PSALM DAVID S.

PRENA
BS ACCOUNTANCY 5
REL. ED. 1 MWF 11:30 12:30
St. Thomas Aquinas 5 proofs of God's existence (QUINQUE
VIAE)
What real evidence can be supplied for God's existence?
St. Thomas, in his Summa Theologica, sets forth five
separate proofs for the existence of God, Unlike St.
Anselm's proof, which deals with pure concepts, St.
Thomas' proofs rely on the world of our experience-what
we can see around us. In these proofs we can easily see
the influence of Aristotle and his doctrine of the Four
Causes.
l) The Proof from Motion. (THE UNMOVED MOVER)
We observe motion all around us. Whatever is in motion
now was at rest until moved by something else, and that
by something else, and so on. But if there were an infinite
series of movers, all waiting to be moved by something
else, then actual motion could never have got started, and
there would be no motion now. But there is motion now. So there must be a First Mover which is
itself unmoved. This First Mover we call God.
Explanation
Aquinas uses the term "motion" in his argument, but by this he understands any kind of change,
and more specifically a transit from potentiality to actuality. Since a potential does not yet exist,
it cannot cause itself to exist and can therefore only be brought into existence by something
already existing. When Aquinas argues that a causal chain cannot be infinitely long, he does not
have in mind a chain where each element is a prior event that causes the next event; in other
words, he is not arguing for a first event in a sequence. Rather, his argument is that a chain
of concurrent effects must be rooted ultimately in a cause capable of generating these effects,
and hence for a cause that is first in the hierarchical sense, not the temporal sense. His thinking
here relies on what would later be labelled "essentially ordered causal series" by John Duns
Scotus. This is a causal series in which the immediately observable elements are not capable of
generating the effect in question, and a cause capable of doing so is inferred at the far end of the
chain. In other words, he rejected the argument that the universe must have had a beginning.
[10] Finally, his concept of God has minimal content by the end of the argument, which he
fleshes out through the rest of the Summa Theologica. For example, the question of whether
"God" has a body or is composed of matter is answered in question three, immediately following
the Five Ways.
2) The Proof from Efficient Cause. (THE FIRST CAUSE) Everything in the world has its
efficient cause--its maker--and that maker has its maker, and so on. The coffee table was made
by the carpenter, the carpenter by his or her parents, and on and on. But if there were just an
infinite series of such makers, the series could never have got started, and therefore be nothing
now. But there is something everything there is! So there must have been a First Maker, that was
not itself made, and that First Maker we call God.
Explanation
As in the First Way, the causes Aquinas has in mind are not sequential events, but rather
simultaneously existing dependency relationships. For example, plant growth depends on
sunlight, which depends on gravity, which depends on mass. Aquinas is not arguing for a cause

that is first in a sequence, but rather first in a hierarchy: a principle cause, rather than a
derivative cause
3) The Proof from Necessary vs. Possible Being.(THE ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY)
Possible, or contingent, beings are those, such as cars and trees and you and I, whose existence
is not necessary. For all such beings there is a time before they come to be when they are not
yet, and a time after they cease to be when they are no more. If everything were merely
possible, there would have been a time, long ago, when nothing had yet come to be. Nothing
comes from nothing, so in that case there would be nothing now! But there is something now-the
world and everything in it-so there must be at least one necessary being. This Necessary Being
we call God.
Explanation
The argument begins with the observation that things around us come into and go out of
existence: animals die, buildings are destroyed, stars go supernova, etc. But if everything were
like this, then, assuming an infinite past, all possibilities would be realized and everything would
go out of existence. Since this is clearly not the case, then there must be at least one thing that
does not have the possibility of going out of existence
4) The Proof from Degrees of Perfection. (THE ARGUMENT FROM DEGREE) We all
evaluate things and people in terms of their being more or less perfectly true, good, noble and so
on. We have certain standards of how things and people should be. But we would have no such
standards unless there were some being that is perfect in every way, something that is the
truest, noblest, and best. That Most Perfect Being we call God.
Explanation
The argument is rooted in Aristotle and Plato but its developed form is found in Anselm's
Monologion. Although the argument has Platonic influences, Aquinas was not a Platonist and did
not believe in the Theory of Forms. Rather, he is arguing that things that only have partial or
flawed existence indicate that they are not their own sources of existence, and so must rely on
something else as the source of their existence. [ The argument makes use of the theory
of transcendentals: properties of existence. For example, "true" presents an aspect of existence,
as any existent thing will be "true" insofar as it is true that it exists. Or "one," insofar as any
existent thing will be (at least) "one thing.
5) The Proof from Design. (THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT) As we look at the world
around us, and ourselves, we see ample evidence of design--the bird's wing, designed for the
purpose of flight; the human ear, designed for the purpose of hearing; the natural environment,
designed to support life; and on and on. If there is design, there must be a designer. That
Designer we call God
Explanation
The Fifth Way depends on the concept of Aristotle's final causes. Aristotle argued that a complete
explanation of an object will involve knowledge of how it came to be (efficient cause), what
material it consists of (material cause), how that material is structured (formal cause), and the
specific behaviors associated with the type of thing it is (final cause). [17] The concept of final
causes involves the concept of dispositions or "ends": a specific goal or aim towards which
something strives. For example, acorns regularly develop into oak trees but never into sea lions.
The oak tree is the "end" towards which the acorn "points," its disposition, even if it fails to
achieve maturity. The aims and goals of intelligent beings is easily explained by the fact that
they consciously set those goals for themselves. The implication is that if something has a goal
or end towards which it strives, it is either because it is intelligent or because something
intelligent is guiding it.[18] It must be emphasized that this argument is distinct from the design
argument associated with William Paley and the Intelligent Design movement. The latter
implicitly argue that objects in the world do not have inherent dispositions or ends, but, like

Paley's watch, will not naturally have a purpose unless forced to do some outside agency. [18] The
latter also focus on complexity and interworking parts as the effect needing explanation,
whereas the Fifth Way takes as its starting point any regularity, including the example of an
electron orbiting an atom.
The irony of proving God exists is, to a non-believer it can never be proven, but to a believer,
proof of God can be seen just about everywhere. Of course, if you need to see it to believe it, do
you really have faith?
SOURCES:
http://www.catholicforum.com/forums/showthread.php?3633-St-Thomas-Aquinas-5-proofsof-God-s-existence
Copleston, Frederick (1993). Medieval philosophy : [from Augustine to Duns
Scotus]. ([Repr.].
ed.).
New
York
[u.a.]:
Image
Books,
Doubleday.
p. 341342. ISBN 038546844X.
Sachs, Joe. "Aristotle: Motion and its Place in Nature". Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002.
Floyd, Shawn. "Aquinas: Philosophical Theology 2.b.". Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002.
Williams, Thomas (2016). "John Duns Scotus 2.2.". The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. ISSN 1095-5054.
CHRISTINE T. AMOR
BS ACCOUNTANCY 5
REL. ED. 1 MWF 11:30 12:30
The First Way: Argument from Motion
Our senses prove that some things are in motion. Things move when potential motion becomes
actual motion. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual
and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another). Therefore nothing can move
itself. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else. The sequence of motion
cannot extend ad infinitum. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by
no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world. Nothing exists prior to itself.
Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself. If a previous
efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect). Therefore if the first
thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists. If the series of efficient causes
extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now. That is plainly
false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes). Therefore
efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first
efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)
We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of
being i.e., contingent beings. Assume that every being is a contingent being. For each contingent
being, there is a time it does not exist. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed. Therefore at that time there
would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
Therefore, nothing would be in existence now. We have reached an absurd result from assuming
that every being is a contingent being. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another
being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.
The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others. Predications of
degree require reference to the uttermost case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it
more nearly resembles that which is hottest). The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in
that genus. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their
being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
The Fifth Way: Argument from Design
We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance. Most natural
things lack knowledge. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer,
what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence. Therefore
some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being
we call God.
SOURCE:
Http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web
%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm

Controversy[edit]
Criticism[edit]
Criticism of the cosmological argument, and hence the first three Ways, emerged in the 18th century by the
philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant.[19]
Kant argued that our minds give structure to the raw materials of reality, and that the world is therefore divided into
the phenomenal world (the world we experience and know), and the noumenal world (the world as it is "in itself,"
which we can never know).[20] Since the cosmological arguments reason from what we experience, and hence the
phenomenal world, to an inferred cause, and hence the noumenal world, since the noumenal world lies beyond our
knowledge we can never know what's there. [21] Kant also argued that the concept of a necessary being is incoherent,
and that the cosmological argument presupposes its coherence, and hence the arguments fail. [22]
Hume argued that since we can conceive of causes and effects as separate, there is no necessary connection
between them and therefore we cannot necessarily reason from an observed effect to an inferred cause. [23] Hume
also argued that explaining the causes of individual elements explains everything, and therefore there is no need for
a cause of the whole of reality.[24][25]

Defense[edit]
The 20th-century philosopher of religion Richard Swinburne argued in his book, Simplicity as Evidence of Truth, that
these arguments are only strong when collected together, and that individually each of them is weak. [26]
Philosopher Keith Ward claims in his book Why there almost certainly is a God: Doubting Dawkins that Dawkins
mis-stated the five ways, and thus responds with a straw man. Ward defended the utility of the five ways (for

instance, on the fourth argument he states that all possible smells must pre-exist in the mind of God, but that God,
being by his nature non-physical, does not himself stink) whilst pointing out that they only constitute a proof of God if
one first begins with a proposition that the universe can be rationally understood. Nevertheless, he argues that they
are useful in allowing us to understand what God will be like given this initial presupposition. [27]
More recently the prominent Thomistic philosopher Edward Feser has argued in his book Aquinas: A Beginners
Guide that Dawkins, Hume, Kant, and most modern philosophers do not have a correct understanding of Aquinas at
all; that the arguments are often difficult to translate into modern terms; and that the Five Ways are just a brief
summary directed towards beginners and must be understood in the context of Aristotles Metaphysics and Aquinas
other writings. He argues that Aquinas five ways have never been adequately refuted when thus considered. [28]
Eastern Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart says that Dawkins "devoted several pages of The God Delusion to
a discussion of the 'Five Ways' of Thomas Aquinas but never thought to avail himself of the services of some scholar
of ancient and mediaeval thought who might have explained them to him ... As a result, he not only mistook the Five
Ways for Thomas's comprehensive statement on why we should believe in God, which they most definitely are not,
but ended up completely misrepresenting the logic of every single one of them, and at the most basic levels." [29] Hart
said of Dawkins treatment of Aquinas' arguments that:
Not knowing the scholastic distinction between primary and secondary causality, for instance, [Dawkins] imagined
that Thomas's talk of a "first cause" referred to the initial temporal causal agency in a continuous temporal series of
discrete causes. He thought that Thomas's logic requires the universe to have had a temporal beginning, which
Thomas explicitly and repeatedly made clear is not the case. He anachronistically mistook Thomas's argument from
universal natural teleology for an argument from apparent "Intelligent Design" in nature. He thought Thomas's proof
from universal "motion" concerned only physical movement in space, "local motion," rather than the ontological
movement from potency to act. He mistook Thomas's argument from degrees of transcendental perfection for an
argument from degrees of quantitative magnitude, which by definition have no perfect sum. (Admittedly, those last
two are a bit difficult for modern persons, but he might have asked all the same.)" [29]