Aquinas' 3rd Way
Essay #1: Aquinas' 3rd Way:
Aquinas' third way argument states that there has to be something that must exist, which is most likely God. He starts his argument by saying not everything must exist, because things are born and die every single day. By stating this we can jump to the conclusion that if everything need not exist then there would have been a time where there was nothing. But, he goes on, if there was a time when there was nothing, then nothing would exist even today, because something cannot come from nothing. However, our observations tell us that something does exist, therefore there is something that must exist, and Aquinas says that something is God. Aquinas' argument has a couple of flaws in it. One is pointed out by Samuel Clarke, who says a whole series of dependent beings can have no cause from outside of it, because all things that ever were are supposed to be included in the series. The series also can not have a cause from within because no one being within the series is necessary. An example of this would be the set of real numbers we use today. Taking one number away from the set would not cause the set to cease in existence. There is no beginning to the number set and no end as well. If we view the Universe with the same concept then Aquinas' theory can be seen to have a major flaw. There is, however, a way to fix Aquinas' theory. If we take his logic into account we can say that there was a time when the universe did not exist. But, the universe exists now therefore it must have had a beginning. By definition a necessary being has no beginning and now end. Due to this definition we can say that the universe is not a necessary being. This leaves us with one of three options: there is a necessary being, the universe has always existed, or something can come into existence out of nothing. Due to the big bang theory we can eliminate the theory of the universe always existing. Therefore, there is a necessary being or something can
Aquinas' third way argument states that there has to be something that must exist, which is most likely God. He starts his argument by saying not everything must exist, because things are born and die every single day. By stating this we can jump to the conclusion that if everything need not exist then there would have been a time where there was nothing. But, he goes on, if there was a time when there was nothing, then nothing would exist even today, because something cannot come from nothing. However, our observations tell us that something does exist, therefore there is something that must exist, and Aquinas says that something is God. Aquinas' argument has a couple of flaws in it. One is pointed out by Samuel Clarke, who says a whole series of dependent beings can have no cause from outside of it, because all things that ever were are supposed to be included in the series. The series also can not have a cause from within because no one being within the series is necessary. An example of this would be the set of real numbers we use today. Taking one number away from the set would not cause the set to cease in existence. There is no beginning to the number set and no end as well. If we view the Universe with the same concept then Aquinas' theory can be seen to have a major flaw. There is, however, a way to fix Aquinas' theory. If we take his logic into account we can say that there was a time when the universe did not exist. But, the universe exists now therefore it must have had a beginning. By definition a necessary being has no beginning and now end. Due to this definition we can say that the universe is not a necessary being. This leaves us with one of three options: there is a necessary being, the universe has always existed, or something can come into existence out of nothing. Due to the big bang theory we can eliminate the theory of the universe always existing. Therefore, there is a necessary being or something can