James Anderson
Professor Holman
Philosophy 100
First Paper: Question One

Saint Thomas Aquinas was a 13th Century Catholic Monk and Philosopher who was influenced by earlier philosophers such as Aristotle and Averroes. One of Aquinas’ most famed publications was his Five Ways in which he argues for the existence of God and his nature. One of the five arguments he writes about is called the “First Cause” argument. It establishes that the universe is a casual series of events that are all traced back to a first cause. Aquinas’ logical argument for the existence of the traditional monotheistic God and that He is the first cause of the universe convinces me because of the unbreakable logic of the argument and the consistency with modern day knowledge of the beginning of the universe.
Aquinas’ “first cause” argument is one of the many cosmological arguments that try to answer the question about the origins of the universe. The first premise of the argument is that some things or events are caused. Followed by the second premise, which says that some things cause themselves or some things are caused by something other than themselves. We know the third premise is, nothing can cause itself. So the conclusion of the first 3 premises is that if something is caused, then it is caused by something other than itself. Therefore, if something is caused by something other than itself, then a causal series or a series of cause and effect is established. Thus, we know cause precedes its effects.
How do we know that nothing causes itself like the third premise states? Just from experience alone we know that there is no such thing as self-cause. In nature, we as humans have never observed something to cause itself nor will we if the laws of nature continue to stay in place. For example, a glass of water does not just appear out of thin air. Something must put the glass in place and something must place the water inside the glass. A plant does not pop into existence from nothing. It grows from a seed that needs water, sunlight, and nutrients. All these variables that go into a seed or put the hand in motion to pour water into a glass also must come from something and the energy that goes into those somethings must themselves come from some other things. Even natural scientists would not argue against things coming into existence without cause. From this argument so far, we know that the universe is a spin-off after spin-off of causes and effects.
This causal series that has been established must go back infinitely far with no original cause or there is a first cause. Well, the causal series cannot go back for infinity. Therefore, there is a first cause. Again, we must question why the causal series cannot go back infinitely. There is a prime or sub-argument to that premise which starts off by saying that if the causal series goes back to infinity then there are no causes. We, of course know that there are causes so therefore the causal series does not go back to infinity. Though confusing to how we view things, it is a sound argument and the premises and the conclusions agree with each other. Aquinas used the example of fire and wood to show that if the causal series was infinite then there would be no causes. A fire which is hot will catch other wood on fire and this fire will then cause another piece of wood to catch flame and so. The first fire I mentioned itself was started as wood at one point and a fire before that caught it on fire too. An easier example would be knocking down a line of dominos. Someone had to have set up those dominos in order to knock them over. We had to begin somewhere in this series because if we did not then the past would have no beginning.
Now that cause and effect has been established and the question of the causal series being finite and having a beginning being answered, we need to discuss how God came into being. Aquinas considered God to be the beginning and the first cause. God had no creator and has always been in existence before time or space. He transcends the laws of physics and nature since He was the creator of them. According to the traditional view of the Judeo-Christian God, He is eternal and all powerful and this gives Him the authority to not abide by the natural laws that we humans observe.
Now St. Thomas Aquinas, having lived over 800 years ago, did not have access to modern scientific knowledge that we have about the state of the universe. Critics would argue that this considerable time gap would invalidate such an old theory but I do not see it conflicting with what we currently know and I actually see it strengthening the idea of the traditional Western God. For example, the universe is currently expanding in all directions which also means in reverse time it would have to shrink out of existence. Before then, there was no universe, no time, no energy, no laws of nature, no colors, and not even the empty vacuum of space because even that is something. God, not being created but eternally existing outside of “something” could be the only catalyst that could, in His authority and omnipotence, initiate a causal series of energy, governed by laws of nature, that we call the universe. As old as this argument is, it is still consistent with our modern theories and can explain the origins of the Big Bang and the creation of the universe.
As we explore and observe the natural universe and it’s laws, we know that things do not pop into existence and that they need a cause. Aquinas’ produced a logical and sound argument to show that there is a casual series and that it does not go back infinitely. I cannot view any major flaws in Aquinas’ first cause theory and I am successfully convinced that in order for there to be a first cause and following causes then an all-powerful and knowing God exists. It is not intuition but logic that allows me to believe.