Introduction
The question regarding the existence of God has baffled scholars since civilization. St. Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic philosopher and theologian from the 13th century, proposed five cosmological arguments to explain God’s existence. He contended that the existence of the natural world proved that God exists. The arguments are based on how people experience the world and aim to establish how the world came to be. The essay argues that the five ways are invalid as they lack empirical evidence to support the ontological claims and thus cannot be used as evidence that God exists. However, many Christians accept Aquinas’s five ways as the most concise argument that God exists.
Main Body
Firstly, Aquinas argues that God is the unmoved mover, the first mover of everything. The logic is that nothing can move; thus, there must be a primary element that causes motion without itself moving (Wilber). Aquinas claims that humans cannot exist independently and thus could only have been created by a supernatural being. This, according to Aquinas, must be what humans understand as God. Aquinas’s argument is flawed as it follows a natural progression from a simple statement to a massive conclusion without any empirical evidence.
The first way is derived from Aristotle’s observation that another force first catapults an object in motion. Aquinas names this force a mover and states that the first mover cannot be unmoved as its force moves other objects (Egnor). He proceeds to name this force the unmoved mover, God, thus signifying the existence of God. There is no empirical evidence to show that God is the first unmoved mover.
Science through the big bang theory has a similar argument but highlights its proof. The big bang theory states that the universe’s matter, energy, space, and motion can be traced to a specific singularity. The scientific argument provides evidence of the existence of one singularity through observable parameters such as the measured distance between galaxies and the universe’s expansion rate. Aquinas’s first way provides the logical argument of who created the universe, while the scientific method establishes how the universe came to being.
Secondly, Aquinas argues that God is the unchanged first cause since nothing can change itself. He states that something cannot inflict change in itself, as this would show that it existed before its existence (Horn). He argues that something constant must have catapulted the universe to change. God is implied as the first cause, the constant source of change that led to change in the universe, thus showing the existence of a deity (Horn). However, this reasoning is fallacious as it defies the reason that change must result from something constant.
Additionally, there is no reason why God cannot alter over time, just like the cosmos does. There is evidence showing the possibility that something can change after enacting change on an object. The never changing God is false as it shows that the universe will never change as they are one entity. There is no evidence that the universe cannot end and give rise to another universe repeating the creation cycle. Aquinas erred in assuming that God must be an external force incomprehensible to humans. One can claim that God is the universe and thus is subject to change through evolution.
Thirdly, Aquinas introduces the concept of contingency and necessary beings depicting God. He argues that contingent beings are perishable and thus capable of extinction given time. However, given that contingent beings have existed since creation, something imperishable must bring them to be. This indestructible being is depicted as God. Aquinas contends that God has existed since the beginning of time and will continue to do so indefinitely (Zamboni 56).
However, there is no evidence showing how God came to be given that he always existed. The pertinent question is why God was always necessary to exist. Aquinas believes nothing could have lived, created something, and ceased to exist (Wilber). This is true in the family tree, where one is created by parents whose parents created it, but they stopped existing just as the children will eventually stop.
In a fourth way, Aquinas states that the assumptions of degrees of perfection highlight the presence of a perfect being. He states that there is some implied standard against which all things are judged (Wilber). God is the ultimate perfection, thus showing evidence of a supreme deity. However, this argument is flawed as there is no evidence that God is inherently flawless. God cannot be perfect, as nothing in existence is perfect. Aquinas’s assumption is similar to a child thinking the parents are perfect and supreme beings before they social interaction with others.
Conclusion
Aquinas’s proofs that God exist are irrelevant as they lack empirical evidence. Believing the existence of God based on unfounded defense is similar to believing the contents of the Bible as they deem themselves accurate. The natural order is neither complex nor does it have a supernatural intervention. The essay shows that the existence of a constant source of motion, an unoriginated source of beings, or absolute perfection does not explain the existence of a deity. The existence of the universe does not make the existence of God more affirming than the world.
Works Cited
Egnor, Michael. “Introducing Aquinas’ Five Ways.” Evolution News. 2019. Web.
Horn, Trent. “Thomas Aquinas’s Five Proofs for God Revisited.” Christian Research Institute. 2020. Web.
Wilber, Jennifer. “Do Aquinas’s Five Proofs for the Existence of God Hold Up?” Owlcation, 2022. Web.
Zamboni, Stefano. “Natural Law, Divine Law and Revealed Morality in the Summa Theologica: Continuity and Tensions.” Biblica et Patristica Thoruniensia, vol. 10, no. 2, 2017, p. 179. Web.