Originally Posted by
brownprose
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.
Posting Permissions
