The Nature of God According to Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas had an argument of the existence of God. Providing this argument in a logical way to parishioners in a homily or during an RCIA would be challenging but possible. Thomas has based his argument on five major elements that form the premises of the argument conclusion. The audience needs to be alerted on each of the premises leading to the decision made. There is motion in the world. This motion exists in terms of potential motion, which made to be a real motion by action. Action leads to the motion. There is no stagnation in the universe, which is a sign of things moving. God must be the mover, as no one understands it. The existence of God can be perceived from the efficiency perspective (Thomas & Regan, 2012).

Nothing can exist before the creator. God must be an initial mover who causes the action and initiates the first efficiency. Thomas sees the existence of possibility and necessity, also called the reduction argument. Some things exist for their lives. It is a necessity for them to exist. They all speak of God. Thomas sees the gradation of being as another premise that can put together an argument towards the existence of God. God must be a being that created everything in its design. The session audience should know each of the premises, see them from their practical side of life, and give a try over the possibility of their actualization.

I agree with arguments regarding the existence of God. The conclusions are rather fundamental towards the possibility that God really exists. The elements leading up to the conclusions are based on what is real (Thomas & Regan, 2012). The first premise is based on motion. Everything is in motion in the world. God must be causing such motion. The second premise is based on the efficiency of causes, something that is scientific and can be proved. The third and the subsequent premises all hold the truth behind the deliberations of realities in the world. Thus, it is practical to see these conclusions are summing up towards the existence of God. I like the way Thomas has put down a breakdown of every element that leads to an understanding of the argument. The procedural way in which Thomas has described everything is with great understanding that the argument is easy to understand and hence believe. Agreeing with this argument is based on the simplicity of the premises and the connection that has been put between them by Thomas. Certainly, God should be alive based on this reasoning.

If I were writing this argument, few elements would certainly be deleted or not included within the argument. I would include some elements too. It is not comprehensive to show that there is the something else that triggers the motion does not necessarily mean that it is God. It is a force. This force should have some relation with the workings of God. It is awkward to believe that everything is a contingent being. This premise is not well articulated in terms of understanding the core elements of life and contingency. Human perception or gradation of things might not be seen as a credible essence to the existence of God. The hotness of something is seen as serving the differences between existing creatures (Thomas & Regan, 2012). The existence of a genius is a fulfillment that is not universal. Everyone can be hot or smart in something. Therefore, this premise does not add up to the conclusion that this something that brings about perfection exists and is the lead towards such attributes as hotness. In any case, the justification for the existence of God cannot only be seen within the elemental parameters that show perfection.

Reference

Thomas, A., & Regan, R. J. (2012). The power of God. New York: Oxford University Press