off a chain reaction and everything gets moved by a part of our body that is already in

motion.1 At one time the universe was standing still and something, or someone had to put it

into motion and begin all of our worlds and stars. Without a God we would still be sitting at a

stand still because no one can be put into motion without another force that gives us the nudge

to begin.

The next way is called the argument for efficient causes. Everything has a cause for

existence, or an agent that brings a thing into existence. The Internet of Encyclopedia of

Philosophy says, Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be

1Brown, Christopher M. Thomas Aquinas. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

www.iep.utm.edu/aquinas/.
no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause 2.

In this article and intermediate cause is all the causes that cause the ultimate cause and the

ultimate effect. So to break this down, everybody has a mommy and daddy or in nature

everything has a seed where it has come from. But if we go back far enough one person had to

start it all. Someone didnt have a mom and dad or a seed to come from. Since you can not

make something out of nothing, there has to be a being to bring and create all of into existence.

We are what is called secondary causers because, everything we are causing is already pre-

existing. We are not making anything out of nothing. We use our resources but never create

something new. So we need an un caused causer, or a being that is outside of time that doesnt

get affected by natural agents, that being must be God.

The argument form Possibility and Necessity is Aquinas third way. In nature there are

things to be possible to exist and not to exist. We also, as a universe had the possibility to exist

or not to exist. As the universe is contingent, then, there must be some reason for its

existence; it must have a cause.3 Contingency, a word I am going to bring up a lot, which is

when something is dependent upon something else and is always subject to change. He states

that these contingent things go in and out of existence, so at one point there will be nothing

and there has been nothing at one point. Like I said in the last paragraph, nothing comes out of

nothing. There has to be a necessity that keeps the cycle going. This necessary being not being

contingent to his surroundings to keep the possible, possible. That being has to be God.

2 Brown, Christopher M. Tomas Aquinas. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

www.iep.utm.edu/aquinas/.
3 Arguments for the Existence of God. Philosophy of Religion, Technokinetics, 2010,

www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/.
 In nature there are somethings that are more intelligent than others. Thats just how it

works. We know a best, because we have seen a worst. If there is a dumb of the dumbest,

there must be someone that has the maximum intelligence that is possible. There has to be a

being that contains all of the intelligence to give us our intellence. So, God has to exist.

Last Point of the argument Aquinas goes into the argument of design. All things work

toward a purpose or goal, but somethings lack knowledge just by themselves. They needed to

be created by a being with a mind that is knowledgeable enough to give them direction. If the

universe contains design, then there must be some intelligent agent that designed it. Although

a few dispute this, speaking of nature, or evolution, as our designers, this appears to be a

simple linguistic truth. Just as if something is carried then there must be a carrier, so if there is

design there must be a designer.4 There has to be an intelligent designer to give them their

intelligence. 5

Aquinas argument is very widely accepted by a lot of people but is one of the most

critiqued arguments on the existence of God we have. This argument for the existence of God is

very strong. Of course, A belief in God requires faith but Aquinas combines a small leap of faith

and logic. All of this makes sense because it gives you the extra step of questions you havent

even asked yet. He creates a puzzle in your head that by the end of the argument it all fits

together. In this argument God has to be eternal, or outside of time, for this to work and he

proves that so nicely to the point of you not even second guessing that. Of course there are

4TheTeleological Argument. Philosophy of Religion, Technokinetics, 2010,

www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-teleological-argument/.
5 Handout 2
always people out there that wants to find the fault in this argument but the logic in this is

incredible.

Paul Edwards was a philosopher that had some objections with Aquinas argument for

God. So what better way to explain it other than a story about some Eskimos? The whole goal

in this is to satisfy the sufficient reason, which is a rule states nothing can contingent happens

without reason or cause. If you dont follow that then you will fall into a trap called the infinite

regress, which you will keep explaining forever because it just contradicts itself over and over

again without giving you an actual answer. Edwards believes that he has found the solution for

that.

The story of the Eskimos starts out with a group of five Eskimos being in New York.

People are curious of how they got here and so they asked. The first Eskimo gets sick of the cold

and wants to move to a warmer climate so she goes. This first Eskimo satisfies the argument

for motion because she put herself into motion and leaves. Next Eskimo number two can not

live without Eskimo number one because they are married, so he follows her giving him a cause

to leave, which explains the argument for efficient cause. Next, Eskimo number three is the

first twos son. Since that Eskimo is only a child he can not physically survive without them, and

leaves to go with them as well. In this third example it gives us our argument for necessity

because he couldnt possibly survive without his parents because they are his necessity. Then

there is Eskimo number four who one day finds an ad on the ground to appear on TV. Since that

is his dream he goes to appear on TV he goes to New York to follow that dream. That explains

to us the fourth argument for degree of intelligence because he wants to become smarter.
Finally, the fifth Eskimo was hired to be a private detective to watch the fourth Eskimo which

explains the argument for design6.

Edwards thinks that that extra step to say that there is a God is real is very unnecessary.

Through his story he states that all of the arguments are satisfied without making that extra

step and say there is a God. Aquinas states that all of the five ways make the leap of faith to

God smaller but, Edwards says that it is a huge leap to just go from a person moving and then

all of a sudden jumping to saying God is real. Edwards also satisfies the principle of sufficient

reason in his story by explaining the cause for each individual step. By asking why all of those

Eskimos are there in New York, according to Edwards, you dont need to leap to saying, oh its

because God put them there. This is a very valid response and you could apply it to anything

not just Eskimos and it will explain Aquinas argument.

Both of the arguments are valid but I think Aquinas is more effective than Edwards. All

of it makes a lot more sense than a story about the Eskimos. Aquinas takes you through his

argument in a way that is so fluid and makes you think harder in a way that Edwards doesnt.

Aquinas has a very strong argument for the existence of God and takes us through his

five-part argument of why he is real. But Paul Edwards disagrees with him and says that to jump

to the conclusion that there is a God is silly and you can satisfy all of those arguments without

involving God within them. Both arguments have their strong points but Aquinas argument

makes more sense in the way of his explanation of it. This argument of the existence of God will

always have its legacy for people to research it and make their own conclusions.

6 Class notes, Handout 2

Works Cited

Brown, Christopher M. Thomas Aquinas. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

www.iep.utm.edu/aquinas/.
Brown, Christopher M. Tomas Aquinas. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
www.iep.utm.edu/aquinas/.
Arguments for the Existence of God. Philosophy of Religion, Technokinetics, 2010,
www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/.
The Teleological Argument. Philosophy of Religion, Technokinetics, 2010,
www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-teleological-argument/.
Class notes, Handout 2