Thomas, the Angelic Doctor....
04.06.08 (4:51 am) [edit]Atheists are people who believe that God or simply a being higher than man doesn't exists. "Drink and be merry for tomorrow you'll die" this is what most of atheists believe. They say that there's nothing after dying. When you die, that's it. "It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men." - Carl Sagan. This person together with the other leaders of Atheism must be so intelligent because it is surely more easy to defend and more believable that there is someone higher than man or that there is God.
Another saint that I like, together with St. Josemaria, is St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas is considered one of the greatest Christian philosophers to have ever lived. I like this saint not only because my teacher has said his name many times in his discussions but also because of his famous five ways, five logical ways, without putting Christian doctrine in it, to prove that there exist a higher being which is God. So to continue reading this post, it requires you to make use of your reason just like the atheists, the only difference is that they have didn't make good use of their reason. Also, be open-minded. (Pls. try to finish it. It's quite long)
1st way: The Argument from Motion
St. Thomas Aquinas has said, after studying Aristotle's work, that any object that is moving, for example the planets in the solar system, is put in motion by other object. St. Thomas believed that there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD), who first put things in motion. Follow the argument this way:
1.) Nothing can move itself.
2.) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3.) The first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.
2nd way: Causation of Existence
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Using his common sense, St. Thomas concluded that nothing can create itself. It simpler terms, an object must have been caused by something that has existed before it. He believed that there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence. Follow the argument this way:
1.) There exist things that are caused (created) by other things.
2.) Nothing can be the cause of itself.
3.) There can’t be an endless string of objects causing other object to exist.
4.) Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God.
3rd way: Contingent and Necessary Objects
This way defines two terms, contingent and necessary being. A contingent being is an object that can’t exist without a necessary being causing its existence. He believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being, the NECESSARY BEING, which must exist for all contingent being. Follow he argument this way:
1.) Contingent beings are caused
2.) Not every being can be contingent
3.) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4.) This necessary being is God.
4th way: The Argument from Degrees and Perfection
Given two paintings, one can say that one is more beautiful than the other. One has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of quality. From this fact, given any quality there must be a perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.
5th way: The Argument from Intelligent Designer
St. Thomas said that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that it was designed by an intelligent designer, God. All physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.
posted by: (reply)
post date: 04.06.08 (7:02 am)
its good that you've posted this. . St Thomas Aquinas is indeed a genius of faith. . a person who proved that faith and reason go together. . I would like to comment though that the 1st and 2nd Proof in themselves do not directly prove the existence of God. . They just prove that there is an being that is "uncaused" and "unmoved". . You still need the suceeding argument to really get close. . The 4th and 5th for example complement the 1st and 2nd in such a way that they say that the uncaused cause and the unmoved mover is Intelligent and Good. . But still all 5 argument do not prove fully the existence of God but they do illustrate that the existence of such a God is not absurd. . It can still be logical. .
posted by: chazer16xyz (reply)
post date: 04.06.08 (7:10 am)
sori naman.. hahahaha. enwei tnx for the comment and the short lecture. hehehe
posted by: Lalay (reply)
post date: 04.06.08 (7:50 am)
Though i'm not an atheist, this post is worth reading.. :)
One cannot convince an atheist (at once) that God exists..
St. Thomas' 5 logical ways, indeed, reminded me of my 1st doctrine class, which was all about creation..
My mentor told me, "If a person hesitates to belive that God exist, or he doesn't believe at all, bring him in a beautiful place... And tell him, 'You think God does not exist? Then how come there's a beautiful place like this!'"
Second thing to consider, ourselves, no one except God, can create a human being perfectly - not just in the physical aspect but at the same time, equipped with intellect and free will..
I do agree that nothing in this world will totally exist without Someone who totally started it.. And it's God..
Well, to some people these reasons are not that satisfying and convincing.. So they are in search for the concrete ones..
But we must always keep in mind that our knowledge is limited.. We don't know everything.. And not all of our questions can be answered..
Establishing one's faith should not be dependent in satisfying ones questions and arguments, it's just a matter of believing..
posted by: Pandong (reply)
post date: 04.09.08 (5:56 am)
I agree with Lalay.
If all our questions can be answered, there is no need for God.
If we could fully understand God, well, we are also God (definitely we are not).
I do not think that Atheists really believe that a higher being than man do not exist. I think that they do believe that a higher being exists. It's just that it isn't what we call "God". They call that higher being by different names: "I", "Me", and "Myself".
Cheers!
posted by: (reply)
post date: 11.12.08 (9:14 am)
"Drink and be merry for tomorrow you'll die"
-i beg to pardon but i don't hear isaac newton saying any of these words... not bill gates, not bruce lee, not ernest hemingway, not benjamin franklin, not galileo, not frank lloyd wright, not van gogh, not thomas jefferson, not thomas edison, not william howard taft... not even albert einstein
(all of them, are great atheists)
they were brilliant men who offered their time, efforts, and life for the human society... who are you, a foolish catholic, to say such a stupid account when you don't know the most basic of things when it comes to atheism. you are in no position to promote such unintelligent knowings about atheists. such a narrow mind of yours would never compare to these great minds, so stop your foolishness.
As a representative of the non-believers... i shall answer them.
way #'s one to three... all of these reasons pertain to one reasoning only. The christian church calls this the "alpha". The alpha symbolizes the source of everything, the start of time, and the ultimate reason. As your statement says...
"The first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God."
"Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God"
"This necessary being is God."
-three sentences... one meaning, but all rubbish. when you say the "unmoved mover", "first cause", and "necessary being", you centainly pertain to "God"... without further proof, gullible people such as you approve that this is "God". But has it ever crossed your mind that this thing could be something else rather than "God". This something must remain as something until proof comes. This something cannot be simply replaced with "God". Christians have no rights of concluding such a wild guess. What people need to do is to find clues and facts by doing research and experimentation. a simple guess, such as your "God" term will not be accepted without proof.
way # 4
"These perfections are contained in God."
-There goes your wild conclusion, yet again... It's not even proven that there are perfect standards. For paintings both objective and subjective preferences are involved. so long that subjective properties are evident, a personal preference will never vanish, therefore perfection would be a nothing but a vague idea. But if there was a perfect standard, how did you again came to the conclusion that these were "Godly" and that only "God" acquires them. The perfect standard should be seen as an individual substance. Again, a conclusion without any proof what so ever is nothing but a simple guess.
The way #5...
"St. Thomas said that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that it was designed by an intelligent designer, God"
-again, a conclusion without proofs... this is definitely not acceptable, especially in scientific terms. Has it ever occured to you that these physical laws could have been natural and self existent? Where in the world did you find the answer "God", To hypothesize would be to think of believable facts that are supported by proofs. A regard to this vague figure is undoubtly unintelligeble. Such a conclusion without even a very simple proof, is stupid, and would be regarded as uneducated.
I never intended to give such a low regard for "Godly" beliefs, I live in peace and leave believers alone on their practices. But an exaggerated comment on atheism will not be tolerated. as a final remark may i suggest that you practice and study your own beliefs but try not to go beyond your borders by insulting others, this actuion is definitely stupid. I am pretty sure that you know of Jesus' words "do unto others, what you want others to do unto you". In principle you should respect others beliefs, if you want others to respect your own belief. Know your own faith...
by...
(Neil, the coolest thing since Kurt Cobain.)
posted by: chazer (reply)
post date: 12.27.08 (7:07 pm)
i was surprised to see a new comment here after pandong's. The answers to your arguments are already in the other comments by mon, lalay and pandong(hehe)..
posted by: chazer (reply)
post date: 12.28.08 (1:00 am)
and besides this isn't my argument, this is an argument of "a foolish catholic" who was ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, who was considered as one of the greatest philosopher. Compared to the representative of the non believer, i would agree with him instead. I am agreeing to his argument because i saw his logic which is missing in yours...CHeers!!!!!!!