Aquinas’ 'First Way' or first proof of the existence of God

[seven_segment]

---

Does God need to love us?

The premise of Christianity is that we are all sinners and we need to be saved.. so nagbuhat dayon ug Savior.. it's a very elaborate story fabricated to suit the religion.

mao sad na imo brod...

as for me, God had love man so much...He gave man the freewill, lalim man kag dili niya controlon ang tawo though He has the power to do it...kinhanglan jud mudesisyon ang tawo...to let God control his atmosphere...as the essence of freewill goes...

Of course, man, obliged to be faithful to Him,...naa juy consequences if man refuses to do good and disobey Him...

but wait...as ransom for the sinns...kay of course dili man ing-ana ka sayon na within one click eveything will change...kinahanglan jud isakripisyo ang iyang Anak...sending Jesus, to save us...ma o lang jud ang situation...

imagine a Father who teaches his child to do good...and as an award for doing good (let say, getting a high grade/score at school) he will treat his child and family to Mcdonalds...however the child failed maybe because of laziness...the Father had chosen to be with the child than left him and go with the other memebers to Mc Donalds...sakripisyo jud bisan puede ra gu dgihapon dad-on...

of course...it oil boils down to freewill...out of your freewill...to serve and love God..and be on His purpose for the others...

akoa lang sad na brod ha...

[pigrah]

oh! domino effect kumbaga and everything starts with God hhmmm bag-o raman nag hisgot akong cousin ani..tga USJR mo noh?

[tarpolano]

According to Aristotle, there are four sides to the nature of cause namely: the formal cause (idea/concept of a thing), the material cause (material composition), the efficient cause (the process or agent) and the final cause (the ultimate cause). The Summa which is largely grounded on Aristotelean thought, Aquinas only explained in the Summa the formal, efficient and the final cause sans the material cause. This relatively explains in simple terms his "whatever is moved is moved by another..." argument.

- Formal Cause. According to Aquinas "To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude." This is not to say that the knowledge of God is naturally implanted, that we know God by default. Aquinas merely suggests that man's notion of God is a self-created concept (although largely ambiguous) being endowed with the faculties for reason and that his existence must have been purposed by the one that created him -- which is said to be for the mutual pleasure of man and his creator.

- Efficient Cause. A more manifest way to explain efficient cause is the argument from motion. According to Aquinas, "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." and so forth. Thus there must be a mover of the efficient causes which brings us to the final cause as explained below.

- The Final Cause. "If there be no first cause among efficient causes, then there will be no ultimate, nor intermediate cause." In other words, since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist." In light of this, the chain of efficient and intermediate causes are just only effects of a much "larger cause" in which one must logically admit that there must be "a first efficient cause" which should point to God alone.

IMHO, it seems that the "missing link" in the Aquinean reasoning is proving God on the basis of materiality. Aquinas himself admits that "nature works for a determinate end." However, it doesn't presuppose that the determinancy of nature is also an attribute of the infinite. It only presupposes that the determinancy of nature is under the direction of a higher agent that or which is indeterminate or infinite. Thus, "whatever is done by nature needs to be traced back to God, as to its first cause." Under the circumstance, it is "impossible" to explain God on the basis of what can be finitely observed as the nature of the infinite is neither material nor knowably causal.

The first proof/causality maybe the strongest argument to support the existence of God it is however indefensible when the demands of empirical evidence is sought by the physical sciences. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man to take it as a matter of faith anything which that cannot be scientifically known and demonstrated.

nice input thanks.. i'll keep this in mind

[Malic]

that is the greatest manifestation of God's Love...

God made flesh...

ni-naog jud siya...to our being...and saves us....


I love St. Thomas Aquinas! maldito sad ni siya...hehe

God made flesh is the greatest manifestation of God's love?

and when he was about to die he prayed "Father take this cup away from me, if its possible", he was referring to his death on the cross. If his love was really unconditional then he wouldnt say such thing right? He would be more than willing to die on the cross.

[necrotic freak]

God made flesh is the greatest manifestation of God's love?

and when he was about to die he prayed "Father take this cup away from me, if its possible", he was referring to his death on the cross. If his love was really unconditional then he wouldnt say such thing right? He would be more than willing to die on the cross.

mao nay naka lahi sa Islam God og sa christian Triune God.

[handsoff241]

The premise of Christianity is that we are all sinners and we need to be saved.. so nagbuhat dayon ug Savior.. it's a very elaborate story fabricated to suit the religion.

A not so elaborated story fabricated to suit one's idea. Are you sure that Christianity originated from the "fact" that we are all sinners? Take more steps behind so you will know.

[Malic]

mao nay naka lahi sa Islam God og sa christian Triune God.

O oi lahi jud.

[brownprose]

mao gsaway gyud na sa usa sa among maestro c aquinas kay out.dated na kuno kaayo na hehehe

Agree and if you're open to "schismatising" the Thomistic argument, worth reading is The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume. But I do agree that the Thomistic approach offers a "neutral ground" to explaining God's existence for any student of theology, catholic or otherwise.

[mets]

Thank you brownpose,, mo.basa nya ko anang David Hume's The Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion hehehehe- egotist

[Egoist]

OT:Si David Hume kay g.saway man pud nang kant sa concerning sa principle of causality ni hume ug iyang pagka.empiricist sakto ba?