Introduction
I have decided to introduce the proofs with a discussion on preliminary notions and then later move to the proofs. I will begin with some definitions taken from the Thomistic tradition of Thomas Aquinas.
Preliminary DefinitionsDoes God need to be demonstrated to Exist?
Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called "a priori," and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration "a posteriori"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.
Is the existence of God demonstrable?
Demonstration is twofold. One which is through cause, and is called demonstration wherefore; and this is through what is prior simply. The other is through effect, and is called demonstration that, and this is through what is prior to us, for when some effect is more manifest to us than is its cause, we proceed through the effect to knowledge of the cause. But from whatsoever effect it can be demonstrated that the proper cause of it is (so long as its effects are known to us ); because since effects depend on cause, given the effect, it musts needs be that the cause pre-exist. Therefore, that God is, according as it is not self-evident to us, is demonstrable through effects known to us.
Principle of A posteriori Demonstration.The manner of Causation used in the demonstrationApplication of this theory.Conditions of this Demonstration
The demonstration of Gods existence is taken not according to a series of past causes, which are subordinated per accidens, but according to a series of causes now existing among which there is subordination per se. These demonstrations have ontological value as will be demonstrated below according to the following order 1. Subordination of Causes per se and 2. Metaphysical value of principles.
Demonstration that God is, is taken according to causes influencing now, and therefore existing now; so that, if there is a series of such causes, then each subsequent cause is subordinate per se to the preceding cause. For to demonstrate that God is requires the demonstration of a prime and universal cause which is causing now. This cannot be demonstrated according to a series of causes per accidens, such as a series of men generating, say grandfather, father, generating son. The generation of the son does not necessitate that grandfather exist now. Whereas a series subordinate per se requires all causes to cause now. For example the rock (A) is moved by the hand (B), which is moved by the arm (C), which is moved by the cerebral motor centre (D), which is moved by the will (E) and so on. According to this method E moves D moves C moves B to move A. So in this series if there is a first cause it is a cause acting now. A according to the principle of limited regress there is a first cause acting now.
Principle of Limited RegressInfinite Regression of accidental causes.
Causes per accidens may regress to infinity as past causes, according to the example of men generating. A man generating a son does not necessitate the grandfather or the first man be existing now. But even with this example there is still a prime cause, which has priority of perfection and causality over the world as the world, if it always existed, is only a contingent being and therefore requires for its existence the causation of a prime cause.
Metaphysical Value of principles.
I have decided to introduce the proofs with a discussion on preliminary notions and then later move to the proofs. I will begin with some definitions taken from the Thomistic tradition of Thomas Aquinas.
Preliminary DefinitionsDoes God need to be demonstrated to Exist?
Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called "a priori," and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration "a posteriori"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.
Is the existence of God demonstrable?
Demonstration is twofold. One which is through cause, and is called demonstration wherefore; and this is through what is prior simply. The other is through effect, and is called demonstration that, and this is through what is prior to us, for when some effect is more manifest to us than is its cause, we proceed through the effect to knowledge of the cause. But from whatsoever effect it can be demonstrated that the proper cause of it is (so long as its effects are known to us ); because since effects depend on cause, given the effect, it musts needs be that the cause pre-exist. Therefore, that God is, according as it is not self-evident to us, is demonstrable through effects known to us.
Principle of A posteriori Demonstration.The manner of Causation used in the demonstrationApplication of this theory.Conditions of this Demonstration
The demonstration of Gods existence is taken not according to a series of past causes, which are subordinated per accidens, but according to a series of causes now existing among which there is subordination per se. These demonstrations have ontological value as will be demonstrated below according to the following order 1. Subordination of Causes per se and 2. Metaphysical value of principles.
Demonstration that God is, is taken according to causes influencing now, and therefore existing now; so that, if there is a series of such causes, then each subsequent cause is subordinate per se to the preceding cause. For to demonstrate that God is requires the demonstration of a prime and universal cause which is causing now. This cannot be demonstrated according to a series of causes per accidens, such as a series of men generating, say grandfather, father, generating son. The generation of the son does not necessitate that grandfather exist now. Whereas a series subordinate per se requires all causes to cause now. For example the rock (A) is moved by the hand (B), which is moved by the arm (C), which is moved by the cerebral motor centre (D), which is moved by the will (E) and so on. According to this method E moves D moves C moves B to move A. So in this series if there is a first cause it is a cause acting now. A according to the principle of limited regress there is a first cause acting now.
Principle of Limited RegressInfinite Regression of accidental causes.
Causes per accidens may regress to infinity as past causes, according to the example of men generating. A man generating a son does not necessitate the grandfather or the first man be existing now. But even with this example there is still a prime cause, which has priority of perfection and causality over the world as the world, if it always existed, is only a contingent being and therefore requires for its existence the causation of a prime cause.
Metaphysical Value of principles.
Comment