Study Notes on Aquinas's Arguments for the Existence of God

Aquinas presents the fourth argument for the existence of God, which is rooted in Aristotelian views of causality. This argument is considered radical and implausible by contemporary standards. The structure of the argument is as follows:
- (1) Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
- (2) If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has that property to the maximum possible degree (referred to as the maximum exemplar of the property).
- (3) Therefore, there exists an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
- Thus, God exists.

The argument begins with the observation that some things possess various properties in differing amounts (e.g., some are more powerful or intelligent than others).
The second premise suggests that for every property that exists at a lesser extent, there must be an exemplar that possesses it to the highest degree.
- Example: While Charlie Chaplin may be less than maximally funny, the premise implies a necessity for the existence of a maximally funny comedian.
- Counterpoint: The argument does not satisfactorily address the existence of maximum exemplars for all properties. For instance, not every quality must have a perfect embodiment.
The Aristotelian notion underlying this reasoning is exemplified with his claim that fire represents the highest degree of heat. According to this, other hot substances derive their heat from fire, the ultimate hot entity.

If each property has a maximum exemplar, it does not necessarily imply a singular entity exemplifying all properties maximally. This reflects the earlier discussed Birthday Fallacy, which states that:
- Premise 1: Everybody has a birthday.
- Conclusion: Therefore, there is one single day that serves as everyone's birthday.
This fallacy indicates logical gaps in assuming that multiple properties must converge into one singular entity possessing maximum characteristics.

There exists a potential contradiction within the framework of Aquinas's argument. If intelligence has a maximum exemplar, the opposing trait (e.g., stupidity) would similarly require a maximum demonstration. Hence, one could conclude there is a being who embodies both maximum intelligence and maximum stupidity, which is logically incoherent.

It is essential to note that the failure of the four arguments does not definitively lead to the conclusion that God does not exist.
- The shortcomings identified may indicate the flawed nature of these particular objectives rather than a dismissal of theism overall.

What objections are there to the first cause argument?
What is the Birthday Fallacy? How does it figure into the discussion of Aquinas's arguments?
Explain what it means for an object to be necessary or contingent. What is a “possible world”?
How are necessity and eternality related? How does this bear on Aquinas's third argument?
What is a reductio argument? Give an example.
What is the difference between necessity and certainty? What is meant by saying that necessity is “objective”?
What would it mean for something to be a first cause without being God? What would it mean for something to necessarily exist without being God?
Why, if at all, do you think it might be helpful to reflect on unsuccessful arguments for the existence of God? Explain your answer.
Which of the four arguments discussed above do you find most convincing? Why?

Aquinas's proofs are based around the concept of objects existing within “nature.” What is included in this definition?
Can something be both necessary and non-eternal, existing at some points in each possible world but not throughout the actual world?
How can Aquinas's third argument be reformulated to avoid the criticisms discussed about the necessity of mathematical concepts?
Considering the previous discussion regarding maximum properties, can Aquinas counter with the idea that traits like stupidity are merely the absence of intelligence?