Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Believe In God

I enjoy the philosophy behind the existence of God. My favorite proofs for His existence are Thomas Aquinas' five ways, which are sadly quite terribly misunderstood by most people.
The second and fifth ways are my favorites, but here is the second way, a proof of God from efficient causation:

1. There are series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself, because to be the efficient cause of itself, it would have to be prior to itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no first member, and no things existing now.
7. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Premise 1 is pretty obvious. Efficient causes are the usual causes that we see in day to day life. For example, electricity causes a light bulb to turn on.
Premises 2 and 3 go together. Nothing can cause itself, because a cause has to be prior to its effect. However, what Aquinas does not say is that everything has a cause. Things are either caused by something else or are entirely uncaused.
Premises 4 and 5 are pretty self-evident.
Premise 6 is one which most people misinterpret to be speaking of an entirely different type of causation than what Aquinas had in mind. For Aquinas, there were two different types of causal series.
1) Accidentally ordered series. In these series, the effect is not dependent on the cause for its existence. An example of such a series is people having children. The children continue to exist and produce more offspring even after their parents die.
2) Essentially ordered series. In these series, the effect depends on the cause for its existence. An example of this would be someone's hand moving a stick which in turn is moving a stone. Once the hand stops moving, both the stick and stone stop moving. They depend on the movement of the hand for their movement.
Aquinas wrote elsewhere that he did not believe it was possible to philosophically prove that accidentally ordered causal series could not go on to infinity. Therefore, he is talking about essentially ordered series.
So, if we go back to the stick pushing the stone scenario, the stone is moving because the stick is moving, the stick is moving because the hand is moving, the hand is moving because certain motor neurons are firing, and these are firing because of others, and it keeps going back and back and back, but if there is no first member in the series, there is no way the stone can be moving at all. Aquinas concludes that there must be an uncaused cause sustaining things in existence at every moment, and that this cause is God. It's not just the watchmaker God of modern intelligent design arguments. It is a God continually, actively, sustaining His creation, which I think is a very beautiful picture of Him.

I am indebted to Edward Feser's book Aquinas for this information.


This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Rycbar17
I'm glad you've found a philosophy writer that supports your beliefs. I just read Aquinas' proofs a few months ago for a college course, but found it a bit flawed honestly. I understand this paradox with infinite regression, we must have had something to start off this chain reaction we call the universe after all. But Aquinas just says that we understand this prime mover as God, but is it really the Hod we depict in Abrahamic religion? Who is to say this prime mover isn't a pantheon of deities, or a single deity that is misunderstood by the human race, or etc.? This proof only shows there must have been a prime mover, a substance that is self-efficient. Why then can't the universe be self-efficient, or the Big Bang, or you. The universe continually supporting itself through its natural processes, the effects of the Big Bang still unraveling, etc. It was a good start for Aquinas, but it needs work if it's going to prove the existence of God.
Rycbar17
God not Hod*
darkanddesolate · 26-30, F
Aquinas has many further arguments for what the nature of God must be. They're all in the first book of the Summa which is available online http://newadvent.org/summa/1.htm
Rycbar17
Is this the whole argument that God embodies all perfect things and He then must exist since it is more perfect to exist than not to exist? Or am I confusing philosophers here?
darkanddesolate · 26-30, F
You might be thinking of the fourth way, which is also hugely misunderstood. But besides the five ways, Aquinas has other arguments for just what sort of being God must be and his attributes and stuff like that.
Rycbar17
Kk. Well again I'm glad you found a philosopher you like :)