St. Thomas Aquina's Five Responses
Aquina's five objections and responses have practically the same structure. The difference lies in the fact that in the last two ways, that of Aquinas, does not mention the impossibility of infinitely infinite series, although they are assumed.
Certain authors belonging to the Modern Age (epistemological paradigm) have questioned the conclusion about the existence of God undermining the premises of the five Thomistic demonstrations. You have seen how Hume's critique of the idea of causality renders the demonstration of the existence of God unfeasible; At most, the existence of God is reduced to the level of a mere belief emerged, not of experience, but of imagination.
For example, another objection consists of that presented by Kant. That of …show more content…
Thomas intends to do? There are three rules that we have to fulfill when eliminating any particularizer: 1ª the individual chosen to disengage from the particular quantizer should not appear in the expression to transform. 2nd, the individual chosen, cannot appear in the closing of this assumption. And 3rd, the individual that is chosen cannot be the same as that of another elimination of the particulariser that has not yet been closed.
Aquinas fails to comply with the second rule; Neither "a" or "b" cannot appear in a line and at the conclusion of the argument; That is, it is not lawful to conclude that "b" is the first engine of "a" and, therefore, much less add that to that "b", the first engine of "a", we call it God. With words instead of logical variables: According to logical laws the 1st answer should conclude that there are as many first movers immobile as objects moving, not one for all of them. The way should conclude with the existence of multiple gods, not of a God as Aquinas points out.
The only thing we can be sure of is that there is a first cause for every object that is in motion. Just as we can not determine that the object that moves X is the same each time, we can not determine that the causative object Y is always the same, and if we can not determine that it is always the same, we can not call it
Certain authors belonging to the Modern Age (epistemological paradigm) have questioned the conclusion about the existence of God undermining the premises of the five Thomistic demonstrations. You have seen how Hume's critique of the idea of causality renders the demonstration of the existence of God unfeasible; At most, the existence of God is reduced to the level of a mere belief emerged, not of experience, but of imagination.
For example, another objection consists of that presented by Kant. That of …show more content…
Thomas intends to do? There are three rules that we have to fulfill when eliminating any particularizer: 1ª the individual chosen to disengage from the particular quantizer should not appear in the expression to transform. 2nd, the individual chosen, cannot appear in the closing of this assumption. And 3rd, the individual that is chosen cannot be the same as that of another elimination of the particulariser that has not yet been closed.
Aquinas fails to comply with the second rule; Neither "a" or "b" cannot appear in a line and at the conclusion of the argument; That is, it is not lawful to conclude that "b" is the first engine of "a" and, therefore, much less add that to that "b", the first engine of "a", we call it God. With words instead of logical variables: According to logical laws the 1st answer should conclude that there are as many first movers immobile as objects moving, not one for all of them. The way should conclude with the existence of multiple gods, not of a God as Aquinas points out.
The only thing we can be sure of is that there is a first cause for every object that is in motion. Just as we can not determine that the object that moves X is the same each time, we can not determine that the causative object Y is always the same, and if we can not determine that it is always the same, we can not call it