Augustine on creation and Aquinas on the existence of God Essay

In Augustines writing, The Confessions, he philosophically attempts to answer the problems that go on inwardly religion, specifically in regards to Judeo Christian beliefs, pertaining to perfection, clock date, and invention. Augustine first addresses the belief that immortal created everything. He tries to provide a coherent explanation for his claim that gods ex-nihilo (out of cryptograph) creation of the Earth is a level-headed statement, given that God created everything, and with it condemnation. Thus, the arbitrariness of condemnation never existed beforehand its very point of creation.However, given that God created everything, and thus the universe, what was God doing before the universes creation that ca employ him to decide to create it or that it was now necessary as opposed to before. Further more than, if God even had to light upon the decision whether or not the universes initiation was necessary, making him arbitrary, wouldnt that underlyingly manipul ate the claim that God is a perfect organism (omnipotent, omniscient, and omni point) and thus is immutable.Augustine objects this claim by stating that God is eternal, in that he is timeless, and so exists outside the country of time. He is therefore not bound (or defined) by for each one temporal concept. So, when faced with the problem of what God was doing before he created the universe, Augustine simply claims it is an illogical question. He justifies that if one(a) accepts the belief that God is eternal and created everything, than one peckt logically ask what God was doing at a certain point before the creation of time itself, as it was not yet in existence.Augustine continues the debate on time, by calling its very existence into question. Augustine questions the comm just accepted printing of time by providing his theory of birthism, which basically reduces time into tho the present tense. Augustine claims that when people talk in price of the past, present, and p rox theyre only really talking about various forms of the present. Augustine tries to explain the various complications that arise when trying to determine the duration of present time. It is difficult to comp are two different measurements of time if each period of present time given fuel be reduced into a minute precedent of time that quickly disappears. So, one apprisenot measure something that has happened, because once it is in the past, it no longer exists.Augustine accepts that their appears to be an erroneous aspect of presentism, in that by accepting the present as the only form of time, one would consequently seemingly have to agree that it wouldnt make sense to refer to any moment of time occurring in either the past or the future. Augustine rationalizes any reference to the past, by defining it as the minds faculty to recall imprinted memories of images left in the mind done the medium of ones senses.Similarly, the foreseeing of future events is plainly the act o f prediction based by of things that were already present or anteriorly seen (i.e. the assertion that the sun will rise tomorrow is only based on ones own previous experience of having already watched the sun rise). Augustine acknowledges the apparent existence of past and future events, and answers the discrepancy by providing toss terms to use in place of the existing tenses, which are the present of past things, the present of present things, and the present of future things. Furthermore, he redefines the definitions of his terms to mean that the present of past things is memory, the present of present things is attendance, and the present of future things is expectation.Augustine continues the problem of measuring time, by recognizing that it would be impossible to measure something, which is not yet real, travels by dint of what doesnt occupy space, only to become something that is no longer real. He first tries to use the notion that time bottom be measured in relation to a corporeal object, much(prenominal) as the sun (i.e. a day). Yet, this method is rejected, because if one were to change the time it takes for the sun to rotate the Earth, the time dish out to a day would still remain the same, even if the sun were to set multiple times within a days time frame.Thus, he states that if the front of any corporeal object is one thing, and the standard in which we measure it is another, time fire not based off of any straw man of a corporeal object. He then replaces this method of measurement with the example of sound, explaining that because we gage measure time based on our voice, surely we can measure any interval of time based off any beginning and end. However, he claims that when measuring any form of sound, we are only measuring the model the sound left on the mind, and thus are only measuring the impression left, not the time itself.Augustine then deduces that time is only produced from memories of impressions. Thus, time is nothing more than a manmade phenomenon that exists only within the realm of the charitable mind. He explains that this phenomenon exists within the mind in three different forms of reality. The three realities of the mind are comprised of when the mind expects, attends, or remembers. In other words, that what the mind expects, passes by way of what it attends, into being what it remembers. Furthermore, it is only our attention that endures, through which what is still to be makes its way into the state of where it is no more. Therefore, our attention is continually present, as the future is being passed through the present and changes into the past. Augustine concludes that it is this tension or flow that constitutes time, in that time can only be understood in terms of a manmade psychological phenomenon.For Augustine, his philosophical conclusion that time doesnt exist in any tangible way but is merely a product of the human mind, justifies the claim that Gods existence is outside the rea lm of humans perception of time. Augustine expects that from the sufferance of this notion of time, Gods exemption from time in no way means that he is deficient or more limited than humans in any aspect, but that conversely, he is more powerful.AquinasAquinas argues the problem of Gods existence in three ways offset, he addresses whether or not the existence of God is self-evident, second, whether or not his existence can be demonstrate and, finally, whether or not God actually exists. In addressing the issue of whether or not Gods existence is self-evident, Aquinas provides three objections in support of the argument. However, the objections are fundamentally flawed based on the premise that one can intellectually declare God doesnt exist.However, in response, Aquinas counters this notion by redefining the ways in which something can be self-evident into two different categories. He says something can be self-evident in itself and not to us or both itself and us. Therefore, som e concepts involving incorporeal substances can only be learned. Also, because God is His own existence, the proposition is no longer one that is self-evident. Thus, Gods self-evident existence can only be proven through demonstrating the natural things known to us, such as his affects or, it is simply a prima fascie presumption. Aquinas provides the objections to his assertion, which accepts the fact that not everyone defines happiness or God in the same ways, or that Primal Truths are self-evident.Aquinas then discusses whether or not Gods existence can be proven by demonstration. He provides the objection that it cant, on the fact that Gods existence is based entirely on faith, and that His essence can only be defined in terms of what He is not. Lastly, that no cause can be demonstrate by an affect that isnt proportional. Aquinas answers, saying that Gods existence can be demonstrated in two ways. The first being through a priori methods, in which knowledge can be obtained witho ut the need of experience, as seen with Anslems Ontological argument which proves the existence of God using a definition. The second way, which for Aquinas is the only legitimate way, is through a posteriori methods, in which any knowledge used must be gained through experience.Aquinas adheres to Aristotelian ideas, claiming that there is nothing in the intellect that didnt once exist in the senses, and thus rejects that Gods existence could be demonstrated through any means other than those acquired through experience. For Aquinas, every effect must be the result of an inherent cause. So, one can prove Gods existence to be self-evident by demonstrating his existence based off the effects he produces. Aquinas continues by claiming that nothing prevents a man from judgement evidence demonstrated scientifically. Therefore, because God can be defined and proven in terms of his effects, we can conclude that Gods existence can be demonstrated.In order to attack the objections to the a djacent question of whether or not God exists, Aquinas provides the proof of Gods existence with, The First Way, which is one of five. The First Way is the most visible and is based of the a posteriori argument of consummation. Aquinas assumes that everyone can accept that within the world some things are in motion (as they can be observed), and that a things motion has to have been caused by something other than itself. In other words, except something in motion already in a state of actuality, no motion can be born-again from potentiality to actuality without the help of some outside source.Thus, Aquinas is influenced by the Aristotelian view of change, which is based of the precondition that a substance, defined as being a particular thing with a natural congruity that persists yet changes in predictable ways, experiences two different forms of change accidental and substantial. Accidental change occurs when a substance either loses an accidental form and gains another or gai ns a form without losing another (i.e. acute ones hair). Substantial change is the result of something that turns into a whole new being (i.e. a caterpillar into a butterfly). Thus, something that is potentially something else cant concurrently be that thing in actuality at the same time. For instance water, which is actually a liquid but potentially ice, cannot change its form into being ice without something acting upon it.Furthermore, building upon Aristotles views of change, Aquinas asserts that the same rule governing change can as well as be applied to the argument of movement. Therefore, if in accordance with the same rule, something in motion cannot simultaneously be both the mover and moved, since something in motion must be put in motion by something other than itself. Thus, in order to find what caused the first movement to occur, one would need to disembowel the seminal causes of such movement back to, in effect, infinity. However, Aquinas claims its illogical to acc ept that the initial force could only be defined in relation to an infinite chain of causes. Consequently, the only sound conclusion would have to include the existence of a first mover, such as something along the lines of an unmoved mover. For Aquinas, the existence of an unmoved mover/unchanged changer proves the existence of a force that could only be God.Aquinas concludes that only God could be the force behind the existence of some unmoved mover, if motion is created in two different ways. The first is exemplified by the example of some X (i.e. a leg) woful some Y (i.e. a ball). So, that in this first example, even though X causes the movement of Y, it also follows that X is moving too. Subsequently, Aquinas concludes that given the notion that any X which is able to cause Y to move, while at the same time able to remain motionless, could only be the result of a being X equivalent to a much-elevated force that uniquely has to be God.