The greatest theologian that ever lived, according to some, sought to answer every attack on his faith, as well as provide the human mind tangible proof of the divine's existence.  He gave five proofs for God in his famous seminal work Summa Theologica.  Today's discussion revolves around whether these proofs are in fact sufficient, or if there is in fact a way to refute them.  Listen, as Aquinas attempts to take men to the heavens.  

Ontological Argument

Ontology-study of being.  

What is the most amazing thing you can think of?  

Things may exist in imagination or reality, with things in reality better than the imaginary things.

Contrast between ontological argument of Anselm and Cosmological arguments of Aquinas.  How are they different?  Is either superior in anyway?

Begs the Question.  God's existence is assumed, resulting in a circular argument.

Four Cosmological Arguments

Romans 1 Source Text.  The second causes.  

The concept that eistence might be seen as a row of dominoes, with something needing to move first to beget the movement in the first place.  Referred to as the presence of an Unchanging Changer. Else infinite regress, which is seen as a logical problem.

Things which cause things often have other causes, and, it is believed, that when one reaches something with on cause, one may form a concept of God.  There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.  This argument asserts that there must be a First Cause.

As almost all observable phenomena show there to be a sort of perishing occurring in the world, something must be imperishable and eternal or there would be nothing whatsoever in existence.  Here we learn the infinite variable.  Without this, all systems become circles.  If everything is contingent on another being's giving it life, than we run into a logical fallacy yet again of infinite regress.  The Nietzschean Eternal Recurrence.  Could it also be a possibility?

As it is possible to conceive of varied levels of perfection in things, it is possible to conceive of something utterly perfect and beyond comprehension.  This thing must be God.  How might values present themselves without this measuring stick?  Is it an artificial construct or is it truly an a priori in the structure of being?

Teleological Argument

That things tend to work towards aims shows that either those things are intelligent, or something intelligent guides them.  From this, men derive that some Telos sets a telos for each thing, for how can those things set those ends for themselves?


  • Assumptions: Must infinite regress necessarily be impossible?
  • Logical Leaps: Leap to biblical view of God.
  • Oversimplifying complexity:

Around minute 48, we attempt to wander into the existential beyond. Several soft attempts are made at such, but to my standards, I do not really think they breach this beyond. This will be a topic of further discussion in the future.

If you like what you heard, please like and subscribe, and read more material of this nature on