Summa Theologiae

Introduction

        My topic is Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae. In Aquinas’ cosmological argument, he states that there are five ways to prove God’s existence.  In the third way, he explains that mankind, or the elements of natural would not exist if God didn’t exist. I disagree with Aquinas’ statement. My reason is because in my eyes, mankind and the elements of nature existing is not enough evidence to prove that God really exists. Many theories regarding science can negate Aquinas’ argument. One theory that could argue with Aquinas’ is the theory of evolution.

Aquinas’ Argument

        The Cosmological argument states that in order for elements in nature to exist, there has to be a greater being that causes things in nature to exist (Gracyk, 2004). That greater being is hypothetically to be God. Apparently, Aquinas agrees. In the third way of Aquinas’ argument, he categorized God and mankind into two types of beings. The necessary being is God, while the contingent being is mankind. The necessary being is meant to be responsible for why the contingent being exists all together. Therefore God is categorized as the necessary being. In Aquinas’ view, one cannot exist without the other. This leads to additional proof of how God exists; the law of motion. The concept can be related to a game of pool. The person is responsible for why the billiard balls are able to come in contact with each other and has the ability to move. God is the person who moves the billiard balls with the pool stick and the billiard balls are the humans. Aquinas also uses the nature of efficient cause.  The nature of efficient cause argues that there is always an efficient cause for everything that occurs. Nothing can happen automatically. Cooking a meal is a great example for this theory. The meal could not just automatically prepare itself. Certain actions have to occur in ordered for that meal to be cooked. That certain action could be simply placing the meal to fire, and of course someone has to prepare the meal as well. The meal is analogous to humans, or the elements in nature, and the person making the meal is analogous to God. Since it is impossible for anything to happen itself, God makes everything occur, therefore God exists.

My Objections

        I find Aquinas’ argument to be a bit flawed. As I stated before, his views don’t really convince me that God is the reason why we all exist. Evolution makes a better argument. I believe the creation of our existence is far more complex than Aquinas’ view.  I also feel that evolution indeed supplies a more thorough explanation. Aquinas believes that God is the cause of our existence, but I feel that there is more to the explanation on how we were created. For example, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection substantiates my theory. Natural selection is the method of organisms changing constantly over time from change in physical or behavioral traits. According to Darwin, this is how humans evolved from Apes. Another way Darwin explains how organisms evolves from one species to another is through genetic mutation.  Six to eight million years ago, the Hominid species roamed the earth. Scientists’ claims that the human species evolved from them. Scientists researched that Hominids shared an immense amount of DNA as humans, hence why the claim to the human ancestry to Hominids is great (Smith & Harper, 2013). The most famous evolution event that may be possible for the human existence was the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion wasn’t really an explosion; it was rather a time period. The period happened approximately 530 million years ago that caused a great diversity of organisms as a result. Every living organism was predominately aquatic, small in size, and had strange body structures. (Evolution at Berkley). That being said, evolution replaces the cosmological argument.

...