Arguments for God’s Existence Debunked

Image for post
Image for post

Audio version:

These are Aquinas’ proofs for God’s existence. In this blog post I am briefly going to look at them and briefly ponder on why they are wrong. It needs to be noted first of all, that I do not assume that these reasons are the reasons Christians believe in God. Aquinas’ 5 proof for God’s existence have been debunked in the past by many. In this blog post I will be borrowing some of the ideas of Richard Dawkins, for example.

Personally, I wanted to look deeper into the logical case for God and wanted to start with Thomas Aquinas, since he was one of the most influential theologians in history.

Image for post
Image for post
Thomas Aquinas

Here are his 5 proofs:

  1. . Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God.
  2. . Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God.
  3. . There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God.
  4. . We notice that things in the world differ. There are degrees of, say, goodness or perfection. But we judge these degrees only by comparison with a maximum. Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness cannot rest in us. Therefore there must be some other maximum to set the standard for perfection, and we call that maximum God.
  5. or . Things in the world, especially living things, look as though they have been designed. Nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed. Therefore here must have been a designer, and we call him God.

(taken from , by Richard Dawkins. Pages 100–103.)

Arguments 1–3

Dawkins’ response to these statements is that, “they make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress” (101). All of these statements suggest that God is immune to time. I would like to disagree with Dawkins here and like to rather say that these statements only make sense to the Christian who believes that God is immune to time. But to us, the atheists, and anyone else who does not believe entirely in the concept of the monotheistic god, we don’t have to believe in the same conclusions. The premises are reasonable, but the conclusions are joining in the dots from unwarranted assumptions about the universe, which we know today to not be true. Let’s take the third point as an example for this: “since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God” (101). There’s an obvious problem with this:

  1. Premise 1: physical things exist now
  2. Premise 2: there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence
  3. Conclusion: that something we call God

Now let me show you where the problem lies. Imagine I think that the universe created itself. Let me substitute God, for the universe.

  1. Premise 1: physical things exist now
  2. Premise 2: there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence
  3. Conclusion: therefore the universe’s is non-physical

You see the problem. The problem lies in that you can conclude anything with logical arguments. The premises are not always what we tend to agree on.

Omniscience vs. Omnipotence

On top of that, as Richard Dawkins helpfully points out: omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. God can not be all knowing and all-powerful at the same time. Otherwise he already knows how he will intervene in a point of history. That means that he can’t change his mind about intervening, which subsequently means that he can not be omnipotent.

Argument 4:

Why is there a standard that humans live up to? Why are humans deemed to be bad intrinsically? Why not call them good instead? Because of the sinfulness that is proposed in the Bible? This sinful intrinsic depravity that is in us from which we can not escape no matter the effort? Beliefs such as this one are the reason we are contagiously bad. If we believe in intrinsic goodness it is contagious for the ones around us. If you believe in yourself rather than despise yourself, you will ultimately guide yourself to a safe place of productivity, fulfillment, rest, peace, and influence.

Other than that, this argument is silly. Bananas can be both moldy and wet, so the maximum moldiness cannot rest in them, but is in some other source, which the bananas should get to know and understand — the perfection of moldiness. It’s not much of an argument. Maybe it could have been in the past.

Argument 5:

This argument however only adds to the first argument of who started the first cause? It must have been God. . Maybe God caused evolution to start? Then the question is, why is there so much death and error in the midst of it? Why are tribes killing each other and who was the first Adam and Eve in all of this? Is Genesis at all to be taken seriously? Or is the majority of it just allegory? If anything this gives us more questions and is highly unnecessary.

This was my brief debunking of the Aquinas’ 5 proofs for God’s existence.

AND Before you go…

🗣 I love connecting with fellow thinkers. Find me on Twitter, Facebook, Goodreads, or Instagram.

ALSO, here’s a link to MY BOOK if you wish to purchase it! I appreciate the support.

Written by

Author of “Up in the Air: Christianity, Atheism & the Global Problems of the 21st Century” on AMAZON | Exploring Ethical Living | IG: jakub.ferencik.official

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store