Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Philosophy Thomas Aquinas Thomas Aquinas The purpose of this paper is to examine St. Thomas Aquinas second argument for the existence of God. First we will discuss why this argue doesn’t hold. Then provide an alternative argument for the first uncaused caused. Finally, I will point out some problems and complications that exist proving the existence of the unknown – God. I will then consider one objection to my argument and then provide a response to that objection, thus confirming the truth of my position. How can one prove the unknown? How is the unknown evident to us if proven? In Thomas Aquinas’s second way for proving the existence of God, he simply concludes that common sense observation will tell us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. He believes that ultimately there must “have” been an uncaused first caused who began the chain of existence for all things. The keyword word here is “there must have been” which is nothing more than bare assumption from reasoning. First of all, let us ask some specific question to this subject matter. What is God? Who is God? Is God the cause of His own being? Why do some people conclude that a God exists? God is an illusion created by man, for man to help give meaning and answer to the many mysteries in the universe. He is believed to be a being of many supernatural powers and attributes and worshipped by many. He is believed to the first uncaused cause, creating his own being and other wonderful things in the universe. And we conclude that he exists simply because we’re afraid of the unknown. Saint Thomas Aquinas in his second argument goes from the fact that there must be a first efficient cause to the conclusion that God is that cause. Why must Aquinas make the extraordinary jump from there being a cause, to assuming that this cause must be God? Would it not be just as plausible to make matter the first cause? If so, is matter the God Aquinas is referring to as the first cause? Furthermore, this second way of proving the existence of God is somewhat related to the first one and also rests on the Aristotle’s theory of motion. To Aquinas, since nothing can exist prior to and as cause of itself, there must be an order, chain of efficient causes in the world. Similarly to the idea in the previous argument, Aquinas states that there can't be an infinite number of efficient causes, and thus he identifies the first efficient cause as God. Again several paradoxes are formed from the formulation of this argument. To begin with, the question appears of how St Thomas Aquinas decides that everyone calls this first cause "God." Obviously, this proof relies heavily on acceptance of the first proof. Aquinas again assumes that motion has purpose, and that purpose denotes an intelligent planner. There is no evidence that simply because God is the first cause and pure actuality, God is the cause of His own being. By stating that the line of causes cannot go on to infinity, Thomas Aquinas establishes the endpoint of God. On the contrary, speaking of first efficient cause, why didn’t St. Thomas Aquinas argue matter as the first cause? Matter as we all know is the substance that any physical object is composed of. Matter is closed and finite, with no beginning or end. Could one not put matter in the place of God in Aquinas’ argument and still assume there is a first efficient cause? The theory that matter “is” is just as plausible as the theory that God “is”. Matter is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning or end. Putting Matter in the place of God in the end of the argument given by Aquinas is just as plausible. In fact, matter is an easier concept to understand and to believe in than God. Everyone has a different view of what God is and even what he stands for, Christians believe He’s just and loving, some Muslims believe suicidal bombing will get them to God’s right hand, etc. but all these same people understand the concepts of matter. Matter is all around us, and even we are matter. We interact with matter everyday and in every situation, so the knowledge of matter is not trivial. God does not interact with us, he is not around us, and we do not associate with God in the same manner in which we associate with matter. Matter is an understandable concept while God is abstract. The properties of matter make it a suitable conclusion for Aquinas’ argument in place of God. The explanation of God is then not needed and therefore there is no place for God in the discussion of the origin of matter. Not only is matter an easier concept to understand and relate to than God, It is also a tremendous leap of faith to put anything as the first efficient cause. If you were to conclude that there had to be a first efficient cause, why would one assume that God was that cause? God, of all things, is the most abstract idea that exists. Why does Aquinas make this huge jump to God when matter would also fit in his explanation? The answer is straight, he simply assigns the most mysterious being man ever conceived of the label God. Matter may even be a better concept then that of God because we are comfortable with what matter is. Why then, do people of so many different cultures and backgrounds, turn to the belief of a God as the first cause. Surely if so many people believe, they must have some clout as to what they are believing in. These people only believe in God because it is given as a conclusion to us as a being. Matter is just as suitable of a conclusion to us as a being and it answers the first efficient cause argument. Matter is not nearly as abstract of an idea and in fact, we are matter, so the notion that matter “is” is not nearly as far fetched as the idea that God “is”. The same people who say that God is the first efficient cause also believe in matter. At the same time, more people believe in the concept of matter than what it is than believe in God. In fact, they believe in the very same types of matter while their beliefs of God as the first efficient cause remain very different. These cultures must have a reason for turning to God rather than matter as their first efficient cause. The reason is that they can give God supernatural powers that do not exist with matter. These supernatural powers differ greatly between cultures, so the main reason they turn to God is very different in similar cases. The reason that cultures turn to God instead of matter is that they can assign these supernatural powers at free will, while the concept of matter is well defined. God is just an easy approach to the unsolved mysteries and theories of the universe. In conclusion, the problem I see is that this argument could always be tested to be false by asking the question, "What Caused God?" and this is simply the basis of my argument. I need to know how God himself came into being. St. Thomas Aquinas would probably respond that God is the uncaused cause because God has always existed. To prove this argument, St. Thomas Aquinas must accompany it by another argument that proves God has existed forever. Then, God would not need to have been caused since He would have always been. This would lead to a paradox in that he could not prove God existed, until he proved God has existed forever, and he obviously cannot prove that God has existed forever until he proves that God exists at all. Cycling around those questions doesn't prove the existence of God. Because of this, I do not believe God's existence can be proved by means of St. Thomas Aquinas' second argument. Bibliography: None Word Count: 1358
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.