is there any valid arguments against Aquinas' proof of god??

Question

his argument for the proof of god i heard is the best.


BTW he did NOT prove the existence of a religous or christian god. he proved that there had to be some kind of deity. what that deity is we cannot know but we can know by his proof that the deity exists

Answer 1

There are countless tomes of arguments against his "proof". If you wish, read for starters "The case against God".

Answer 2

First thing, what we identify as a "proof" and what Aquinas is attempting are very different things. What Aquinas is providing are rational inferences, ways of thinking about God's existence, if God exists. Aquinas does not need "proof", he has faith that God exists-- a faith that is born of an assent to revelation. As far as arguments against the so-called "proofs" the most basic argument is that God's existence is infered or alluded to in terms of what Aqunias presents, it isn't definitively established. In other words, the rational nature of the arguments do not by necessity establish that God actually exists empirically. Aquinas would grant this, but he would probably counter that based on rational inference, one can make a prudential judgement in favor of the existence of God. Here's the thing, we moderns are obsessed with establishing certitude for the existence of God. Aquinas would have found this need for certitude peculiar and strange-- after all, he believed in revelation. He would probably beg of us a more significant question than God's existence is what kind of God is God? What is his nature?

Answer 3

I believe the "proof" of God you are referring to is:
(1) All entities are either contingent (created) or eternal.
(2) Not all entities can be contingent
(3) Therefore, at least 1 eternal entity exists.

There are 2 main arguments against this *induction:
1 - Being an "eternal entity" says nothing about being "a diety" (the "proof" says nothing about the nature of the eternal entity that must exist).
2 - Some philosophers argue the validity of the 2nd proposition (that not all entities can be contingent), There is no philosophical mandate that all objects cannot be contingent (rather, it is a fundamental - and possibly erroneous - assumption based on the theory of universal causality)

* BTW, I say "indcution" because, technically #2 is based on universal causality which is ~empirically~ verified.

Answer 4

There are logical lacuna in all "proofs of god." Were there indisputable, air tight, inarguable proofs from deductive or inductive reasoning, there could not be intelligent and rational nonbelievers, could there?

The existence of highly intelligent skeptics is empirical proof that there is no proof. But so eager are we to think that the cosmos is controled by will rather than the laws of physics, and that we can somehow influence that will, that "proofs" have historically mushroomed like mushrooms. It seems inprobable that we have had the last of them. Biny Hin may blow of another at any time.

Answer 5

He argues that God is the solution to infinite regress, but moving from the natural to the supernatural does not solve this. It merely ends with the same problem, and it is also requires more of a suspension of belief than the problem would without a supernatural, intelligent creator.

Answer 6

The arguments that Aquinas used are circular. They refer back to a religious document to determine the "truth" of the issue.

Why do we choose to believe that Aquinas existed? It is the same type of argument.

Answer 7

read Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian