Thomas Aquinas Argument For The Existence Of God

Contingency of Being Thomas Aquinas argued for the existence of God through his understanding of science along with the help of physical evidence, unchangeable facts and logic. I will discuss Aquinas’ Third proof and how he does prove that there is a God or Gods without the need for faith and revelation. In philosophy, we often distinguish things between being necessary being and contingent beings. Necessary beings are beings that have always existed and that could have never not existed. A being that is permeant or immortal and cannot be created or destroyed. Contingent beings are beings that could easily have not existed, their existence is fully dependent on other things happening. Aquinas argued that “there are contingent things, and contingent things can cause other contingent things. Because that would mean that there’s an infinite regress of contingency, and a possibility that nothing might have ever existed. An infinite regress is impossible. So, there must be at least one necessary thing, and that is God”. What he was doing here is proving that there is that he says there needed to be a starting point and the

In fact, the God Aquinas proves is so far off from the God that thesis believe in, it actually makes thesis very uncomfortable. His arguments prove that there must be at least but not limited to one God and not one in particular. His arguments also do not rule out the idea of polytheism or multiple Gods happening at once. Furthermore, his arguments also to not give us any insight into what God or the Gods are like in nature. There would be no way of telling if he or they would be smiteful, forgiving, loving, or actually have any hand into our lives at all past the point of creation according to Aquinas’ third