Philosophy Final Paper
James Tomsik
Over the course of the semester we have learned about a number of philosophers. From
Socrates to Hume and Aristotle to Berkley. Although I found all of their views on epistemology
and metaphysics interesting I found Thomas Aquinas and Soren Kierkegaard the most
interesting. Though they both explain the existence of god, Aquinas said that the existence of
god could be proven through reasonable doubt while Kierkegaard said that the existence of god
is beyond the realm of pure purpose. I found these views to be very similar yet different at the
same time. I will first be discussing Thomas Aquinas biography and his views then switch to
Kierkegaard and his views. After both I will be show the strengths and weaknesses of both. And
to conclude I will finish with who I think is the better philosopher and why.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was born at Roccasecca, Italy. Many philosophers are
unsure on how to understand Thomas. He was a theologian first and a philosopher second. His
best known work was the Summa Theologiae which is the “beginners guide for theology.” It
shows all the reasoning and points in Christian theology. Along with being the beginners guide
it also provides the five arguments for the existence of god. Aquinas quoted “The believer and
the philosopher consider creatures differently. The philosopher considers what belongs to their
proper natures, while the believer considers only what is true of creatures insofar as they are
related to God, for example, that they are created by God and are subject to him, and the like.”
(Summa contra gentiles)
Mentioned above the Summa Theologiae has five points that proves the existence of
god. The 1st reason is the argument of the unmoved mover. It explains that god is the cause of
all motion in the universe. It is in a way a cosmological argument and relates to Aristotle’s
dichotomy of potentiality and actuality. The basis of the first argument is that a thing cannot
move itself and that it requires a mover. An infinite regress of movers is impossible. Thus there
is an unmoved mover that causes motion to all objects. And it happens that that mover is god.
The 2nd is the argument of the first cause. It explains to prove that god must have been
the cause or the creator of everything. It states that the universe must have a first cause.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else. Aristotle describes the unmoved mover
as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation:
itself contemplating. The summary of the first cause is to prove God’s existence.
The 3rd argument is the argument from Contingency. It states that many things in the
universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings. Aquinas’s
argument from contingency allows for the possibility of a universe that has no beginning in
time. To simplify this meaning it basically means that at one point in time nothing existed. But
that nothing is able to bring anything into existence. That being whom was able to do so was
god.
The 4th argument is the argument from degree. This argument is heavily based upon the
teachings of Aristotle. It states that varying perfections of varying degrees may be found
throughout the universe. These points show the existence of an ultimate standard of greatness.
The greatness had a pinnacle and that is who we called god.
The 5th and final argument is the teleological argument. It claims that everything in the
universe possess final causes that are directed by god. All objects are by themselves are
unintelligent. Thomas Aquinas said that god created the universe in order to multiply his love.
These are the 5 arguments that Aquinas had.
Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) had a very uneventful life. Although his life was very
uneventful he was the Father of Existentialism. Existential philosophy examines fundamental
choices in life. Kierkegaard developed this from the Greek notion of judging philosophers by
their lives rather than their intellectual artefacts. Kierkegaard had a very large sense of guilt and
anxiety he inherited from his dad. His dad was a very wealthy man but when had a large sense
of guilt because he impregnated Kierkegaard’s mother out of wedlock.
Kierkegaard was engaged to a woman named Regina Olsen. She was an important
aspect of his life. A year later from when he had proposed to his beloved he felt disillusioned
about what he had done. He blamed the characteristics he had inherited from his father for
making him unsuitable for marriage. Kierkegaard felt that his situation was much like Abraham
sacrificing his son Isaac to show his love for god. Kierkegaard said “God creates out of nothing,
but here, if I dare say so, he does more-he dresses an instinct in all the beauty of erotic love so
that the lovers see only the beauty and are unaware of the instinct.”
Kierkegaard had two influential ideas in terms of Theology. Subjectivity and the notion
known as the leap of faith. The leap of faith is the concept of how an individual would believe in
god or how a person would act in love. Faith is not a decision based on evidence. Certain truths
about god are true and someone is worthy of love. Faith involves making commitment anyway.
He said that you have to choose the world or god and that choosing one automatically excluded
the other. Evidence without faith would have no real substance.
Subjectivity is the importance of one’s self, and the relation to the world. He argued that
subjectivity is truth and that truth is subjectivity. This has to do with the difference of what is
the real truth and someone’s subjective relation to the truth. Kierkegaard talks about
subjectivity when he talks about religious matters. He states that doubt is an element of faith
and that it is impossible to gain any objective certainty about doctrines.
While Aquinas has his 5 reasons for the existence of god, there are flaws in his system.
They are five reasons for the existence of god. Not five reasons to prove the existence of god.
For all these arguments there exist counter points. To counter the 1st it has committed the
fallacy know as begging the question. The unmoved mover is god. However what is the cause to
make god move? Although motion can’t have infinite regression, it is assumed that god had
been not moving from infinity or he has been moving since nothing existed.
The flaw for the 2nd argument is if nothing can cause itself to exist, how was god able to
cause himself? Had god been in existence from eternity, what is the problem with a universe
that has been in existence from infinity? E=mc2. Matter can be converted into energy and vice
versa. Mass and energy have always been in existence. For all we know the universe could just
be a manifestation of the changes in matter and energy.
The counter point for argument 3 is that in modern day physics have demonstrated that
there are no strict definitions of such things. In a universe that consists of probability and
chaos, things exist without being depend on other things. But as mentioned above, matter and
energy are equally dependent of each other. There are some theoretical situations that have a
backward causation that is possible as long as they do not create temporal paradoxes. The
Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory would best describe this. In short it says that based on the
assumption that a solution to the electromagnetic field equations has to be symmetric with
reference to time-inversion or retro-causality.
The counter argument to argument number 4 is that Aquinas says that all positives
absolutes to god as the pinnacle for all things. But it is logically possible that god is the pinnacle
for all negatives. If there are degrees of cruelty, then god must be the cruelest being. If there
are any acts of insanity then god must be the perfectly insane being. Thus being the pinnacle of
perfection can be applied to the negative and positive traits of god.
The 5th and final counter argument is that this argument is explained as the watchmaker argument. It is used by theologians and fundamentalists preachers as the best argument
for the existence of god. But although the universe is complex and intricate, it does not mean
that it needs a designer. Viewing the universe and systems to human-made objects such as a
watch is committing a logical fallacy known as false analogy. If a complex objects needs a
creator what could be more complex than a super-intelligent, all-powerful god? Well who
created god? Disagreeing to the assumption of an intelligent creator, the universe exhibit
randomness and probability. If this was all designed by the creator then they must not have any
superfluous traits.
There is only one big flaw to the notion of the “leap of faith.” The implication of taking a
leap of faith can carry a positive or negative connotations. A virtue as some would say, is able to
believe in something without the evidence while others feel is it foolishness. It is a contested
theological and philosophical concept. People often refer to Jesus as the “absolute paradox”
because principles argue that reason and logic, rather than revelation or tradition, should be
the basis of belief.
Although Thomas Aquinas has more flaws in his reasons that gods exist, I feel he is the
better philosopher. Leaving everything to faith is preposterous. Aquinas’s arguments on the
existence of god are scientific and very logical. But Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith” is a 50%
guarantee that god’s existence is righteous. So to conclude I find Aquinas the better
philosopher because he provides logical opinions rather than leaving everything to a leap of
faith.