criticisms of Aquinas

criticisms of Aquinas

Criticisms of Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument

  Thomas Aquinas put forward three different cosmological arguments:
- from motion (first way)
- from efficient causes (second way)
- from contingency and necessary (third way)
Within this essay I will discuss the validation of nine individual criticisms of the first and second way, as defined by Aquinas.
  The first criticism of the first and second way is, why rule out infinite regress? The first observation is to identify that each individual will have his or her own interpretation of infinity. Aristotle distinguished between actual infinity, which is infinite at a specific time and cannot be added to. Within an actual infinity, the part equals the whole and potential infinity, which isn’t a present infinity, but one to which, we are moving towards. Some would rule out infinite regress as being illogical and incomprehensible, actual infinity suggests that half infinity is equal to a whole, how can that be coherent? Others would say why end the chain with God, who has no other cause, it is just as easy to end the chain with the universe, which just as simply could not have a cause? Hume cannot understand why not accept the possibility that things in the universe are caused by other things, and that the sequence of causes has no particular beginning. What is so bad about this meaning that ultimately things are unintelligible. Only the human inclination to think that everything is intelligible requires us to assume an end to the explanation.
  I disagree with the concept of infinite regress; Aquinas perception of the universe seems to be a completely adequate observation. In order for things to exist right now, we assume that others things exist right now, this sequence cannot last forever, as there is no explanation that ultimately accounts for the things, which exist right now, unless we look for an existence, which doesn’t require a cause itself. It is therefore logical to look beyond our time and...