1

Ryan Butler
Religious Philosophy Midterm Paper
Atkinson: Tues,Thurs. 1pm Class
Aquinass Cosmological Argument
Who is God, does He exist and can we prove His existence? Thomas Aquinas (12241274) argued that we could. To observe God, we simply need to observe the world around us,
and look at laws of the Universe. Aquinas gives us five proofs for Gods existence. He articulates
the classical position between reason and revelation. He goes as far to state There are some
truths about God that can be learned through human reasoning, and other truths about God that
can only be learned through revelation. Both paths are worthy of our belief, and although the
sources of the two paths to truth are different, they are not or cannot be in disagreement with
each other, since only the false is opposed to the true. ((Philosphy of Religion Textbook, 5th
edition P=pg. 96) TEXT BOOK) Through his observation of the world around him Aquinas
argued that anyone could witness God, he uses the laws of the Universe to strengthen his
arguments, and presents us with ideas that we can observe and apply ourselves.
The First Way: Argument from Motion. As we observe the world around us we can see all
things are in motion. Isaac Newtons Three Laws of Motion state that 1: An object at rest will
rest will remain at rest unless act on by an unbalanced force. An object in motion continues in
motion at the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force
(Inertia). The Second Law of motion states; Acceleration is produced when a force acts on a
mass. The greater the mass the greater amount of force is needed to accelerate the object. The
third and final Law states; that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. (Rice
University, teacher tech, Newton) So what then started the Universe moving?

2
Aquinas argued that our senses prove that some things are in motion, and this motion is
the first proof of Gods existence. Things begin to move when potential motion becomes actual
motion. Only actual motion can change potential motion into actual motion. Nothing can be at
once in actuality and in potentiality in the same respect, therefore nothing can move itself. Each
thing in motion has to be moved by something else, and the sequence cannot extend ad infinitum.
This then brings us to ask the question; what was it that began the sequence? Who or what set
things in motion? According to Aquinas there had to be a first mover, He that put all things in
motion, and He by no other. That Prime Mover is God. (Class notes)
The second argument posed by Aquinas Way is the Efficient Cause. As we observe the
world around us we can see that everything has a cause, or a purpose. There is a series of
efficient causes. Nothing exists prior to itself; therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself. If
a previous efficient cause does not exist, then neither can the things that results from that cause;
therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, then nothing in that series can exist. The
series of efficient causes cannot exist ad infinitum into the past, for there would be no things in
existence now; therefore it is necessary to admit there must have been a first efficient cause.
Aquinas argues this First Cause is God. For only God causes all things to happen.
The third argument posed by Aquinas is that of Possibility and Necessity. We see that in
nature, those things are possible to be, and not to be, that things come into being then out of
being; birth, life, procreation, and death. Assume that every being is a contingent being. For each
contingent being, there is a time it does not exist. Everything before my existence had to line up
perfectly for me to be created by my parents. My creation was contingent on their meeting and
falling in love. Therefore it is impossible for these beings to always exist, I did not always exist.
There could have been a time when no things existed. Therefore, at that time there would have

3
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. God is the cause for which all things were created and exist.
The fourth argument posed by Aquinas is that of Gradation of Being, or Degree. There is
a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others. We can see it in the world
around us; some people seem to act better than others. Some individuals are better qualified to do
their job than others. Some minerals are more pure, than others. Predications of degree require
reference to the uttermost case .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 being we call God.
The fifth and final argument posed by Aquinas is that of Design. We see that natural
bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance. Observe a tree that has fallen in the
forest, if its root system is still attached you will over time witness the tree bending upward
toward the sun, the tree is designed for survival (leture Atkinson). Most natural things lack
knowledge. Just as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks
intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something other form of intelligence. Therefore
some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being
we call God.
Aquinas through his observation of the world around him arrived at conclusions which
would later be further expanded upon through modern physics and natural laws. These
observations made by Aquinas satisfy some the arguments of reasoning. But, Aquinas also states

4
that if this truth were left solely as a matter of inquiry for human reasoning, three awkward
consequences would follow.
First is that few men would possess the knowledge of God. There are three reasons why
men are cut off from diligent inquiry, and the study of truth. Some do not have the physical
disposition for such work. Naturally there are those that are not fitted to pursue knowledge, and
no matter how hard they tried to attain the knowledge of God, these men could not achieve such,
for most men are busy pursuing their temporal desires, instead of taking the time necessary to
contemplate God. Finally there are those which are cut off by their own indolence. In order to
know the things that reason can investigate concerning God, knowledge of many things must be
possessed, for almost all of philosophy is directed towards the knowledge of God. (PG 97
textbook)
The second awkward effect is that those who would come to know the truth would barely
be able to reach the truth in a fair amount of time. Trying to understand solely through the
application reason God and his perfection, only a few would be able to attain this perfect
knowledge.
Finally the third awkward effect is this. The investigation of the human reason has falsity
presented within it, and this is due to our weakness in our intellect in judgement and to our denial
of images. As a result many remain ignorant to demonstrations of power, they simply choose not
to believe what they see, especially when they are presented with the question of truth which
would have them question what they think they already know. Simply put, God presents us with
many miracles, but through our own stubbornness we often dismiss these acts of God as
coincidence and dismiss their credibility. Therefore, if we are able to reason and understand
Gods perfection most would deny what they are trying to understand. There are those too that do

5
not find it worthy of time or effort to try to understand anything past which can simply be
explained.
Paul Edwards argues against Aquinas use of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Edwards
argues, when providing a sufficient reason for the existence of anything, it is not necessary to ask
for the cause of the whole, but instead simply the cause of the individual parts (class notes). By
way of example, Edwards uses an analogy involving five Eskimos in New York City. Edwards
states the first Eskimo decided to move to New York because of the warmer weather. (Aquinas
Motion Argument) The second Eskimo was married to Eskimo one and didnt want to separate.
(Aquinas Efficient Cause Argument). The third Eskimo is the child of Eskimo one and two
(Aquinas Necessity and Contingency Argument). The fourth Eskimo is responding to an ad
seeking an Eskimo for TV (Aquinas Fourth Argument, Gradation of Being). The fifth Eskimo is
a hired private detective watching Eskimo four (Aquinas Fifth Argument, Intelligence Design).
This example of why the Eskimos moved to New York gives sufficient reason for why each
individual is there. Therefore, why ask the question of why the whole group is there. Through
this analogy Edwards feels he demonstrates there is no need to ask why the entire causal chain of
events has happened, because sufficient reason can be given for each individual event. The
former of these formulations immediately invites the question why the universe or God, alone of
all things, is exempted from the universal sway of causation. The strong point of the
cosmological argument, writes Dr. Ewing, is that after all it does remain incredible that the
physical universe should just have happened . . . It calls out for some further explanation of some
kind. The latter formulation is exposed to the criticism that there is nothing any more
necessary about the existence of the universe or Nature as a whole than about any particular
thing within the universe. (http)

6
Aquinas five proof cosmological argument makes one ask the

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1- http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/EdwardsCosmoCritique.htm
2- Handout 2, Class notes, given by Professor Shannon Atkinson
3- Philosophy of Religion, Fifth Edition