St. Thomas Aquinas, a philosopher and theologian, offers a cosmological argument defending the existence of God that can be understood first on the basis of dependent and independent beings. A dependent being is one that has a contingent existence. In other words, it could have failed to exist because its existence is brought about by another being. The reason for a dependent being’s existence resides in something else. An independent being, however, has a necessary existence that could not fail to exist. Its reason for existence lies within itself, and is not explained by another being. According to Judeo-Christian principles, “God” is an independent or necessary being whose existence does not rely on another. Aquinas offers that the only
…show more content…
Russel claims that Aquinas committed the “whole part fallacy” through his use of an analogy concerned with Aquinas’s reasoning about a collection of contingent beings. In his analogy, Russel states that if every man has a mother, there is an argument that the human race has a mother as well, but the human race does not have a mother because that is a “different logical sphere”. Russell disagrees with the assumption that the universe must be contingent based on the idea that if each being has property then the universe they inhabit must also have that same property. He feels that it is possible that the universe itself is an independent being, and that the question of brought the universe into existence makes no logical sense. Russel feels that “cause” does not apply to the universe, and that the notion of cause-and-effect explains this. According to Russel and other philosophers who have criticized this theory, a central criticism is that Aquinas does not “logically demonstrate” the existence of God due to the other available possibilities. In response to this, Aquinas might respond with that if it is feasible it is possible, and that he must work on ruling out other possibilities to be certain. He feels that the universe if above its parts, and must have an explanation that goes beyond the explanation of what makes it
Russel claims that Aquinas committed the “whole part fallacy” through his use of an analogy concerned with Aquinas’s reasoning about a collection of contingent beings. In his analogy, Russel states that if every man has a mother, there is an argument that the human race has a mother as well, but the human race does not have a mother because that is a “different logical sphere”. Russell disagrees with the assumption that the universe must be contingent based on the idea that if each being has property then the universe they inhabit must also have that same property. He feels that it is possible that the universe itself is an independent being, and that the question of brought the universe into existence makes no logical sense. Russel feels that “cause” does not apply to the universe, and that the notion of cause-and-effect explains this. According to Russel and other philosophers who have criticized this theory, a central criticism is that Aquinas does not “logically demonstrate” the existence of God due to the other available possibilities. In response to this, Aquinas might respond with that if it is feasible it is possible, and that he must work on ruling out other possibilities to be certain. He feels that the universe if above its parts, and must have an explanation that goes beyond the explanation of what makes it