“From the Nature of the

Universe” by Thomas
Aquinas

St. Thomas Aquinas, Thoemmes

About the author. . . . St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1275), is generally con-

sidered to be the most prominent thinker during the Medieval period.
Thomas, although primarily a theologian, argues philosophically in many
of his works and, unlike St. Anselm, clearly distinguishes between the
methods of philosophy and religion. He uses the scientific thought of Aris-
totle as a method of theological and philosophical understanding. Never-
theless, for Thomas, philosophy is primarily based on the use of reason,
whereas religion is primarily based on the use of divine revelation pro-
vided by faith. Both kinds of knowledge, according to Thomas, are con-
sistent and compatible. He is convinced metaphysics is the most important
aspect of philosophy.
About the work. . . . Philosophical reasoning, according to Thomas, is suf-
ficient by itself, without faith or revelation, to demonstrate that God exists.
Thomas believes God’s existence, although not self-evident, can be made
evident using reasoning drawn from the nature and structure of the world.

1
“From the Nature of the Universe” by Thomas Aquinas

The so-called “five ways” are taken from his Summa Theologica.1 Thomas,
as do many philosophers, believes that we can know by reason that God
is, but we cannot know what God is. In other words, the nature of God,
often defined by the characteristics of perfection, is, according to Thomas,
only a linguistic approximation.

From the reading. . .

“I answer that, The existence of God can be proved five ways.”

Ideas of Interest from Summa

Theologica

1. What is Thomas’s objection to the ontological argument?

2. Why doesn’t the observation “whatever is in motion is put in motion
by another,” logically apply to the First Mover?
3. Search, locate, and restate a good definition of “efficient cause.”
4. Can you suggest ways to distinguish physical from logical necessity?
Provide some examples. Would Thomas distinguish between physical
and logical necessity?
5. What is the difference between the First Cause and the First Mover?
6. Research the term, “teleology.” Explain why Thomas’s fifth argument
is often called the “teleological” argument.
7. Restate each of Thomas’s five arguments as clearly as possible. What
is the major premiss2 of each argument? What objections can you
construct to each of Thomas’s arguments?
1. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica second and revised edition, 1920 by the
Fathers of the English Dominican Province.
2. Rhetorically, the major premiss can be thought of as the rule or main generaliza-
tion upon which the argument is based. I.e., in the argument, “All men are mortal, and
Socrates is a man; thus, Socrates is mortal,” the major premiss is “All men are mortal.”

2 Reading For Philosophical Inquiry: A Brief Introduction

 “From the Nature of the Universe” by Thomas Aquinas

The Reading Selection from Summa

Theologica

Whether God exists?

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two con-
traries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word
“God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there
would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore
God does not exist.
Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be ac-
counted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems
that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other princi-
ples, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to
one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to
one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need
to suppose God’s existence.
On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: “I am Who am.” (Exodus
3:14)

The Five Ways

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

[The Argument from Motion]

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain,
and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now
whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in
motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion;
whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else
than the reduction of something from to . But nothing can be reduced from
potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus
that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to
be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible
that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the

Reading For Philosophical Inquiry: A Brief Introduction 3

“From the Nature of the Universe” by Thomas Aquinas

same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot
simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold.
It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a
thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself.
Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that
by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must
needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this
cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and,
consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only
inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves
only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary
to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone
understands to be God.

Il Posillipo, Naples, Italy, Library of Congress

[The Argument from First Cause]

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world
of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case
known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be
the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is
impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity,
because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the
intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause,
whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away

4 Reading For Philosophical Inquiry: A Brief Introduction

 “From the Nature of the Universe” by Thomas Aquinas

the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause
among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate
cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will
be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any
intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is
necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name
of God.

[The Argument from Necessity]

The third way is taken from possibility and , and runs thus. We find in
nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to
be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and
not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is
possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possi-
ble not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence.
Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, be-
cause that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already
existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have
been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now
nothing would be in existence—which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings
are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which
is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by
another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things
which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved
in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the exis-
tence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving
it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men
speak of as God.

[The Argument from Gradation]

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among
beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like.
But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they
resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a
thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which
is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, some-

Reading For Philosophical Inquiry: A Brief Introduction 5

“From the Nature of the Universe” by Thomas Aquinas

thing noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for

those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written
in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that
genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things.
Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of
their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

[The Argument from Design]

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that
things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and
this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way,
so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but
designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence
cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed
with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the
archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things
are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God
is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works,
unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even
out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should
allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.
Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the
direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be
traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntar-
ily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason
or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and
capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary
first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

Related Ideas
Summa Theologica (http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/home.html). The
online text of Summa Theologica available for download.

6 Reading For Philosophical Inquiry: A Brief Introduction

 “From the Nature of the Universe” by Thomas Aquinas

Stephen Loughlin’s HomePage (http://www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/aquinas/).

St. Thomas Aquinas. A site dedicated to St. Thomas Aquinas with bibli-
ography and major links.

Jupiter’s Great Red Spot and Surrounds, JPL, NASA

From the reading. . .

“This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow
evil to exist, and out of it produce good.”

Topics Worth Investigating

1. How do you think Thomas would respond to the following objection

to the First Cause argument for God’s existence?
The argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have
any validity.. . . If anything must have a cause, then God must have a
cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be

Reading For Philosophical Inquiry: A Brief Introduction 7

“From the Nature of the Universe” by Thomas Aquinas

the world as God.3

2. Research the concept of the “Great Chain of Being.” Relate this pre-
supposition to the levels of being and goodness described by Thomas.4
Would the assumption of “Great Chain of Being” indicate how some-
one viewed contemporary moral issues such as animal rights, extinc-
tion of species, or other ecological issues?
3. If the premisses in the First Cause argument were true, how could
Thomas account for miracles? How could he account for chance events?
Is the First Cause argument inconsistent with either the ideas of pre-
destination or fatalism?
4. Which of Thomas’s arguments are most open to the objection of the
existence of non-moral 5 evil?

Index
actuality, 3
Anselm, Saint, 1
Aquinas, Saint Thomas, 1
Aristotle, 1
Augustine, Saint, 6
causality, 4
cause, 4
Chain of Being, 5, 8
contraries, 3
design, 6
evil
non-moral, 8
problem of, 3
fatalism, 8
God
argument from cause, 4

3. Bertrand Russell. Why I Am Not a Christian. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957.
4. A. O. Lovejoy’s The Great Chain of Being: The Study of the History of an Idea,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970.
5. I.e., natural events such as floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes—non-moral evil in-
cludes events not dependent on human free will—the so-called “acts of God” as some-
times labeled in insurance policies.

8 Reading For Philosophical Inquiry: A Brief Introduction

 “From the Nature of the Universe” by Thomas Aquinas

argument from design, 6

argument from gradation, 5
argument from motion, 3
argument from necessity, 5
existence of, 1
that vs. what, 2
good
from evil, 6
infinity, 4, 5
Medieval, 1
metaphysics, 1
miracles, 8
nature, 3, 6
necessary being, 5
necessity, 5
nothing, 5
omnipotence, 6
perfection, 6
philosophy
and religion, 1
potentiality, 3
predestination, 8
principle
first, 6
reason, 3
rights
animal, 8
Russell, Bertrand, 7
teleology, 6
truth
ontological, 6

Reading For Philosophical Inquiry: A Brief Introduction 9