Analysis Of Thomas Aquinas: The Existence Of God
Thomas Aquinas is a prominent figure for someone who believes, preaches, and teaches about Gods existence. Aquinas made what is known to be called the Summa Theologica. This piece of writing is known to talk about the relationship between God and man along with questions and articles to show that God truly exists. Part one, question number two in the Summa talks about the existence of God. In this section of Aquinas’ writing, he gives three articles which are questions to support his claim on the topic. The article contains objections to each question and Aquinas thus responds to it show what he thinks of them. This also includes Aquinas’ five proofs for the existence of God.
The Summa first begin to talk about the first article: Whether the …show more content…
The objections begin by stating that you cannot demonstrate God. Faith deals with concepts not having to be concrete to be believable, therefore not being demonstrable. Demonstrating is showing concrete evidence of something. However, using our faith, we know God exists. It goes on to say the middle term for demonstration is based on not giving the full information; parts that create the whole. We do not know what God is, just what He is not; not giving full insight of what He is, which is belief and faith that completes this demonstration. Lastly, it states that if God could be demonstrated, it would be through his effects; the creations he has made. However, the material God has made has a termination while He is eternal, therefore God cannot be demonstrated. Aquinas responds by say that there cannot be an effect without its cause. The effect is what is known to us and effects have to exist but causes have to pre-exist. The existence of God is not self-evidently seen but his effects are well known to us because if not, we would not be here; henceforth cause and effect.
The Summa’s last article question goes as follows: Whether God exists. The word “god” initially means something infinity good. If God existed, there would be no evil, yet there is, therefore God does not exist. The other one states that we do not need God’s existence because everything in the world is accomplished with principles. Aquinas responds by saying the God’s existence can be proved in five ways. This is where he introduces and explains the existence of God in these
The Summa first begin to talk about the first article: Whether the …show more content…
The objections begin by stating that you cannot demonstrate God. Faith deals with concepts not having to be concrete to be believable, therefore not being demonstrable. Demonstrating is showing concrete evidence of something. However, using our faith, we know God exists. It goes on to say the middle term for demonstration is based on not giving the full information; parts that create the whole. We do not know what God is, just what He is not; not giving full insight of what He is, which is belief and faith that completes this demonstration. Lastly, it states that if God could be demonstrated, it would be through his effects; the creations he has made. However, the material God has made has a termination while He is eternal, therefore God cannot be demonstrated. Aquinas responds by say that there cannot be an effect without its cause. The effect is what is known to us and effects have to exist but causes have to pre-exist. The existence of God is not self-evidently seen but his effects are well known to us because if not, we would not be here; henceforth cause and effect.
The Summa’s last article question goes as follows: Whether God exists. The word “god” initially means something infinity good. If God existed, there would be no evil, yet there is, therefore God does not exist. The other one states that we do not need God’s existence because everything in the world is accomplished with principles. Aquinas responds by saying the God’s existence can be proved in five ways. This is where he introduces and explains the existence of God in these