Sir Thomas Aquinas And William Paley s Argument On The...

Sir Thomas Aquinas and William Paley present two arguments for the existence of God. Aquinas defines God as omnibenevolent (all good) for his argument, and he continues in â€Å"The Five Ways† to present arguments to prove God’s existence (Rosen et al. 11). Paley, on the other hand, primarily defines God as a designer worthy of our admiration for his work (Rosen et al. 27). During class discussion, defining God involved three major qualities: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Both Aquinas and Paley are attempting to prove the existence of the (Christian) God associated with these qualities. Although Aquinas’s â€Å"Cosmological Argument† and Paley’s â€Å"Argument from Design† have different premises, both have a similar logical gap in their†¦show more content†¦As discussed in class, modern scientific research provides alternatives to Aquinas’s presumed necessities. An infinite series of causes no longer seems im possible. This research disproves Aquinas s third premise (P3), and his argument for God as the first cause is consequently unnecessary. Furthermore, the fourth premise still has a logical gap between the first cause and God. Aquinas offers no explanation as to why the first cause must be God or a supernatural being at all. The first cause may just as easily be a spontaneous event, or a first cause may not exist at all in an infinite universal cycle. William Paley has a similar logical gap in his â€Å"Argument from Design,† but he attempts to address this issue in â€Å"Chapter V.† Previously in this argument, Paley attests that the nature of humans and their parts implies a designer. From the discussion in class, Paley’s argument can be organized as follows: P1. Artifacts like watches are complex and have a purpose. P2. Artifacts like watches have designers. P3. The human eye is complex and has a purpose. C1. Therefore, the human eye probably has a designer. This kind of argument is analogical, and it does not prove certainty by its nature. In the conclusion, â€Å"probably† is still a necessity. Certainty about the relevance of the traits of design cannot be proven in the same manner of other logical arguments. Complexity and purposefulness are not the only traits