Thomas
Aquinas, the author of Summa Theologica,
provides valid points about the existence of god. His first example was the
following: ”Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing
can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in
motion..” this statement is somewhat confusing but the point the author tries
to make is if something is in motion, it must have been put in motion by
something/someone. Aquinas explains that according to science, things will
continue to be in motion until someone/something stops the motion. The question
that is implied by Thomas is how did god come about if something needs to be
there before god to start something? I would have to agree with Aquinas and his
arguments over Dawkins. Dawkins argues against every argument Thomas makes with
the statement that god is immune to “regress”. I was raised in a catholic
household but I do not agree with the baggage it carries such as, saints. I strictly
believe that there is a god and agree with Aquinas.
I am also Catholic and so I also lean more towards Aquinas. However, I still somewhat accept the possibility of the theory of evolution. I still do agree with you though on how Dawkins argues, how he argues against every argument Aquinas makes. He sort of just attacks Aquinas and does not provide much reasoning behind his own logic. Dawkins used his emotions ineffectively unlike Aquinas who more calmly and straightforwardly stated his claims why God exists. His claims ended up making sense more than Dawkins because they really made me think like why is it that we are designed this way, why we cease to exist.
ReplyDelete