The Five Ways and God's Existence: The First Way
Thomas Aquinas, one of History's greatest theologians and philosophers, proposed five major arguments for the existence of God. We read about them in the first part, prima pars, of his Summa Theologiae, in question 2, article 3. In this post, I will be running through the first way, explaining it in some detail, and showing how it attests to the existence of God. We must keep in mind, of course, that this proof and all five of them are not meant to explain everything about God nor are they sufficient for us as Christians to understand God's interaction with humanity. Many more posts will be dedicated to these topics. For now, we will just take a look at some initial ways we can see that God exists, solely by the natural light of human reason.
Also, we must note that fact that we as human beings are totally unable to come even remotely close to begin to understand God and His unfathomable ways. However, the discussion of God's existence and His attributes is a very good and useful one because we must give reasons for our faith in the one, true God. God, as Creator and Author of Truth, has at least made it possible for us humans to know about Him in some way, however faintly that might be. Finally, before we get too far into this post, I must say that this discussion here is not devoted to discovering and explaining the attributes of God. We will look at those in future posts on this blog. So, having said all that, let's dive into Aquinas's five ways.
The first way or proof for God's existence that Thomas offers is that of the reality of motion in the universe. We must note, having seen how many atheists (especially Richard Dawkins) misunderstand this argument, that when Thomas speaks of motion, he does not solely mean locomotion or the movement of one body in a certain place to occupy another place. When Aquinas speaks of motion, he really means all of the changes that we see in beings. Change or motion in things requires a potentiality to become an actuality. We must also take note of the fact that nothing can give what it does not have. You can't get blood from a rock nor can you give your friend a billion dollars if you don't have that amount of money. We see that an acorn has the potentiality to become an actualized oak tree and that we as humans have the potential to become actualized (that is, to gain an actual state of existence) in both size and in knowledge. Now, it is evident that a thing cannot be both in potentiality and in actuality in the same regards towards an end. My coffee cannot be both potentially caffeinated and actually caffeinated at the same time.
So, we must now ask ourselves whether or not, in regards to change or motion, if the thing itself that is gaining actuality is the only thing we must consider in the process of change. Well, we have seen that nothing gives what it doesn't have. Thus, there must be other things that are involved when a given entity changes or goes from potentiality to actuality. At this point, some people might object, saying that there are obvious cases that disprove my point. They might point out the fact that we humans and other animals are self-moving; we gain actualities without other things acting upon us and enabling the change. However, this objection fails because we know that the human or animal body moves or changes not by the mere molecules it is made up of alone but by the separate causing power of desire or will. This force is not just entailed by molecules and mere matter because we see that the molecules which constitute living beings remain after the creature's death but are not animated to move or gain further actuality.
At this point, we're starting to get to the crux of Aquinas's first way. We should now ask whether or not if the things outside the changing things are themselves changing. If a certain thing puts another thing into actuality, that certain thing also needs to be acted upon by another being and so on. We know that this process cannot regress into infinity because then there would be no first mover. If there never was a first mover, then there never could be subsequent movers. Nothing gives what it doesn't have. Now, we know that the universe contains all these moving things which cause other things to themselves move. And so, we can see how logic demands that there exist a first mover which is the source of all change and also which holds all change in existence. Nothing can come before this initial causality, this initial mover, because we would then have it that something else is the first mover or that there are two first movers which is absurd.
To sum up all the points I have made in a concise way, I will offer what Aquinas himself wrote, "It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for 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... 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.. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."
So, to conclude this examination of Aquinas's first way, we see that the fact that there are moving (changing) things requires the existence and power of a first mover who is unmoved himself. These facts point to the existence of God and indeed lay the foundation for a more thorough examination of the logic of God's existence and why reason demands His existence. Again, I must affirm that we are just scraping the surface of God's existence and have not even got remotely close to begin to understand His attributes or His essence. These things will be the subjects of future posts.
Also, we must note that fact that we as human beings are totally unable to come even remotely close to begin to understand God and His unfathomable ways. However, the discussion of God's existence and His attributes is a very good and useful one because we must give reasons for our faith in the one, true God. God, as Creator and Author of Truth, has at least made it possible for us humans to know about Him in some way, however faintly that might be. Finally, before we get too far into this post, I must say that this discussion here is not devoted to discovering and explaining the attributes of God. We will look at those in future posts on this blog. So, having said all that, let's dive into Aquinas's five ways.
The first way or proof for God's existence that Thomas offers is that of the reality of motion in the universe. We must note, having seen how many atheists (especially Richard Dawkins) misunderstand this argument, that when Thomas speaks of motion, he does not solely mean locomotion or the movement of one body in a certain place to occupy another place. When Aquinas speaks of motion, he really means all of the changes that we see in beings. Change or motion in things requires a potentiality to become an actuality. We must also take note of the fact that nothing can give what it does not have. You can't get blood from a rock nor can you give your friend a billion dollars if you don't have that amount of money. We see that an acorn has the potentiality to become an actualized oak tree and that we as humans have the potential to become actualized (that is, to gain an actual state of existence) in both size and in knowledge. Now, it is evident that a thing cannot be both in potentiality and in actuality in the same regards towards an end. My coffee cannot be both potentially caffeinated and actually caffeinated at the same time.
So, we must now ask ourselves whether or not, in regards to change or motion, if the thing itself that is gaining actuality is the only thing we must consider in the process of change. Well, we have seen that nothing gives what it doesn't have. Thus, there must be other things that are involved when a given entity changes or goes from potentiality to actuality. At this point, some people might object, saying that there are obvious cases that disprove my point. They might point out the fact that we humans and other animals are self-moving; we gain actualities without other things acting upon us and enabling the change. However, this objection fails because we know that the human or animal body moves or changes not by the mere molecules it is made up of alone but by the separate causing power of desire or will. This force is not just entailed by molecules and mere matter because we see that the molecules which constitute living beings remain after the creature's death but are not animated to move or gain further actuality.
At this point, we're starting to get to the crux of Aquinas's first way. We should now ask whether or not if the things outside the changing things are themselves changing. If a certain thing puts another thing into actuality, that certain thing also needs to be acted upon by another being and so on. We know that this process cannot regress into infinity because then there would be no first mover. If there never was a first mover, then there never could be subsequent movers. Nothing gives what it doesn't have. Now, we know that the universe contains all these moving things which cause other things to themselves move. And so, we can see how logic demands that there exist a first mover which is the source of all change and also which holds all change in existence. Nothing can come before this initial causality, this initial mover, because we would then have it that something else is the first mover or that there are two first movers which is absurd.
To sum up all the points I have made in a concise way, I will offer what Aquinas himself wrote, "It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for 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... 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.. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."
So, to conclude this examination of Aquinas's first way, we see that the fact that there are moving (changing) things requires the existence and power of a first mover who is unmoved himself. These facts point to the existence of God and indeed lay the foundation for a more thorough examination of the logic of God's existence and why reason demands His existence. Again, I must affirm that we are just scraping the surface of God's existence and have not even got remotely close to begin to understand His attributes or His essence. These things will be the subjects of future posts.
Comments
Post a Comment