Lee
Introduction Lee
Ruth to Philosophy
Professor Martin Bunzl
October 5, 2011
Aquinas Second Argument
Aquinas second argument is that there is a first efficient cause which he determines to be
God. He says that there is cause in the world and that nothing can cause itself since There is no
case known in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to
itself, which is impossible (Aquinas 1). A cause cannot cause itself (because then it would have
to exist before causing itself) so there also cannot be an infinite cycle of causation, which would
ultimately be an absurd concept. Consequently, he concludes that God must be the first cause
the ultimate cause by proposing the self-evident premise that there must be a first cause by
saying, if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient
cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which
is plainly false. If a chain of causation went on infinitely, then there would be no need for a first
cause; however, without a first efficient cause, there would be no intermediate causes,
intermediate effects or ultimate effects. Therefore, according to Aquinas second argument, there
must be a first cause and this first cause must be God.
Aquinas argument is subjected to many imperfections. It is not a proof by thinking alone
since the effects that Aquinas are proposing are observed. He is essentially claiming that the
effects, which include us as human beings and all that surround us, would not and could not have
possibly existed without an ultimate cause. There are also other limits to this proof. Firstly, the
Lee
idea of an infinite chain of causation is simply unimaginable by Aquinas. In physics, if space and
time were curved, a cycle could be closed. Though difficult imagine, to this would create an
infinite chain and counter one of Aquinas premises for his second argument. In addition,
simultaneous cause is incoherent. Also along the lines of the limits of imagination, it is difficult
to grasp the concept of contemporaneous. According to Aquinas, he assumes that uncaused cause
is absurd the idea that an effect should absolutely have a cause. This assumption looks over the
possibility of spontaneity, where an effect just happens and does not necessarily have a cause,
particularly in quantum mechanics. Spontaneity would mean a particular cause is no longer
necessary. In order to support his argument, Aquinas suggests that In the world of sense we find
there is an order of efficient causes and it is evident that this order that he implies in his
argument is not as concrete as he declares it to be.
With the flaws in his argument considered, the god that Aquinas is attempting to prove is not
worth proving. Initially, the god he constructs is necessary. If he did not exist, then there would
be no ultimate cause and no preceding effects which would include our existence and the
existence of anything else. However, without getting into scientific theories of evolution,
Aquinas did not take into the account of spontaneity, simultaneous cause, and the possibility of
infinite chains of cause. With spontaneity, god no longer needs to exist to cause certain events to
occur they could simply occur out of the blue, disregarding the premise that everything needs a
cause. Simultaneous cause commissions that there is a sequence of causes and effects since it
implies that two causes could occur at once. The possibility of infinite causation overlooks the
necessity of a first cause. Together, they contradict each of his premises and consequently,
invalidate his second argument for the existence of god completely.