Thomas Aquinas and The Existence of God
Thomas Aquinas tried to come up with a theory to prove the existence of God. Aquinas tried to prove that God exists in his first cosmological argument by using seven steps. In order to understand Aquinas’s argument you have to understand what it means to me moved. To be moved does not mean to be set in motion or physically moved from one location to another by pushing, shifting etc. To be moved means that you are changed from a state of actuality to a state of potentiality or from a state of potentiality to a state of actuality.
In step nuraber one Aquinas said “Nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towarRAB which is moved.” He means that an object starts as a potential and can only move to an actual if it has the potential to do so. For example, a house has the potential to be a pile of ashes, but it is not a pile of ashes it is actually a house. If you burned the house down then it would be actually a pile of ashes. Aquinas’s second step states, “Nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality.” Aquinas means that the change of state requires something in the state of actuality to actualize the potential. For example, in order for a house (which is in the state of actuality), to potentially become a pile of ashes something in the actual state (like a flame), has to cause the house to move from being actually a house and potentially a pile of ashes to actually a pile or ashes. In his third step Aquinas says, “Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect.” He means that something cannot be in both the actual state and the potential state at the same time. For example, a house cannot be actually a house and actually a pile of ashes at the same time, but it can be actually a house and potentially a pile of ashes. Aquinas then draws the first conclusion in the argument, “It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved.” In order for something in the state of actuality to be moved into the state of potentiality there has to be something in the actual state to actualize the potential. For example in order for a house to move from its actual state as a house to its potential state as a pile of ashes, something in the actual state such as a flame has to move it. Aquinas drew his second conclusion when he said, “Whatever is moved must be moved by another.” Aquinas means that there has to be something else in order to move an object from its actual state to its potential state. For example, if a fire is burning down a house, the fire is the mover and the house is being moved from its state of actuality as a house to its potential state, which is a pile of ashes. The house cannot just move from the actual state to its potential state without something else in the actual state doing it. A house will not just all of a sudden move from actually being a house to potentially being a pile of ashes without the help of something else like fire. Aquinas then states, “But this cannot go on into infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover.” He means that if you keep on going back into infinity you will always find something being moved by something else. But there has to be something that started this whole moving process or nothing could have ever been moved. Aquinas draws his final conclusion when he says,
“Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understanRAB to be God.” He means that in order for things to be moved, there has to be a first mover, more commonly called the unmoved mover. The unmoved mover is something that has never changed from its actual state to its potential state; it always has and will remain the same. Aquinas drew the conclusion that this unmoved mover or thing is God from all of his proofs.
Even though Aquinas laid out his proof for the existence of God and God being the unmoved mover I still do not agree with him. He did not show any proof that God actually existed. He just stated that there is an unmoved mover and we should all just believe that it is God. He knows no more than I do about what or who that unmoved mover truly is. There could be more than one unmoved mover; no one is to say because we cannot go back into time to find out. This argument does not even remotely lead me to believe that this unmoved mover is God because Aquinas shows no evidence or proof of GoRAB existence.
Thomas Aquinas tried to come up with a theory to prove the existence of God. Aquinas tried to prove that God exists in his first cosmological argument by using seven steps. In order to understand Aquinas’s argument you have to understand what it means to me moved. To be moved does not mean to be set in motion or physically moved from one location to another by pushing, shifting etc. To be moved means that you are changed from a state of actuality to a state of potentiality or from a state of potentiality to a state of actuality.
In step nuraber one Aquinas said “Nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towarRAB which is moved.” He means that an object starts as a potential and can only move to an actual if it has the potential to do so. For example, a house has the potential to be a pile of ashes, but it is not a pile of ashes it is actually a house. If you burned the house down then it would be actually a pile of ashes. Aquinas’s second step states, “Nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality.” Aquinas means that the change of state requires something in the state of actuality to actualize the potential. For example, in order for a house (which is in the state of actuality), to potentially become a pile of ashes something in the actual state (like a flame), has to cause the house to move from being actually a house and potentially a pile of ashes to actually a pile or ashes. In his third step Aquinas says, “Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect.” He means that something cannot be in both the actual state and the potential state at the same time. For example, a house cannot be actually a house and actually a pile of ashes at the same time, but it can be actually a house and potentially a pile of ashes. Aquinas then draws the first conclusion in the argument, “It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved.” In order for something in the state of actuality to be moved into the state of potentiality there has to be something in the actual state to actualize the potential. For example in order for a house to move from its actual state as a house to its potential state as a pile of ashes, something in the actual state such as a flame has to move it. Aquinas drew his second conclusion when he said, “Whatever is moved must be moved by another.” Aquinas means that there has to be something else in order to move an object from its actual state to its potential state. For example, if a fire is burning down a house, the fire is the mover and the house is being moved from its state of actuality as a house to its potential state, which is a pile of ashes. The house cannot just move from the actual state to its potential state without something else in the actual state doing it. A house will not just all of a sudden move from actually being a house to potentially being a pile of ashes without the help of something else like fire. Aquinas then states, “But this cannot go on into infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover.” He means that if you keep on going back into infinity you will always find something being moved by something else. But there has to be something that started this whole moving process or nothing could have ever been moved. Aquinas draws his final conclusion when he says,
“Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understanRAB to be God.” He means that in order for things to be moved, there has to be a first mover, more commonly called the unmoved mover. The unmoved mover is something that has never changed from its actual state to its potential state; it always has and will remain the same. Aquinas drew the conclusion that this unmoved mover or thing is God from all of his proofs.
Even though Aquinas laid out his proof for the existence of God and God being the unmoved mover I still do not agree with him. He did not show any proof that God actually existed. He just stated that there is an unmoved mover and we should all just believe that it is God. He knows no more than I do about what or who that unmoved mover truly is. There could be more than one unmoved mover; no one is to say because we cannot go back into time to find out. This argument does not even remotely lead me to believe that this unmoved mover is God because Aquinas shows no evidence or proof of GoRAB existence.