Arguments of Thomas Aquinas and David Hume
In this essay I will address the two opposing premises of Thomas Aquinas and David Hume on how the natural order observed in nature proves or disproves the existence of a higher being. Aquinas who was a Catholic monk, as well as, a theologian philosopher wrote about how this natural order worked towards the conclusion of the existence of life being controlled by a higher being. Hume’s works all fall under that of the empiricism, otherwise known as skepticism, category. For this one must set forth legitimate evidence which can withstand being questioned or torn apart by other premises. For Hume, the so called evidence set forth by Aquinas that even unintelligent beings work towards some end by the design of a more intelligent being, is not legitimate evidence because how can we apply reason to the order of nature? The two arguments are
…show more content…
While studying in the church Aquinas discovered the works of Aristotle and began reworking them in order to fit the views of the church. He was able to accomplish this by using these writings as base to write his most widely known work titled “The Argument from Design.” In paper Aquinas sets forth several premises and one conclusion, all of which argues the question of does god exist. However, Aquinas does not outright mention God or the overall point of his premises till the very end when you get to the overall conclusion of the paper. This along with the structuring of the rest of his argument allows for several logical fallacies such as, not just appealing to faith, shifting the burden of proof, arguing from authority, begging the question, giving an argument from popularity, or arguing from the premise that something or someone caused the universe(or a self