Thomas%20Aquinas - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Thomas%20Aquinas

Description:

The third premise is critical to the argument. However, this premise is dubious. ... the case that there exists any (third) object on which the comparison depends. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:782
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 16
Provided by: dingoSbs
Category:
Tags: 20aquinas | thomas

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Thomas%20Aquinas


1
Thomas Aquinas
1225 1274 (Aquinas notes created by Kevin
Vallier)
  • Dominican monk, born to Italian nobility.
  • Worked 150 years after Anselm.
  • Student of Albert the Great
  • Studied and commented upon much of Aristotles
    works soon after their translation into Latin in
    western Europe
  • Studied important Islamic philosophers including
    Avicenna and Averroes, who themselves were
    heavily influenced by Aristotle

2
Rejection of the Ontological Argument
Granted that everyone understands that by this
word God is signified something than which
nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it
does not therefore follow that he understands
that what the word signifies exists actually, but
only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be
argued that it actually exists, unless it be
admitted that there actually exists something
than which nothing greater can be thought.
(Summa Theologica I.II.I)
3
  • Anselms argument rests on his definition of god
    as that which nothing greater can be conceived.
  • Aquinas rejects the a priori Ontological
    argument on the grounds that a words meaning
    cannot alone establish the existence of that to
    which the word refers.
  • Rather, Aquinas requires existence proofs be
    empirical/ a posteriori, ie. to require
    observational evidence.

4
Cosmological Proofs for the Existence of God
  1. Cosmology the empirical study of the universe
    considered as a whole system
  2. Eg, Hubbles (1929) discovery that the universe
    is expanding rather than in a steady or static
    state
  3. Eg, Einsteins (1915) identification of gravity
    the curvature of space/time
  4. Eg, The big bang theory of the origin of the
    universe

5
Cosmological Proofs for the Existence of God
  • A cosmological proof for the existence of God
    derives Gods existence from facts established by
    cosmology
  • Form of a cosmological argument
  • By observation of the universe or parts of the
    universe we know a posteriori that the universe
    or parts thereof have property P
  • The best explanation of P is the hypothesis that
    God exists.
  • Therefore, God does exist

6
Aquinas Five Cosmological Arguments for Gods
Existence
  • Argument from motion
  • Argument from efficient causation
  • Argument from possibility and necessity
  • Argument from gradation
  • Argument from governance

7
Argument from motion
  • There is motion.
  • Motion involves the reduction from potentiality
    to actuality. (eg an activated spring on the
    garden gate)
  • So all motion was first potentiality.
  • Only what is actualized in some regard can reduce
    something from potentiality to actuality in that
    regard. (eg, the squirrel that releases the
    coiled spring on the gate)
  • Nothing can reduce itself from potentiality to
    actuality.
  • Nothing can move itself.
  • There cannot be an infinite sequence of movers.
  • ? There must be an unmoved prime mover, i.e.
    God.

8
Argument from efficient causation
  1. The sensible world is full of the effects of
    efficient causation.
  2. Nothing can be an efficient cause of itself.
  3. If a things cause is absent, then it cannot
    exist.
  4. Efficient causes are ordered 1st -gt intermediate
    -gt (ultimate) effect.
  5. So without a first cause, there cannot be
    (ultimate) effects.
  6. ? So there must be a first efficient cause,
    i.e. God.

9
Problems with cosmological arguments
  • The arguments from motion and efficient causation
    deny that anything can move or cause itself
    except God. However, what establishes this
    exception? Rather, why should we not simply say
    that the sequence of causes/movers is
    historically infinite?
  • Also, Aquinas arguments do not demonstrate that
  • a single thing is responsible
  • the first cause in any way resembles the
    Judeo-Christian god
  • the thing responsible still exists

10
Argument from contingency and necessity
  1. Some natural things exist contingently.
  2. For each contingent thing, there is a time at
    which it does not exist.
  3. If everything were contingent there would be a
    time in the past when nothing existed.
  4. If there were such a time, then nothing would now
    exist.
  5. ? So, something must exist that is not
    contingent but rather necessary and which gives
    rise to all things. This necessary being is God.

11
Problems with the contingency argument
  • Even if each particular object in the history of
    the universe exists contingently, it does not
    follow that there must be a time when no
    contingent objects exist.

12
Argument from gradation
  1. Everything is comparable /commensurable with
    respect to value and being.
  2. There is a gradation in these properties,
    especially value. That is, some things are
    better than others.
  3. One thing is better than another only if the
    former is more similar to that which is perfect
    than is the later.
  4. So, since things are comparable with respect to
    value, there must exist that which is perfect,
    and this can only be God.

13
Problem with gradation
  1. The third premise is critical to the argument.
    However, this premise is dubious. What reason
    secures that variation in value presupposes the
    existence of the standard of perfection? Notice
    that there are many examples of comparability
    that do not presuppose the existence of the
    relevant standard e.g. one thing can be taller
    than another without it being the case that there
    exists any (third) object on which the comparison
    depends.

14
Argument from governance
  1. Some natural unintelligent objects have purposes.
    (E.g. the purpose of the heart is to pump blood
    the purpose of the wing is to enable flight.)
  2. Purpose is always the result of intelligence.
  3. The purpose of some natural unintelligent objects
    was not established by any natural intelligent
    being (such as a human).
  4. ? So, there must be a supernatural intelligent
    being responsible for such purpose, and this is
    God.

15
Problems with governance
  • Is it correct that objects have purposes in the
    sense required by the argument?
  • If objects do have purposes in the sense required
    by the argument, might these purposes not be
    established simply by the unintelligent processes
    of evolutionary biology?
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com