Aquinas Third Proof For The Existence Of God

proof for the existence of God he approaches it with the concept of motion. But looking deeper it really is about the issue of actuality and potentiality which Aristotle also used to analyze motion. This proof reminds us that things are in motion and move when potential motion or ‘possibility’ becomes actual motion. This is very similar to Aristotle’s explanation of motion defined as “actuality of a potentiality.” Next Aquinas tell us that only an actual motion can turn potential motion into actual motion. But nothing can be both in potentiality and actuality, and with regards to motion it means that nothing can be ‘both mover and moved’. Therefore, with nothing being able to have both potentiality and actuality, and nothing able to move itself, ‘motion must be put into motion by another.’ Now to connect this to God, Aquinas argues that if things can only be put in motion by the mover before them, there must be a first mover, moved by no one before him. And that is God. In Aquinas’ third proof he argues necessity. He says that things can be and not be, and things can go into …show more content…
For the first proof the issue arises with potential and actuality. We preconditioning the natural process of motion within time. But, according to Ibn Sina and Rushd, God is not bound within time. However, there seems to be a deeper contradiction than that. Aristotle, Aquinas and Ibn Sina believe that the universe is eternal. Therefore, Aquinas is contradicting himself in the claim that god is the prime mover because movement itself is eternal. Aristotle explains this in Physics by stating that an object can’t move before it comes into existence, and the act of coming to existence is itself movement. So, if the process of motion according to Aquinas as “potentiality and actuality” is within time, god is not within time, and the existence of movement is eternal, then how could there be a first