Ben Rogaczewski RL 225Prof. ContyNovember 15, 2009

Since the time of Augustine, many different scholars have questioned the

existence of God. Augustine brought up the question of why God would allow evil

within the world if God were in fact all good. It was not until a Dominican named

Thomas Aquinas placed several proofs for and against the existence of God.

Furthermore, Aquinas stated that he could demonstrate to his audience that God’s

existence was definite (not God’s essence). However, Aquinas’ ideas were not seen

as theological to everyone, and there were several, including John Duns Scotus and

Duns’ student, William of Ockham. Ockham would go on to teach that Aquinas’

proofs of God’s existence through logic and reason were far more dangerous to God

than thought by the rest of the Christian world. Going against a rather Thomist

Avignon Curia, his teachings were put on trial, and Ockham was in danger of heresy.

However, in order for one to understand why Ockham’s teachings were so

dangerous, one must first try to gain an understanding of how the Christian Curia

took on Aquinas’ teachings as dogma.

When Aquinas was questioned about his teachings regarding the existence of

God, he gave a sound argument giving the objections to the teachings first, followed

by his responses to those objections. Then he gave what was called the

Determinatio, or final defense of the teachings. The second question given dealt

strictly with the question of whether the existence of God could be demonstrated

1

and whether God actually existed. Within the second article regarding whether

God’s existence could be demonstrated, Aquinas placed several objections.

First, Aquinas stated that God’s existence is a matter of faith, and therefore

cannot be demonstrated through scientific means.1 This seems to be what one

would call the “Franciscan” objection, based upon Ockham’s and other Franciscan

ideals. Aquinas’ reply to this objection was that faith had to be assumed amongst the

people before natural knowledge, and therefore, faith can cause a person to

understand something that can be demonstrated through reason or logic.2 Basically,

if one has faith in God, it should not stop one from wishing to determine answers

regarding God, and to determine this through scientific means does not mean the

person lacks faith.

The second objection was that God’s essence could not be known, but can

solely understand by what God’s essence is not.3 Aquinas stated in reply that God’s

essence was not needed in order to determine God’s existence. Instead, Aquinas

stated that having the definition of a word gave a better understanding of the

defined word’s existence (ie we do not know what the essence of the sun is, but can

determine its existence).4

The third objection stated by Aquinas was that God’s effects, or leavings

within our world could demonstrate God’s existence. However, these causes are

finite while God is infinite, and so there is an unequal proportion between the two,

1 Thomas Aquinas, Summa of the Summa, p. 57.2 Ibid. p. 59.3 Ibid. p. 57.4 Ibid. p. 59.

2

and cannot show a proper demonstration.5 In reply to this, Aquinas stated that the

effects within our world needed to have a definite cause, and therefore can be seen

as a demonstration of the cause’s (God’s) existence.6 This means that creations in

this world are pieces of evidence proving the existence of God.

After Aquinas had given all of his objections and replies, he made his

Determinatio clearly to the Curia. Aquinas stated that there were two ways of

demonstration: a priori and a posteriori.7 The former is the means of something we

already know about, while the latter deals with something we have yet to learn of,

and so are in pursuit of knowledge dealing with the subject. If an effect is know to

us, then it therefore must exist. As long as an effect exists, its cause must pre-exist,

and therefore proves God’s existence as the cause of the effects.8

The third article of Aquinas asks whether God exists, the crux of his

argument. Within the first objection, Aquinas states that God cannot exist because

there is evil present within the world, and if God were all good (Which God is,

according to Aquinas) then evil would not exist.9 Therefore, God cannot exist. In

reply to this statement, Aquinas states that though evil is present within the world,

there are situations in which good can come from evil (ie the crucifixion of Christ; A

volcano fertilizing soil).10 Therefore, since good is present within the world, God

must exist.

5 Thomas Aquinas, Summa of the Summa, p. 58.6 Ibid. p. 59-60.7 Ibid. p. 58.8 Ibid. p. 58-59.9 Ibid. p. 60.10 Thomas Aquinas, Summa of the Summa, p. 69.

3

The second objection states that there is no use for God because natural laws

come from nature, and voluntary things are done through human will.11 Therefore,

God need not exist. In reply to this objection, Aquinas stated that even if something

is voluntary, it must be traced back to some higher cause.12 Therefore, as far as God

can be considered that higher cause, God must exist.

Once he was finished with these two objections and replies, he declared his

five proofs of God’s existence: there must be an unmoved Mover, an uncaused Cause,

a necessary Being creating contingent beings, a perfect Being (allowing an

understanding of different degrees within the world), and an Intelligent Designer.13

Each of these proofs, according to Aquinas, proved the existence of God.

Certainly, each of these arguments seem sound to everyone. However,

Ockham and many of the Franciscans did not see the academic Dominican’s proofs

as proper within the theological world. Ockham believed that in trying to gain an

understanding of God using scientific means, Aquinas had “demystified” God with

reason, and “mystified” nature. Ockham stated that what needed to happen, be to

“re-mystify” God and “demystify” nature.14 Science and religion had to go separate

ways according to Ockham, and he would try to prove his point in front of a far more

hostile theological Curia than that of the Curia against Aquinas. Aquinas’ doctrine of

reason and logic to gain an understanding of God had won the minds of the medieval

Christian court and was now seen as dogma within the Church.

11 Ibid. p. 61.12 Ibid. p. 70.13 Ibid. p. 63.14 Richard E. Rubenstein, Ockham's Razor, p. 252-253.

4

It was before this Curia that Ockham stated his teachings of faith as a means

of understanding God rather than reason or logic. Ockham stated that one could not

possibly explain matters dealing with God with human standards.15 He said that if

God is good, God must be good in a human sense or in a sense we do not fully

understand. Therefore, human concepts could not be used as a means of explaining

the existence of God.16 It would be impossible for someone to try and fathom the

understanding of God’s existence, and could only be found in faith, not science.

Ockham also enforced his crux of teaching, which we now call “Ockham’s

Razor”. This teaching mainly states that the simplest reason for an effect is generally

the most probable one.17 This means that all the proofs that Aquinas had thought of

for the existence could be refuted by simple measures. For example, Aquinas stated

that since the planets move in such a way that symmetry calls for the definite

existence of a higher being controlling the cosmos, a being he considered to be God.

Ockham turned the idea around and stated that the patterns of the cosmos were

merely mental processes, and are not pieces of evidence for a divine entity.18

Ockham stated that there was a far simpler answer for the question of the cosmos

(which would bring gravity into play, but not until much later).

For Ockham, there would be no way science and theology could reconcile

their differences. Science was used to prove contingent items within the natural

world and human world. Theology was used to explain aspects of God. Ockham

stated that scientific knowledge found through reason and logic was only probable

15 Richard E. Rubenstein, Ockham's Razor, p. 253.16 Ibid. p. 254.17 Ibid. p. 252.18 Ibid. p. 253.

5

and not certain.19 Therefore, logic and reason were contingent ideals that could not

be used to answer questions dealing with a complex entity as God.

The final thing that Ockham stated about his teachings was that God was a

Supreme Being that was not limited to the laws of nature, and his actions were

spontaneous contingent. God’s will was not “necessary” and therefore, his actions

could not determine his existence.20 Ockham stated in front of the entire Curia that if

God wished it, a human being could give birth to an ass, and furthermore, could have

generated Redemption through an ass rather than a man.21 This idea shocked the

men of the cloth, and the worse part was, he was right. God’s power could not be

contingent and laws of nature could not bar God’s will. Ockham’s Razor had brought

about the beginnings of nominalism, and refuted the dogma of the time.

Of course, in our day and age, scientists have discovered several new pieces

of information through logic and reason. Discoveries have been made in order to

find new medicines (Stem Cells), planetary activities (Water on the Moon) and new

species, even evolution before our very eyes. Within Aquinas’ five proofs of God’s

existence, it is possible to refute his ideas with logic and reason. Despite his ability

to cover most of his bases, Aquinas did not have the scientific knowledge we now

possess today. Here is my own Determinatio of Aquinas’ five proofs22 on the

existence of God.

19 Richard E. Rubenstein, Ockham's Razor, p. 251.20 Ibid. p. 250.21 Ibid. p. 259.22 Thomas Aquinas, Summa of the Summa, p. 63.

6

With the first proof, Aquinas states that in order for God to exist, there must

be an unmoved Mover, such as God. This means that God to exist in order to create

the processes seen before our eyes. However, when an apple falls, gravity causes the

apple to fall. Not only that, but the planets move by gravity between themselves. In

this sense, God is not the thing that moves these items but the scientific

phenomenon of gravity.

The second proof states that an uncaused Cause had to have caused

everything. This one mainly sounds proper, but it lacks a specific item. Everything

must have a cause, and no one can create itself. Within Genesis, scripture states that

in the beginning there was nothing, a vast void. How then can God create itself from

nothing? Aquinas may have placed the theologians in a sound light, but to the rest of

the great medieval thinkers, he was not fooling anyone.

Aquinas’ third proof states that a necessary Being must have created us as

contingent creatures. Everything is contingent around us and it is obvious that God

can therefore be seen as a necessary Being. However, Ockham states that the actions

of God are contingent, not necessary. If God wished it, God could undo everything

that was done within the world. Our human laws do not bind God. Beyond that,

within scripture in the Garden of Eden, God speaks to other heavenly beings saying,

“By eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, man will be just like us.” When Adam

and Eve eat the apple, their eyes are open and they now know the difference

between good and evil, and are like God. Using Aquinas’ knack of analogy use, it can

be seen in this idea that Man from that point was now seen as being like God. In that

sense, since we are contingent beings, then God must also be a contingent being as

7

well. Therefore, God is not a necessary being, but rather a contingent Being within

the human sense of course.

Aquinas’ fourth proof states that there must be a perfect being in order for us

to create a sense of degrees within language. This means that because God is perfect,

we can determine what is good, better, or best. However, everyone has a different

perspective of everything. For example, I may find a movie to be amazing, but my

friend may have found it not good in any way. In this sense, it is possible to see God

as not perfect, and may see something else as a perfect being. What one person sees

may have different meaning to another person.

The final proof of Aquinas’ is one of the most difficult to refute, and still is

believed by many today. Aquinas stated within his final proof that God existed as the

Intelligent Designer of the world. Aquinas stated that the symmetry within the

world was far too great to be coincidental, and therefore must have been placed by

some higher being. However, the design of the universe does declare the existence

of the designer, but we have no proof of who or what designed the universe. We

have no proof of whether it was God, or something else.

It can be seen from all these aspects that the existence of God is extremely

difficult to determine and both Aquinas and Ockham put up excellent battles to

demonstrate God’s existence. Aquinas used logic and reason to create a complex

idea dealing with God’s existence, but Ockham refuted it simply with faith. However,

“Ockham’s Razor” does not really demonstrate God’s existence in a matter that

everyone can understand, and rather is faith-based. Therefore, neither truly

8

demonstrates God’s existence and everyone must now wait to determine a better

approach to demonstrate God’s existence, if God really truly exists.

9