1

Oblates of Saint Joseph College of Philosophy

RENNIEL JAYSON JACINTO ROSALES II A.B. PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHICAL RESEARCH METHOD

THE FIVE WAYS OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS WITH THEISTIC AND ATHEISTIC VIEWS

Professor: REV. FR. ALEXANDER F. CARANDANG, O.S.J. Academic Year 2011-2012

such things have been revealed to me that all that I have written seems to me as so much straw

- Saint Thomas Aquinas An Aquinas Reader, 16

INTRODUCTION

The wonders of the world has been there even before our birth, or even the before the birth of our forefathers. The existence of everything would always mean for us and we, human as we are, aim nothing but to suffice the needs of our existence. But we have to know and we are continuously seeking the purpose of our existence and to whom do we owe everything, including our very life. The wonders of the existence of the God, whom philosophers and even the people of different status in life, that are believers of God, began during the medieval period the time where people are seeking for the reality of the god whom they believed in. It is the God of their forefathers whom they adopted as their God, too, and even today, we are one with them, acknowledging the God whom they owe everything some believed and some only acknowledged his concept. The philosophers of the medieval period more often speak of God. They have exhausted their minds just to think of the attributes that belongs to the God whom they have never seen face to face. They have even seek the proofs of the existence of God; one of them is Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican priest, who is well-known in his Summa Theologica, where the vast explanation of the existence of God can be found his Five Ways. In this era, it seems that we really need to have proofs in Gods existence because atheism is common, powerful and influential philosophies eliminate or explain away the notion of God, and most of all, multitudes of peoples are educated without any belief in God1. We really need proofs, wherein even if they still not believe in God we can let them acknowledge the existence of the God whom we believed in.

Cf. FREDERICK COPPLESTON, S.J., A History of Philosophy, Volume 2, Part II, New York City, Image Books, 1962, 55.

This Research aims to unveil the Five Ways of Saint Thomas in proving the existence of God. Not just presenting it as how Saint Thomas has presented it, but most especially, supporting it on its Replies to the Objections through the help of other philosophers. On the contrary, the two Objections will be presented, also supported by atheistic philosophers. This paper will be presenting the proofs of Saint Thomas in a way where theistic and atheistic views will be entertained so as to have an insight how he have made such great combination of philosophy and theology to prove Gods existence. Saint Thomas, in his Summa Theologica, proved the existence of God in five ways, wherein he denies that Gods existence is self-evident to us in this life 2. It can be established philosophically only by reasoning from effect to cause: by demonstration of the fact (quia) rather than by a demonstration of the reasoned fact (propter quid) 3. It is very unthinkable to prove it but if Gods existence cannot be proved a priori, through the idea of God, through His essence, it remains that it must be proved a posteriori, through an examination of Gods effect4. Saint Thomas demonstrated Gods existence through what takes place through an effect, and is called a proof insofar-as, where St. Thomas based his arguments, in an a posteriori manner. He never used the demonstration through the cause which is called proof for-the-reasonthat, because this begins whit what is prior in reality, an a priori manner, in which he must seen the God whom he is explaining which is false for he never seen God5. He has used this because he can explain the cause which must preexist where all evident effects which St. Thomas has used depend upon this cause. As what Mary T. Clark has said, Insofar as Gods existence is not selfevident to us, it can be demonstrated by us by beginning with those of His effects that are known to us. 6 The Five Ways of St. Thomas on the existence of God have used the philosophy of Aristotle. He cannot deny this fact because many of his works are influenced by Aristotelian philosophy. The first proof is the argument from

Cf. NORMAN KRETZMANN and ELEONORE STUMP, Cambridge Companion to Aquinas, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993, 113. 3 NORMAN KRETZMANN and ELEONORE STUMP, CCA, 113. 4 Cf. FREDERICK COPPLESTON, S.J., AHP, 55. 5 Cf. MARY T. CLARK, An Aquinas Reader, New York City, Image Books, 2000, 107. 6 MARY T. CLARK, AAR, On the demonstration of Gods existence, 107.

motion, which is found in Aristotle and was utilized by Maimonides 7 and St. Albert. The motion is understood in the wide Aristotelian sense of reduction of potency to act8; and St. Thomas, following Aristotle, argues that a thing cannot be reduced from potency to act except by something which is already in act9. The second proof is the argument from causality where St. Thomas gets the idea suggested by the second book of Aristotles Metaphysics. It states that nothing can be the cause of itself, for in order to do this, it would have to exist before itself 10. The third proof, the argument from contingency, which Maimonides took over from Avicenna and developed, starts from the fact that there are some beings that came into existence and perish, wherein there would be a necessary being to exist in order for the perishing beings to exist11. The fourth proof is the argument from the degrees of perfection. This proof is more often suggested by some observations in Aristotles Metaphysics and is found substantially in St. Augustine and St. Anselm. This only implies that there is a perfection in everything where there exists a best, most true being which we can call the supreme being, the maxime ens12. The fifth way is the argument from finality, a teleological proof, where it is stated that there must be someone who will direct all things into their goals 13. This indicates that they do tend towards a goal, not merely succeeding by accident 14, someone must direct them, who is God. After laying down the proofs of St. Thomas on the existence of God, this paper also laid down the objections and replies on the said argument. The objections on the argument were laid down with an atheistic view. The first
7

REYNALDO PADILLA, Ph.D., Philosophy Made Easy Mandaluyong City, Books Atbp. Publishing Corp., 2008, 95. Moises Maimonides (1135-1204) was born in Cordoba and also was most influential in the Catholic world for his insights into the philosophy of Aristotle. Thomas Aquinas revered Maimonides and Thomas demonstrations of Gods existence were clearly influenced by those of Maimonides. In fact, Maimonides first book, A Treatise on Logic, is a compendium of the categories of Aistotles logic and an analysis of them. It was written in Arabic when Maimonides was sixteen years old. 8 Cf. FREDERICK COPPLESTON, S.J., AHP, 60. 9 Cf. FREDERICK COPPLESTON, S.J., AHP, 60. 10 FREDERICK COPPLESTON, S.J., AHP, 60. 11 Cf. FREDERICK COPPLESTON, S.J., AHP, 60. 12 Cf. FREDERICK COPPLESTON, S.J., AHP, 62. 13 Cf. FREDERICK COPPLESTON, S.J., AHP, 63. 14 MARY T. CLARK, AAR, 116.

objection is the problem of the existence of evil in the world, and the second objection is that all things can be reduced to one principle, human reason or will15. These objections were slightly supported by some atheist philosophers or if not, go against the goodness of God, with a different view. The replies on St. Thomas argument were also stated, supported by a theistic view. The first reply to the objections was the infinite goodness of God and the other is that all can be traced back to an immovable, which is God16. Much will be said on the further discussions on the Five Ways of Saint Thomas, the philosopher who, in his humility, have let the faithful to understand in a very simple way the proofs on the existence of the God whom they believed in, through the effects of His deeds.

15

Cf. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, English Edition, Volume I, New York City, Benzinger Bros., 1948., 13. 16 Cf. THOMAS AQUINAS, ST, 14.

CHAPTER I

Saint Thomas Aquinas Five Ways

1. The Five Ways 1.1. Argument from Motion

The first argument is the argument from motion in which a thing is moved by another that is also moved by something or someone. It can be said that a thing that moved a thing can also be moved by another, therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another 17, there can be many movers have moved one another that it seems it is infinite but it cannot go onto infinity. A thing that is in motion reduces from potentiality to actuality, but nothing can be reduced from potentiality except for the one who is supremely in a state of actuality. The example that St. Thomas gave was the fire and the wood. From the wood which is potentially hot became actually hot because of the fire. The fire made the wood hot. As it is going on, the wood cannot be the same time potentially and actually hot, or in a better understanding, the wood is not hot from the beginning of its existence rather it is actually not hot in order for it to become hot. Therefore, a thing should be moved by another in order for it to go to actuality, and another should have moved the mover as it goes on, but as what has been stated earlier, it cannot go on to infinity. There can be no infinity because there must be a primary or first mover who moved the subsequent movers. There must be someone, a mover, who is a pure act in which it can move all things. Arriving to a first
17

THOMAS AQUINAS, ST, Q. 2, Art. 3, in Whether God Exists?, In the First Way of Gods existence, 13.

mover which was not moved by another, St. Thomas answered this to be God the Primary Mover, the self existent, unmoved God. The First Mover cannot be moved, for it is First. It is purely actual (Actus Purus), without change or shadow of alteration. 18 1.2. Argument from Causality

The argument on the nature of the efficient cause would be very understandable to all that there must be an original creator of all the efficient cause that made all the things, from which all things came from. There is always an order of everything in which a thing was made out of something that was from another thing et cetera; which cannot go onto infinity. There is an original first cause of everything but not itself because nothing can exist prior to its existence to create itself. A thing was made by or from another thing because nothing can be made by itself. There could be many intermediate causes prior to the ultimate cause but in tracing back from the sources of all intermediate causes there would be only one efficient cause that is the first cause. If there is no first cause there could be no effect, no ultimate cause will be made. Hence, there is of necessity a First Cause. And since this Cause is First it is not an effect; it is not caused; for nothing can be prior to what is first. There is, therefore a First Cause, Itself Uncaused. 19 Therefore, as how St. Thomas ended this argument in having one creator or cause of all, it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.20 1.3. Argument from Contingency

The third argument is from the argument of possibility and necessity. Everything in this world that exists has the possibility to be and not to be, to generate and to corrupt. The possibility of everything to exist or not to exist at a certain time of their existence can all happen. They can and cannot exist at a
18

PAUL GLENN, Introduction to Philosophy, New York City, B. HERDER BOOK CO., 1944, in the Theological Questions on the Existence of God, Proof from Motion, 336-337. 19 PAUL GLENN, IP, in the Theological Questions on the Existence of God, Proof from Co-ordinated Efficient Causes, 337. 20 THOMAS AQUINAS, ST, Q. 2, Art. 3, in Whether God Exists?, In the Second Way of Gods existence, 13.

certain point where there is nothing in existence. If it happened that it is possible to have a not-be, it means that it is also impossible to exist anything now, because nothing can exist through the aid or help of another existing being. If there is nothing to exist before, it is then that nothing must exist until now which is very false. The possibility of all beings to exist, especially the not-be is very impossible to happen, because there would be a need of an existing being to make possible the existence of other beings. There must be something necessary to exist first, a necessary being, which cannot be existed from another necessary being. This being must be the root of all from which the second argument is telling that a first efficient cause is needed. According to Paul Glenn:
The world about us is a completely contingent thing. Thus, since contingency demands necessity as its explanation; since contingent things do not render an account of themselves but are accounted for only by the causes on which they depend; since, in a word, contingent things demand the existence of a Necessary Being, we assert the existence of such a Being. This Being is First; it is Ultimate. It has 21 therefore no contingency on a prior thing.

Moreover, we cannot deny the possibility of a necessary being that is existing having itself its own necessity, without receiving it from another which is prior to that necessary being. This necessary being, which St. Thomas said that we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.22 1.4. Argument from Degrees of Perfection

The fourth argument is the gradation to be found in things. Gradation from which we can classify everything as more good or less good, they can be seen according to their perfection. There must be a gradation of them from which a good being is higher than the less good being and from that
21

PAUL GLENN, IP, in the Theological Questions on the Existence of God, Proof from the Contingency of Earthly Things, 338. 22 THOMAS AQUINAS, ST, Q. 2, Art. 3, in Whether God Exists?, In the Third Way of Gods existence, 13.

10

good being come prior to it a more good and so on and so forth. As more good as it came to be the more it became closer to one which is perfectly good. The more or less perfection that we are saying must be traced back to the source of its perfection. The source of what they are which they cannot go beyond it, as how good a thing is, is the thing that caused the goodness of all good things. Paul Glenn added on the degree of perfection:
This is the norm or rule and measure of perfection; in the application of this rule we discern the real grades or degrees of perfection in things. But that which approaches (more or less nearly, or more or less remotely) to the fullness of perfection or the absolute plentitude of being, must approach to what is there. Real grades or degrees of perfection would be illusory and meaningless unless they had reference to an Absolute Perfect Reality actually existing. 23

If the source of perfection from which all creation were radiated to be as such is the greatest among all other things where St. Thomas said that the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus. 24 If that is so, there must be a being which is the cause of the goodness of all being, a supremely good being which caused every goodness, should exist. This perfection of goodness is the one we call God. 1.5. Argument from Finality

The fifth argument is the governance of the world. Beings that do not have enough knowledge cannot go to an end. The theme of the fifth argument states that there must be a being which does not lack in knowledge. Being lack of knowledge would only mean to exist without having the real essence of existence. It is only to exist without having an idea how to go to an end or how to finish such activity. It only means that everything that lacks knowledge can do nothing to go to an end and there would be the need for the one who is having such knowledge and intelligence to guide them. Paul Glenn stated that:

23

PAUL GLENN, IP, in the Theological Questions on the Existence of God, Proof from the Degrees of Perfection in Things, 339. 24 THOMAS AQUINAS, ST, Q. 2, Art. 3, in Whether God Exists?, In the Fourth Way of Gods existence, 13-14.

11

If the world and things in the world are manifestly designed for an end, then the world and things in the world have a designer, and ultimately a First Designer. Now, the world and the things in the world are manifestly designed for an end. Therefore the world and things in the world have a designer, and ultimately a First Designer. 25

Like the analogy of St. Thomas, that an arrow cannot go to its target without the help of the archer who directed it to its end. Therefore, a necessity of something intelligent, that knows everything to guide every being, must exist to guide all natural things and be directed to their end. This being, who is the controller, in a manner that directs everything in order for them to reach their end, is the being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and that being we call God.26

25

PAUL GLENN, IP, in the Theological Questions on the Existence of God, Proof from the Finality of Natural Things, 340. 26 THOMAS AQUINAS, ST, Q. 2, Art. 3, in Whether God Exists?, In the Fifth Way of Gods existence, 14.

12

CHAPTER II

Objections to St. Thomas Arguments

2. Atheistic Views 2.1. There is Evil in the World

The first objection on St. Thomas arguments on the existence of God lies on the existence of evil. It is said that the word God means infinite goodness but because there is evil in the world, therefore God does not exist. The first objection started the negation of the existence of God by stating that if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed.27 If God is the infinite goodness why He then allow evil to exist? Evil is found in two radically different forms according to Avery Dulles, SJ on his book Introductory Metaphysic, each of which presents a different set of problems:
Physical evil is the absence of some actuality which would perfect the possessor in its being or power for action, Physical evil may be either material (e.g., blindness, baldness, disease) or spiritual (e.g., ignorance) 28 ; Moral evil is the lack of due order in the free
27 28

THOMAS AQUINAS, ST, Q. 2, Art. 3, in Whether God Exists?. Objection 1, 13. AVERY DULLES, S.J., et al, INTRODUCTORY METAPHYSICS, New York City, Sheed and Ward, 1955, Question 29: The Problem of Evil, Toward the True Problem; The Nature and Existence of Evil, 294.

13

activity of an agent endowed with free-choice. The due order of such actions, as will be seen in Ethics, consists in their conformity with the moral law. Under its theological aspects moral evil is called sin. 29

Evil really exist in the world because if we will say that God made the world, which speaks of His omnipotence, all goodness and happiness will all come from Him and nothing will exist without His will or permission. If it is then evil exists, whether in the form of Physical evil or Moral evil, it only shows that God is not benevolent. If He is true benevolent He would not allow evil to exist in the world. David Hume stated some questions of Epicurus that were not still answered. If God really wanted goodness He will not allow any form of evil to exist, quoting Epicurus old questions30; Is He willing to prevent evil; but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able and not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both willing and able? Whence, then is evil? 31 John Stuart Mill has also the same stand that God is malevolent. He argues that we simply have no basis in natural theology for assuming that God is completely just or that wishes the happiness of creatures 32 because of the existence of the physical evil that hinders the people to achieve true happiness, happiness that comes from His perfection in which we share. If then that God really exists, why then that he lets us be not always happy, because of his goodness. The problem of evil or rather the existence of evil would be easier to understand that some Gods were benevolent and some were malevolent, as how Greeks perceive it 33, which let the evil in the world to exist. 2.2. All can be reduced to one Principle: Human Reason or Will

29

AVERY DULLES, S.J., et al, IM, Question 29: The Problem of Evil, Toward the True Problem; The Nature and Existence of Evil, 294. 30 Cf. AVERY DULLES, S.J., et al, IM, Question 29: The Problem of Evil, The Nub of the Problem, 295 31 AVERY DULLES, S.J., et al, IM, Question 29: The Problem of Evil, The Nub of the Problem, 295. 32 DAVID STEWART, Exploring the PHILOSOPHY of RELIGION, New Jersey, PrenticeHall Inc., 1998, Denial of Gods Benevolence, 215. 33 Cf. DAVID STEWART, EPR, Denial of Gods Benevolence, 215.

14

The second objection to St. Thomas arguments lies on the human reason or will stating that everything can be reduced or came from human reason or will, everything can be explained by nature. Everything can be explained because, supposing that there is no God we can say that everything can be reduced to one principle which is nature. The second objection stated that:
It is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other 34 principles, supposing that God did not exist.

Everything in this world can be explained even without the idea of God because for all natural things can be reduced to one principle, which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle, which is human reason, or will 35, in saying these words there would be no need to suppose the existence of God, for if we can say that we can be without the help of a necessary being, we can transcend ourselves into things that we aim because of our freedom. The will of human can be at the same time the freedom of man; it is in their will that they can do everything. Friedrich Nietzche said that man should transcend himself 36, for he believed that there is no God who holds the freedom of person, the will that can make him go beyond. Man must transcend according to him. He must go beyond himself and become something superior to man, just as man is superior to the monkey 37; this is the theory of the superman, the bermensch. Man should transcend to something, something beyond him. Man has the will to power, that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force and to thrust back all that resists its extension. The superman or the bermensch
34

THOMAS AQUINAS, ST, Objection 2, in Whether God Exists?, Objecting that God doesnt exist because everything can be reduced to one principle which is human reason or will, 13. 35 THOMAS AQUINAS, ST, Objection 2, in Whether God Exists?, Objecting that God doesnt exist because everything can be reduced to one principle which is human reason or will, 13. 36 Cf. REYNALDO PADILLA, Ph.D., PME, Friedrich Nietzche, 3. The Superman, 190. 37 REYNALDO PADILLA, Ph.D., PME, Friedrich Nietzche, 3. The Superman, 190.

15

simply represents Nietzches ideal, or limiting conception, of the greatest possible fullness of human life 38. Another philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, an atheist existentialist, also said that there is no need for a God, because God would only hinder us to become free, to be what we want to become. He once said that human freedom precedes essence in man and makes it possible; the essence of the human being is suspended in his freedom 39which can be said that man is capable of becoming or doing what he wants if there will be no hindrance for it. He can transcend to what he wants to become. If it is always on that matter, we can say that the existence of God is much more not needed because we dont need someone whom we will be depending on if we can do it by ourselves. Everything can be reduced and explained by the human reason and can be done by human will, the will that will let us do everything notwithstanding the fact that we are limited due to some circumstances that according to Sartre, we are being hindered because we aimed to be like that because of its impossibility. David Hume is also regarded in this field. Hume argued that all knowledge results from our experiences and is not received from God or innate to our minds. This kind of empiricism led to todays scientific method. He stated that all things can be a produced by our own will, through our deeds and not to comment everything to the things that is innate only to us. This method holds that knowledge should be based on observations rather than our intuition or faith. Radical empiricism went further, arguing that our knowledge is nothing more than the sum of our experiences.40

38

ABRAHAM WOLF, The Philosophy of Nietzche, Bristol, England, Thoemmes Press, 1994, Life and Conduct, explaining the Superman according to Nietzche, 92. 39 MANUEL DY, JR., Philosophy of Man Selected Readings, Makati City, Philippines, GOODWILL TRADING CO., INC., 2001, The Case for Absolute Freedom, it is stated here the stand of Sartre on freedom wherein the existence of God would only become a hindrance to become absolutely free, 172. 40 Cf. REYNALDO PADILLA, Ph.D., PME, David Hume, 142.

16

CHAPTER III

Replies to St. Thomas Arguments

3. Theistic Views 3.1. Infinite Goodness of God

St. Thomas reply to the first objection stands on the positive side of the occurrence of evil in the world. He articulated that the infinite goodness of God includes the existence of evil and out of it produce good41. He quoted St. Augustine saying: Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good out of evil 42. To make good things out of evil is very ironical but looking on the reality that out of bad things it is then that we will realize to do more good. To be in the actuality of doing bad things will came, through the aid of God, the realization to put into actuality the potentiality of doing goodness. St. Augustine believed that freedom is the capacity to do what one wants, and one can do what one wants even if God (or anyone else) already knows what that person wants. Augustine pointed out that Gods foreknowledge of a decision does not cause the decision, anymore than my own acts are caused by my knowledge of what I am going to do.43
41 42

Cf. THOMAS AQUINAS, ST, 14. THOMAS AQUINAS, ST, Reply 1, in Whether God Exists?, Answering the first objection saying that there is no God because evil exists, 14. 43 Cf. REYNALDO PADILLA, Ph.D., PME, Saint Augustine, 88.

17

Henry of Ghent supported this argument of St. Thomas in the supremacy of the goodness of God, as God as the highest good, in his way of eminence44. He said that all that exists is still small and deficient, even how great they are, and still they are not in perfection. 45 They are still partaking to the one who is the highest, the one who is perfect in all things. He said according to the book Medieval Philosophy: From Augustine to Nicholas of Cusa of Paul Edwards that:
What is the most certain so that none can doubt it is that among such a variety of things there must be a highest, exceeded or excelled by nothing. This is the true entity and goodness, as it were, from which all else has its goodness and entity. 46

Dionysius the Areopagite wrote that above any other words, only good can be ascribed to God for it is He who is giving everything to everyone. God, who is the Good, let Himself be extended to others, like the sun that radiates its sunlight to others that they, too, may have a portion of the heat that the sun has. Dionysius explains the evil which is entirely taken from Proclus, stating that There can be, then, no such things as absolute nonbeing and impotence. Evil, then, can be defined only in negative terms: it is an absence, a defect, a deprivation 47. Dionysius wanted to say that evil only exists because of the lack of good which the people are doing. God doesnt created any evil but because of His goodness, He let man have the freedom to do anything even if this would lead to bad things, for God knows that out of their blindness to see the good that they have they can re-enkindle in them the goodness that they inherit from God. They cannot go into infinity of doing evil because there is no absolute evil; it is just the lack of recognition of the goodness that we are sharing from Gods perfect goodness. 3.2. All can be Traced Back to an Immovable: God

44

PAUL EDWARDS and Richard Popkin, Medieval Philosophy: From Augustine to Nicholas of Cusa, New York City, The Free Press, 1969, 384. 45 Cf. PAUL EDWARDS and Richard Popkin, MP, 384. 46 PAUL EDWARDS and Richard Popkin, MP, 384. 47 SEYMOUR MARTIN et al, A History of Philosophy, New York City, F.S. CROFTS & Co., 1941, 265.

18

St. Thomas replied against the second objection, the capacity of only the human reason or will to be the reduced form of everything, saying that all can be traced back to human will. St. Thomas third proof is the best way to prove that all can be traced back to an Immovable One, who is God. He stated that:
Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since this can change and fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and selfnecessary first principle. 48

The proof from the contingency expresses that everything is contingent, demanding an ultimate being, a necessary being, for them to exist their own existence. That very necessary being, where all the contingent beings depend on is no other than God. According to Richard Taylor on his Principle of Sufficient Reason, he said that there must be a reason for the existence of everything 49. He points out that St. Thomas Aquinas arguments from change and causation are merely variants of the principle of sufficient reason50. There is a reason for everything that exists because human as we are; we always think that things do not exist without any reason. For Richard Taylor, two admissions must be made: (1) we cannot prove that this principle of sufficient reason is true but without assuming this principle, we could prove nothing else:
To say that there is no sufficient reason is to say that there is no explanation at all, and this we would find implausible because it violates an assumption underlying all rational thought. 51

(2) There is nothing in the argument from contingency to prove that the world had a beginning in time, but still it is dependent on something which causes it,
48

THOMAS AQUINAS, ST, Reply 1, in Whether God Exists?, Answering the second objection saying that all can be traced back to an immovable, who is God, 14. 49 Cf. DAVID STEWART, EPR, 64. 50 Cf. DAVID STEWART, EPR, 78. 51 DAVID STEWART, EPR, 71.

19

which we understand as God.52 Such a being that is immovable can be attributed the cause of everything that is happening. All can truly be attributed to God because He alone is the one that exist before all beings. His being a necessary let Him become the one immovable and the source of all that exist and that perishes.

52

Cf. DAVID STEWART, EPR, 71.

20

CONCLUSION

The existence of God has become a great issue in the medieval period where almost all philosophers of this age have tried to see or seek the proofs of Gods existence. Moreover, the greatness of the medieval era has ended when the modern philosophers arouse with their rationalistic philosophies, or let us say their atheistic philosophies. It has become a great challenge for us to still believe after all the negations that has been made on the existence of God. Saint Thomas Five Proofs became a great help for all the people who really seek the proofs of Gods existence. Though it was a combination of philosophy and theology, he has enriched it to be a philosophical proof. The adoption of Aristotles doctrine of the four causes the material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause, helped him a lot to supply the needs on proving Gods existence through the effects of His works 53. St. Thomas proofs give certain preferences to the first proof, to the extent that it can be said as the via manifestior, because it has become the stepping stone to have reached a divine and prime mover. However, the fundamental proof lies on the argument from contingency, the third proof. The argument itself based on the fact that everything must have its sufficient reason, the reason why it exists54, notwithstanding the fact that the other proofs still gave the easy understanding on Gods existence that is somehow rooted on the first proof:
Change or motion must have its sufficient reason in an unmoved mover, the series of secondary causes and effects in an uncaused cause, limited perfection in absolute perfection, and finality and order in nature in an intelligence or designer.55

53 54

Cf. REYNALDO PADILLA, Ph.D., PME, Saint Thomas Aquinas, 102. FREDERICK COPPLESTON, S.J., AHP, 65. 55 FREDERICK COPPLESTON, S.J., AHP, 65.

21

Theistic philosophers have helped a lot for the people to still remain in faith in the God, whom St. Thomas have dedicated himself to lay down for the faithful people the proofs of His existence. Atheists would have always spoken of the non-existence of God but the mere fact that they have the idea of God, they cannot deny the fact that God have existed. It is an absurdity also to think that God does not exist if we really dont know where we came from, or from whom we owe our lives. The idea of God became far from them because they have depended on themselves alone. They may be great in their works but they are just living on the idea of absurdity because of their negation to the one who gave them what they have made. On the existence of God, we cannot tell what is not usual to us, or let us say we cannot believe on what we see, as the common people of today would think of. But because we were born on a Christian family, we have no choice but to believe on the existence of God. We can only say to ourselves whether we believe or not when we have the right judgment on what to believe. Blaise Pascal once said about God, in his Wager argument, which God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe in God and he does not exist then at worst all we have forgone are a few sinful pleasures. If we do not believe in God and he does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but we may face eternal damnation. If we do not believe in God and he does not exist then our sins will not be punished. Would any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation? 56 Many things have been said in this paper about the proofs on the existence of God, but it is still upon us whether we believe or not. To believe in God is our choice, we have the freedom because of Gods infinite love, and our life will always depend on that choice. There are many proofs to be needed for a man who really doesnt have any faith in the God whom we believe, but for a man who has, even a little faith, no proof is needed. And I quote Frederick Coppleston, S.J. as I end this paper:
As they stand, the five proofs of Saint Thomas may be said to be an explicitation of the words of the Book of Wisdom and of Saint

56

Cf. PAUL EDWARDS, Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 6, Macmillan Publishing Co., The Free Press, New York, 1967, Blaise Pascal on Religion, 54.

22

Paul in Romans that God can be known from His works, as transcending His works. 57

57

FREDERICK COPPLESTON, S.J., AHP, 65.

23

ABBREVIATIONS

AAR AHP CCA Cf. EP EPR HP IM IP MP PMSR ST TPN

An Aquinas Reader A History of Philosophy by Coppleston Cambridge Companion to Aquinas Confer Encyclopedia of Philosophy Exploring the Philosophy of Religion A History of Philosophy by Martin Introductory Metaphysics Introduction to Philosophy Medieval Philosophy From Augustine to Nicholas of Cusa Philosophy of Man Selected Readings Summa Theologica The Philosophy of Nietzche

24

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Work of Saint Thomas Aquinas AQUINAS, THOMAS, Summa Theologica, English Edition, Volume I, New York City, Benzinger Bros., 1948. 2. Secondary Sources CLARK, MARY T., An Aquinas Reader, New York City, Image Books, 2000. COPPLESTON, FREDERICK S.J., A History of Philosophy, Volume 2, Part II, New York City, Image Books, 1962. DULLES, AVERY S.J., et al, INTRODUCTORY METAPHYSICS, New York City, Sheed and Ward, 1955. DY, MANUEL, JR., Philosophy of Man Selected Readings, Makati City, Philippines, GOODWILL TRADING CO., INC., 2001. EDWARDS, PAUL and Richard Popkin, Medieval Philosophy: From Augustine to Nicholas of Cusa, New York City, The Free Press, 1969. GLENN, PAUL J., Ph.D., S.T.D., Introduction to Philosophy, New York City, B. HERDER BOOK CO., 1944. KRETZMANN, NORMAN and Eleonore Stump, Cambridge Companion to AQUINAS, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993. MARTIN, SEYMOUR et al, A History of Philosophy, New York City, F.S. CROFTS & Co., 1941. PADILLA, REYNALDO, Ph.D., Philosophy Made Easy, Mandaluyong City, Books Atbp. Publishing Corp., 2008. STEWART, DAVID, Exploring the PHILOSOPHY of RELIGION, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1998.

25

WOLF, ABRAHAM, The Philosophy of Nietzche, Bristol, England, Thoemmes Press, 1994. 3. General Source The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 6, New York, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1967.

26

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER I. Saint Thomas Aquinas Five Ways... 7 1. The Five Ways 7 1.1. Argument From Motion.. 7 1.2. Argument From Causality.. 8 1.3. Argument From Contingency..... 8 1.4. Argument From Degrees of Perfection... 9 1.5. Argument From Finality. 10 CHAPTER II. Objections to Saint Thomas Arguments.. 2. Atheistic Views.. 2.1. There is Evil in the World.. 2.2. All can be reduced to one Principle: Human Reason or Will...... CHAPTER III. Replies to Saint Thomas Arguments.. 3. Theistic Views... 3.1. Infinite Goodness of God.. 3.2. All can be traced back to an Immovable: God 12 12 12 13 16 16 16 17

CONCLUSION 20 ABBREVIATIONS. 23 BIBLIOGRAPHY 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 26

27

DEDICATION

I dedicate this research for all the people of God who still believe in Him despite of the difficulties and the multitude of peoples who do not believe in the God whom the Catholics believed in; and to those people of good will who are still seeking for the light of truth for a true God whom they will believed in.