Thomas Aquinas Argument For The Existence Of God

Words: 1434
Pages: 6

I. Short Topics
1. The argument of the piece of wax was proposed by Descartes in Meditation II. He explains that even though wax may change different states and the characteristics of the wax may alter, it still remains as wax. Descartes uses this argument to define what it is that allows him to discern the different states of the wax to still be wax. Descartes finds that a piece of wax is “in no way revealed by my imagination, but is perceived by the mind alone” (Rosen, 360). He doubts his senses, that although allow him to experience the smell and texture of the wax, could otherwise be deceiving. He says that his ability to judge what he perceives with his senses is how he knows the changed state of wax to still be wax. He says “Something
…show more content…
The impossibility of there being infinite series of causes is one of the main arguments defending the existence of God. It is believed that there was a primary cause that set the universe in motion. The first of Aquinas’ Five Ways that serve to prove the existence of God, is the idea of the unmoved mover. Aquinas explains that “whatever is in motion is put in motion by another” (Rosen, 12). This is the idea that nothing can be the cause of itself, and behind every action there must be separate cause behind it. His argument, the cosmological argument, says that there cannot be an infinite series of causes, as there must be one sole cause that is the “first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God” (Rosen, 12). Aquinas says that it is “plainly false” (Rosen, 12) that efficient causes can go on to infinity, as there would be no first cause, neither any “ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes” (Rosen, 12). This is one of the most prevalent arguments for the existence of God, and is quite …show more content…
The transparency of consciousness is what inhibits us from fully understanding the difference between our mind, or consciousness, and our body. Thomas Nagel explains that it is impossible for us to understand the experiences of other beings, because “no matter how the form (of our sense perception) may vary, the fact that an organism has conscious experience at all means, basically, that there is something it is like to be that organism” (Rosen, 403). The fact that all living things with any conscious experience have different interpretations of stimuli, and thus have different experience. Our consciousness makes our interpretation of the world transparent, and infinitely different compared to other beings. This dilemma is significant in that it has separated the experiences of our bodies from that of our minds, and has acknowledged that there is an incongruity between the experiences of all beings despite how similar our sense perception may