Quinque viae
The Quinque vi, Five Ways, or Five Proofs are Five arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th century Roman Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book, Summa Theologica. They are not necessarily meant to be self-sufficient proofs of Gods existence; as worded, they propose only to explain what it is all men mean when they speak of God. Many scholars point out that St. Thomass actual arguments regarding the existence and nature of God are to be found liberally scattered throughout his major treatises, and that the five ways are little more than an introductory sketch of how the word God can be defined without reference to special revelation (i.e., religious experience). The five ways are; the argument of the unmoved mover, the argument of the first cause, the argument from contingency, the argument from degree and the teleological argument. The first way is greatly expanded in the Summa Contra Gentiles.[1] Aquinas left out from his list several arguments that were already in existence at the time, such as the ontological argument of Saint Anselm, because he did not believe that they worked. In the 20th century, the Roman Catholic priest and philosopher Frederick Copleston, devoted much of his works to fully explaining and expanding on Aquinas five ways.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century medival Italian theologian, and a Dominican friar of the Catholic Church. As a devout Christian, he developed these five arguments to prove that God exists.
The arguments are designed to prove the existence of a monotheistic God, namely the Abrahamic God (though they could also support notions of God in other faiths that believe in a monotheistic God such as Sikhism, Vedantic and Bhaktic Hinduism), but as a set they do not work when used to provide evidence for the existence of polytheistic, pantheistic, panentheistic or pandeistic deities.
Quinque viae nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.] Summary The argument of the unmoved mover, or ex motu, tries to explain that God must be the cause of motion in the universe. It is therefore a form of the cosmological argument. It employs Aristotle's dichotomy of potentiality and actuality. It goes thus: Some things are in motion. A thing cannot, in the same respect and in the same way, move itself: it requires a mover. An infinite regress of movers is impossible. Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds. This mover is what we call God.
NB: it must be kept in mind that throughout Aquinas and Aristotle, 'motion' has a much wider meaning than the modern sense of the word: it is a very wide synonym for 'change', it does not only refer to change of position in space as the modern term does.
Quinque viae efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.] Summary The argument of the first cause (ex causa), tries, unlike the argument of the Unmoved Mover, to prove that God must have been the cause, or the creator of the universe. It is therefore another form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus: Some things are caused. Everything that is caused is caused by something else. An infinite regress of causation is impossible. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused. This cause is what we call God.
Quinque viae Summary Another face of the cosmological argument, argument from contingency (ex contingentia): Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings. It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false. Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings. This being is whom we call God.
Quinque viae they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.] Summary The teleological argument or argument from "design" (ex fine), which claims that many things in the Universe possess final causes that must be directed by God: All natural bodies in the world act towards ends. These objects are in themselves unintelligent. Acting towards an end is characteristic of intelligence. Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends. This being is whom we call God.
Alternative interpretation: The teleological argument or argument of "design" (ex fine), which claims that everything in the Universe follows laws, which must have been created by God : All natural bodies follow laws of conduct. These objects are themselves unintelligent. Laws of conduct are characteristic of intelligence. Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that created the laws for all natural bodies. This being is whom we call God.
Controversy
Criticism
Criticism of the cosmological argument emerged in the 18th century by the philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant.[4] Richard Dawkins criticized Aquinas' collection of arguments in his book The God Delusion. He asserts that the first three arguments are essentially cosmological arguments that rely upon an infinite regress to which God is unjustifiably immune. He summarizes the fourth argument: The Argument from Degree. We notice that things in the world differ. There are degrees of, say, goodness or perfection. But we judge these degrees only by a comparison with a maximum. Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness cannot rest in us. Therefore there must be some other maximum to set the standard for perfection, and we call that maximum God. That's an argument? You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God. Or substitute any dimension of comparison you like, and derive an equivalently fatuous conclusion.[5] Richard Dawkins,The God Delusion Dawkins says the fifth argument claims the necessity of a designer, considering that biological life has complexity which appears designed. However evolution via natural selection explains its complexity and diversity, and abiogenesis explains its origin.[6] Paul Almond criticized the logic behind the third argument in his writing. Specifically he showed that one cannot prove that an object exists based only on the possibility that it exists.[7] In other words, a "most perfect being" possibly exists, but does not necessarily exist.
Quinque viae
Defense
The 20th century Christian apologist 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.[8] 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 to 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.[9] More recently 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.[10]
References
[1] SCG 1.13 ( Latin (http:/ / www. corpusthomisticum. org/ scg1010. html#23581) and English (http:/ / www. josephkenny. joyeurs. com/ CDtexts/ ContraGentiles1. htm#13)) [2] ST, Ia, q. 2 a. 3 co. ( Latin (http:/ / www. corpusthomisticum. org/ sth1002. html#28318) and English (http:/ / www. newadvent. org/ summa/ 1002. htm#article3)) [3] Aristot. Met. 2.993b 28 (http:/ / www. perseus. tufts. edu/ hopper/ text?doc=Aristot. + Met. + 2. 993b& fromdoc=Perseus:text:1999. 01. 0051) ( , , ), , . [Therefore in every case the first principles of things must necessarily be true above everything else (since they are not merely sometimes true, nor is anything the cause of their existence, but they are the cause of the existence of other things), and so as each thing is in respect of existence, so it is in respect of truth.] [4] Cosmological Argument (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ cosmological-argument/ ), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [5] Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=yq1xDpicghkC& pg=PA102). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p.102. ISBN9780618680009. LCCN2006015506. . [6] Dawkins, Richard, The God Delusion, p. 77 [7] A Refutation of Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument - and why it even suggests a disproof of God (http:/ / www. paul-almond. com/ ModalOntologicalArgument. htm) [8] Swinburne, Richard (1997). Simplicity as Evidence of Truth. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press. ISBN0-87462-164-X. [9] Ward, Keith (2008). Why there almost certainly is a God: Doubting Dawkins. Oxford: Lion Hudson. ISBN978-0-7459-5330-4. [10] Feser, Edward (2009). Aquinas: A Beginners Guide. Oxford: Oneworld. ISBN1-85168-690-8.
Further reading
Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought: Chapter 7: The Proofs Of God's Existence (http://www.ewtn.com/ library/theology/reality.htm#07) by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Kreeft, Peter (1990). A Summa of the Summa: The essential philosophical passages of St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. ISBN0-89870-300-X.
External links
New Advent, Translation of the Summa Theologica (http://www.newadvent.org/summa) External links section of Wikipedias Summa Theologica article.
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported //creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/