In response to Aquinas, Paul Edwards argues against the Principle of Sufficient Reason and Aquinas’ assertion that an infinite regress is impossible. Regarding Aquinas’ use of the reduction and absurdum in his Third Way, Edwards argues Aquinas does not succeed in proving an infinite regress is impossible. Edwards asserts one can acknowledge God’s existence, and thus the existence of all which follows from God’s existence, without acknowledging God as “the first member of the series.” According to Edwards, by not denying the existence of God (even if God is not the first cause), one does not reduce the argument to the non existence of everything.
Furthermore, according to Edwards, if an infinite regress is impossible, then it doesn’t mean there were not many different first causes or that the first cause is still in existence.
Edwards distinguishes, on behalf of defenders of Aquinas’ argument, between “causes in fieri” and “causes in esse”. A “cause in fieri” is a direct cause of an …show more content…
Edwards notes how air sustains human life and the forces of gravity sustain the air. He also states that “it is difficult to see” what sustains the forces of gravity or atoms or electrons. Edwards notes, supporters of Aquinas’ argument could point out gravity, atoms and electrons require a “cause in esse” because these things could not sustain or “cause themselves, since…they would in that event have had to exist before they began existing” However, Edwards argues, supporters of Aquinas’ argument would then assert the sustainer or cause of such things, namely God, needs no “cause in esse.” Edwards asserts that supporters of Aquinas’ argument fall prey to their own reasoning, meaning, they argue things require a “cause in esse,” except for when they get to providing a “cause in esse” for
Furthermore, according to Edwards, if an infinite regress is impossible, then it doesn’t mean there were not many different first causes or that the first cause is still in existence.
Edwards distinguishes, on behalf of defenders of Aquinas’ argument, between “causes in fieri” and “causes in esse”. A “cause in fieri” is a direct cause of an …show more content…
Edwards notes how air sustains human life and the forces of gravity sustain the air. He also states that “it is difficult to see” what sustains the forces of gravity or atoms or electrons. Edwards notes, supporters of Aquinas’ argument could point out gravity, atoms and electrons require a “cause in esse” because these things could not sustain or “cause themselves, since…they would in that event have had to exist before they began existing” However, Edwards argues, supporters of Aquinas’ argument would then assert the sustainer or cause of such things, namely God, needs no “cause in esse.” Edwards asserts that supporters of Aquinas’ argument fall prey to their own reasoning, meaning, they argue things require a “cause in esse,” except for when they get to providing a “cause in esse” for