Aquinas believed that everything is in motion and it would be necessary to put something into motion to get it to start moving. Therefore, everything that moves must have been initiated by another moving object. The motion must have been initiated by something. This principle can be applied to both time and events. A certain event cannot occur without another event or another event. He did not agree with the term Infinite Regress’. An Infinite Regress suggests that every event begins with nothing. This implies that it can be continued forever. Aquinas believed there had to be a beginning for the world. It would mean that it had never been started by anything, but it existed in perpetuity. Aquinas believed that God was the one who initiated the motion. This was Aquinas’ first argument, ‘The Argument From Motion’.
His second argument, ‘The Argument from Causation’ was his second. It differed from ‘The Motion’ in that it discussed the cause for cause. Aquinas stated many things are caused. Anything that is not caused by another must be caused. There cannot be an infinite number or cause. Thomas Aquinas stated that all things can be contingent, but not all. It is possible for something to have never existed, and it would not be possible for everything to be contingent. Aquinas claimed that there would never be an infinite regression of contingency, which means that it is possible that no one at all could have existed. A contingent being is one that cannot have existed. The opposite is necessary and God is the only necessary being. He also believed that comparisons should be made by degrees. Someone else could see something good as bad. Aquinas believed assets could be classified into degrees. For perfection to be perceived, it should be compared to something to measure against. God is the only possible perfection. This should be possible since all objects and articles are compared using a comparison of the article with a pinnacle. The article would then be compared against God to determine how it compares to God. Teleological arguments claim that all objects, organisms, and things must have a designer. The argument was first proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas (an Italian philosopher), who claimed that the obvious complexity and order in the universe was proof that there was a higher designer, and that God was that designer. William Paley (an English philosopher and priest) further supported this argument by adding a famous analogy. Paley saw a complicated watch lying on the ground as he was walking. The watch’s complexity led him to believe that it had been designed and could not have simply happened. This principle could also be used to explain the existence and functioning of galaxies, humans, and the Earth. These creations can’t be made by chance. There must be a “designer” who created them. This answer could be God. Aquinas’ arguments don’t prove that there is a God people worship or follow. Theists believe that there is a loving and personal God. However, his arguments show little to no similarity with the God who answers prayers, protects his creations and unconditionally loves all. Aquinas’ view of God, or what we have seen, doesn’t seem to make a significant difference to our question about God’s existence. Science has proven that religion is falsely invented in many cases. This has been evident through scientific realizations and empirical evidence. Intensifying evidence has led to further support for the theory evolution and natural selection. Many Christians are modest enough to believe the Big Bang Theory. Some also pursue the career of scientists. Their differences and the possibility of reaching a rational and practical conclusion to their beliefs is often met with criticism. Extra scientific evidence can be viewed by Christians as evidence God has created. God is responsible for any scientific advances, including the Big Bang Theory. Although non-religious people may believe Science is more reliable or trustworthy than Religion, an atheist might think Science is. Richard Dawkins is a controversial biologist, author and ethologist. His argument would, I believe, sum up the view of an atheist. Dawkins is very outspoken about his support of theist beliefs and how they are supported by him. He stated that he believes religious people use religion as safety blankets to protect themselves from pain and the unknown. He gave the example of a mother grieving over the loss of her son. The mother would pray for her son’s return and this is clear evidence of the mother’s belief in God and her religion to help her cope with the loss. This is a strong point that Dawkins supports. My view is that Science & Religion are currently at odds over their beliefs and morals. I don’t think this can be resolved anytime soon. Science is supported by more theories and arguments than religion. I disagree with this view. Religion, however is based on centuries-old myths which don’t provide any proof or facts. Religion can be used for comfort, safety, and answering unanswered questions. However, until we find the answers, Science will continue being full of ‘theories. Religion will continue as a safety blanket.
