I think the easiest 'way' for me to understand was the first one. specifically number 5, that nothing can move itself. This all goes back to the idea of cause and effect and that any motion or action is an effect of a cause, which moved it, meaning that the object could not simply move itself. The hardest one for me to understand was the third way because it is extremely confusing.
I think the easiest Way, was the Fifth Way, particularly number 4. It says there is a being that created us and Man calls him God. As straghtforward it is to understand, Man can still not really truly understand it, which requires us to have a deep and trusting faith. The Way that was the most confusing was The Second Way number 2, nothing exists prior to itself. I thought about it, then said it outloud and I still cannot understand it at all.
The way that I understood most was number four, Argument of Gradation of Being. For some reason, while reading it, I connected this idea of a greatest being with Pokemon, as dumb as that sounds. It reminded me of the different platforms of "goodness". Just like the lowly psychic pokemon such as abra or ralts, there is a low level of "goodness" in the world, like a small act of random kindness, that goes through the ranks to high level psychic pokemon, such as Alakazam and Gardevoir, which can be paralleled to angels or good people. And just like these pokemon games, there must be a greatest being of that certain area, God. He'd be mew, since mew is a legendary psychic, making God over everything good.
The hardest for me to comprehend is the first idea involving motion. To me, it's hard to imagine that something was there to put everything in motion, mostly since I have no idea what God is made out of, so it's kinda hard to imagine for me.
The easiest way for me to understand was the second one, cause and effect. Nothing can exist prior to itself and everything must have a cause. This is very simple for me to understand because it can be applied to everything that we do. Me typing on the computer right now has a cause and there will be an effect. Every cause that occurs can be traced back to a single cause, God.The hardest way for me to follow is the third way, possibility and necessity. I think that this is the hardest for me to understand because I simply can't relate to it. There is no factual evidence showing that at one time nothing existed. In my perspective this is where faith comes into play. No matter how much proof is out there that God does exist, it still cannot be full proven through cold hard factual evidence. For me this is not an issue because I believe that God does exist. The third way is the hardest for me to follow because there is that gap that needs to be filled. With a strong belief and faith in God; that gap can be filled.
The hardest to follow for me was the third way. I don't understand what Thomas Aquinas was trying to say here. The easiest to understand was the first way. I can relate motion to everything, including science. It makes sense to me that there had to be someone who started it all, a first mover, which I believe had to be God.
The easiest of the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas for me to understand is the Fifth Way: Argument for Design. I understand that it takes intelligent source to direct a natural process. I found that the example of archery made this way easier to understand in terms of real world examples. The most difficult Way for me to comprehend is the Third Way: Argument from the Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument). The terms of contingent beings in relation to existence were somewhat confusing. No contingent beings could exist without existence from another being? I think a real world example would help in the understanding of the third way of St. Thomas Aquinas.
The easiest way from the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas for me to understand is the second way, which is Argument from efficient causes. I can understand that everything happens because of a certain cause and everything exists prior to itself. The hardest one for me to understand was the fourth one, because i simply just didn't understand it.
The easiest way of Thomas Aquinas’ “Five Ways” for me to understand was the second way: argument from efficient causes. That one seemed to have the strongest evidence. The hardest for me to follow was the fourth way: argument from gradation of being. The 4th cause seemed the most confusing.
The easiest of Aquinas’s Five Ways for me to follow was The Second Way, particularly number 4. It makes sense that for an effect to happen there has to be a cause. If there’s not a cause then the effect cannot exist. The hardest Way for me to understand was The Third Way. The Third Way is the longest Way and I think it’s very confusing. It’s really hard for me to figure out, especially number 1. How can you find things that are not “possible to be” in nature? Doesn’t the fact that it’s in nature make it possible?
According to Aquinas' Five ways that prove God exists they are fairly easy for me to comprehend, that is that they all make sense if one thing then that will lead to the next. The idea that the cause is always greater than the effect is a bit hard for me to agree with, I understand what he says it is just according to science matter and energy can not be created or destroyed. So according to the law of conservation of energy and matter the cause must be equal to the effect. The idea that the cause is greater than the effect is tough for me to agree with, but I understand all of what Aquinas is telling us.
I didn't find any of these ways easier or harder to follow. These ways simply gave me some spiritual "ammo" to use in case I am needed to defend my beliefs in a scientific sense. These ways have also reinforced my beliefs as there are now certain indisputable facts that I can rely on.
For me, the easiest way for me to understand was the fifth one, argument from design. To me it means that we were all put on this Earth for some reason and we have the brain and ability to figure out that reason and fly with it. The one that I had trouble understanding the most was the third one, argument from possibility and neccessity. I am not really sure what Aquinas was trying to say especially at the end when he says that things exisit out of neccesity. The trouble i have is that their are things that do and don't exist in this world. ALso I don;t really agree with it either. If it says we don't exist pr eventually die, does that me we don;t exist in heaven. I don't know! that one is just a little hard to understand.
Out of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways, the easiest for me to understand was The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes. I understand that all effects must have a cause because without a cause, the effects would not exist. We are able to see cause and effect every day through the decisions we make and actions we perform. The most difficult “Way” to understand was The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity. I do understand that God is a Being that “exists of its own necessity” as stated in #10 of the Third Way, but I still find the argument a bit confusing. I am mostly confused about the use of “contingent beings” and their connection with time and existence.
The easiest way for me to understand was the second way, "Argument from efficient causes". I can relate this way to the concept we discussed a couple of classes ago about cause and effect and how God is the ultimate cause of everything. The hardest concept for me to uderstand is the third concept, "Argument from Possibility and Necessity". From what I am understanding, I think it is saying there is one powerful being that existed first whose purpose was to create other beings. At first the concept says to assume all beings are contingent. But then it states that if all beings are contingent, there must have been a time when nothing existed. If there was a time when nothing existed, then there would have been nothing to create the contingent beings that exist now. So then there must be something that is not contingent that created everything, which is God. This is a bit difficult for me to grasp, because once again, I ask myslef, "Who caused God if God is the ultimate cause?". This concept seems to be explaining that there is no cause to God, which is hard for me to understand.
The easiest way for me to understand would be the 3rd way, causality, because it makes sense to have something cause what has happened in the world. - everything must have a cause to produce an effect.
I am confused by the rest of the ways, in different aspects. The first one, it is hard to "believe" that there was something/someone already here to create the rest of the world - what about number 3?! i feel it contradicts itself. The rest i am confused by with similar questions. Motion : if everything needs a mover, how was God there to start the "moving" if EVERYTHING needs a mover.
- I do believe God made the world, but its questions like these that make me think.
From Aquina's Five Ways I found the concept of Argument from Efficient Cause (#2). I can definitely understand this concept but I think that it's impossible for us to know exactly what this initial cause is. Of course we can apply a name to this beginning, but I guess I have trouble agreeing the the other aspects associated with the usage and meaning of God. The hardest Way for me to grasp was #5 when it talks about nature and all things having guidance by an intelligent creator. This makes sense but just because there is a driving force behind all things doesn't automatically make it God. It could just be the continuum of time and the way that the universe is set up.
Of the five ways, the easiest for me to comprehend was way four. This is because it states how God created us and how He is the cause of the world. The hardest for me to comprehend is way three. This one is hard to apprehend because the statements are very confusing, but also it says that some things exist because of its own necessity and do not exist from another being, which I do not understand.
From looking at the five ways the easiest "way" for me to understand is way 2 because i can understand the idea of the idea of the first cause. Now even though none of us know for sure what the first cause was, we can wrap our head around the fact that something had to start all of this. The way i did not understand was way 3 because it talks about motion and how everything needs a mover. But if you think about it... then who was Gods mover??? it does not make sense to me and i bet to a lot of people because we will never know for sure.
The easiest concept for me to understand was the argument from design. The world is a very complex place and something intelligent had to have created it. The hardest concept for me to understand was the gradation of being because i didnt really understand what it was saying.
I think that it was easiest for me to follow "way" number four. This one was about the fact that there must be something which is the cause of all things, as well as their goodness and perfection and that is God. The hardest for me to understand was the second way, the argument from efficient clauses. I found it hard to follow the way the clauses worked together.
For me, the easiest of the 'way' to understand was the first one. This is because its almost like one of the laws of science. An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by another force and vice versa. The most difficult 'way' for me to comprehend is the fourth one because I don't understand the "gradation of things" and how you can say one things is better than another when two different objects (or anything in the world) can be simply compared by saying on is better, or worse.
The second way: The Argument from Efficient Causes is easiest for me to understand, and the fourth way Argument from Gradation of Being is hardest for me to understand. This way was the hardest because this way seems to suggest we evolve from God instead of being created by him. The second way is easy for me to understand because it is easy for me to think of God as the first uncaused cause.
The easiest for me to understand was The Second Way: The Argument from Efficient Causes. There was plenty of evidence to help me understand this concept. The hardest for me to understand was The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being. This seemed to be the most confusing.
I find the Fifth Way the easiest to understand becasue they are based off of the power of the supreme being of creation, God. I find this easy to follow because all of the arguements in Way Five depend on the existence of God. The most difficult Way for me to understand was the Third Way becasue most of the statements made in the Third Way depend on the previous statement, making my lack of understanding a previous arguement reflect on my knowledge of a new arguement, if that makes sense.
The easiest one to understand of the "Five Ways" for me would have to be the first one: Argument from Motion. Something kind of just clicked there with Newton's laws of motion. The hardest way to follow was probably the fourth way: Argument from Gradation of Being. I have no idea what is trying to be said there whatsoever.
I think the easiest Way to understand was the fifth Way because it is saying that everything has to be guided somehow by a greater intelligence. I think that the hardest Way for me to follow was the third Way because it is very hard to think about that God generally always existed which is a challenging concept to grasp.
Of the Five Ways, the first one was the easiest to comprehend because everything in this life needs something to move it. Nothing can move on its own, so it would make sense that God is the mover of all things. He set everything into motion. The hardest to understand for me was the fourth way because i really just don't understand what point St. Thomas Aquinas was trying to get across.
Motion and effectient causes are the easilest for me to understand becuase as Einstein said that he cannot think of any first push of the universe other than God. There is nothing before the universe, in y opinion, however there must be some kind of motion that push the universe to react. However, if there is God that gave the first push, then it will certainly prove that there is something before the universe which phyiscally is wrong. The hardest for me to understand is the argument of design because animals do have brain, which means they do have some kind of function-- I don't see God in this argument.
The easiest to understand of the five ways the first one because it is easy to understand. Nothing can move itself and therefore needs a mover. However there was a first mover moved by nothing else, this we believe is God. The hardest for me to comprehend was the fourth way because i dont full understad the whole gradation concept.
I felt that the First one was the easiest to follow because it talks about "cause and effect" and how for one thing to happen you something else to effect it and something had to cause that effect and so forth. Which leads to the first ever casue God. The Hardest one for me to follow as the forth because it says how you cant say one thing is better if you dont know the best, God, but you can still say which is better out of the group.
The first reason of motion made the most sense to me because no object just moves on its own without another force on it. I did not follow the last reason of Design. It seems like it is just explaining that God created things for a purpose, not proving that God exists
I understand how all five ways make sense in proving the existence of God however certain aspects of each way confuse me. In the first law of motion it states nothing can move itself, there has to be a first mover which I agree with and understand. It also says this sequence cannot extend ad infinitum meaning continue forever; without limit. How can this idea apply to everything except God? Technically, how do we even know if anything came of didn't come before God? I concur that everything was created intelligently and by something greater than ourselves but how do we know what this greater being is, how can we say it is God we when truly do not even know? The hardest thing for me to understand is how we can apply these five ways proving there is a first cause etc. for the universe but not allowing a first cause etc. for God.
the hardest way to understand was the fourth way. the way it states everything and the order of it dont make sense. i dont understand the point of talking about the importance of items. the easiest way was the first one that talks about how everything in motion was put into motion by something else. there is actual and potential for all objects.
I think the easiest for me to understand is the Third Way: Arguement from Possibility and Necessity. At one point there was always somethig existing, because if there wasn't anything existing at one point, we wouldn't all be here. The one that confuses me the most is the First Way: Arguement of Motion. This confuses me because we have free will and our own mind. God doesn't influence us in quick instances, we just do it. God doesn't always force us to move and to act. That is why this confuses me. I guess I just need more explaination about it.
I think that the easiest to understand was the 5th way: Argument from Design. It was easier to understand that all beings lack knowledge, but an intelligent being directs us to the end, giving us knowledge along the way. This being is God. He gives us the knowledge to get through the hard things in life, and even the easy things. Without God, we would not have any knowledge, let alone be living. The way that is the most difficult for me to understand is the 3rd way: Argument from possibility and necessity. I can not comprehend that at one time there was nothing, and out of that nothing, something was created. I just can not get my head around that concept. Not being able to understand this way makes it hard to follow. If I am uncapable of understanding a rule, that makes it hard to follow it. I hope that further talk in class and prayer to God can help me understand this.
Each of Aquinas' five proofs for the existence of God are intriguing and striking, and firmly establish God's existence and role of "firsts" in the universe. The easiest proof for me to understand was The First Way, regarding motion. As Newton's first law states, an object at rest will stay at rest, and an object in motion will stay in motion, unless acted upon by an exterior force. (Interesting, as these laws and proofs are first, in both Newton's and Aquinas' work...I think this was intentional.) However, the hardest proof for me to wrap my mind around was The Third Way, regarding contingency. The idea as a whole makes sense, but the many steps of logic and "if, then" statements and ideas are hard to follow.
The easiest "way" for me to understand is the third way (the Reductio arguement) because it just makes sense to be that all beings don't necessarily have to be contingent. I agree that there has to be at least one being that has always existed, because nothing else will ever or has ever always existed. The hardest way for me to understand is the fourth way (arguement from graduation of being). I literally don't even understand what this way is trying to say...
The "way" that is easiest for me to comprehend is the first one. This is because I can understand how nothing can move without another thing forcing it to move. The final point in the first "way" makes the most sense to me because everything has an origin and nothing can create or make itself. Therefore, God must be the ultimate creator.
The easiest for me to comprehend is The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes. I understand that nothing exists before itself and that one thing had to have come from another. This concept keeps going back until the first efficient cause...God. What is the cause of God we don't know, I guess we just have to rely on our faith for that part. The hardest for me to grasp is The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity. The whole concept of contingent beings confuses me and there being nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
The easiest "way" of Aquinas' for me to comprehend is The Fifth Way: Argument from Design. Although men's creations can't compare to our creation or the creation of our universe, we create machines and other products with purposes; therefore, I feel that I was created for a purpose... by God. The hardest "way" for me to comprehend is The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity.
The easiest of St. Thomas Aquinas' five ways to prove the existence of God was number two. From the previous powerpoint and class discussions, the understanding of cause and how God is the first cause is simple enough to comprehend. On the other hand, however, my comprehension level of St. Thomas explaining the fourth way is beyond my capability. I have no clue what this man is saying. It could possibly be the way it is worded because I understand the greatest goodness and perfection is God but i don't understand the process of getting to that point.
The easiest "way" of Thomas Aquinas' "Five Ways" for me to comprehend was The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes, especially number two. The idea of nothing existing prior to itself makes sense to me because it's the idea that nothing existed before God. The Third Way was the hardest for me to follow. It doesn't make sense to me because it talks about contingent beings and how they do not always exist and there was a time without them but every being is assumed to be contingent.
The easiest of St. Thomas Aquinas' arguments for me to grasp was the argument from efficient causes because it is easy to think that all things need a cause, no things cause themselves, therefore God is the cause of the universe. What is hard to understand is his Reductio argument. This one is just ahrd to understand in its entirety.
The easiest of the 5 Ways of St. thomas Aquinas' I found easiest to understand was The Fifth Way: Argument From Design. I was able to grasp the idea that all things are set for purpose by a directed intelligence. The "Way" that I found most difficult to grasp was The Third Way because it is confusing to understand the idea of contingent beings and the idea of a time where nothing existed.
The first of the Five Ways is the easiest for me to follow because of the fact that ever since grade school, we have been taught about the laws of motion. Yet, what sets motion in motion? Motion is something you can see happen, and if God was not there to put motion into motion, there wouldn't be anything to see. Thus, it's easy for me to understand.
The fourth way is the most difficult for me to understand because of the vagueness of Aquinas' wording. I think he's trying to say that there must be a model of goodness that makes us all want to be good or something like that, but I just can't wrap my head around it.
The proof of Thomas Aquinas that I found the easiest to follow was how everything works to a specific purpose. The planets, as you said, do not move themselves, but are set in revolution around the Sun by gravity. Additionally, all things, living and non-living, fulfill a specific purpose, not just because it can. Rain falls from the sky to so that plants grow and exists for that purpose, whether good or evil. Even man-made things follow this law. the T.V. remote, for example, exists as so to afford human beings greater luxury in watching television by allowing them to sit down and change the channel. In some cases, it even exists to torment humanity by getting lost in the couch and causing a lengthy and in many cases, unsuccessful search for it. While the ultimate purpose of life as we know it is not quite within our realm of understanding, it only makes sense to say that all aspects of life itself had to have been assigned their respective purposes by the One who created them.
On the other end, however, the proof of Thomas Aquinas I found to be the most confounding was his argument of degrees. Since everything in the world exists in degrees, Aquinas stated that there must be one being that exists in an ultimately perfect degree. Why does there need to be someone who is perfect? Why does there NEED to be that perfect degree? Also, can God really be perfect when we humans, who are created in His image, are certainly flawed?
Great question....and I guess that I have to answer it Theologically.
III. ORIGINAL SIN: Cathechism
Freedom put to the test
396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
The First Way makes the most sense to me because it is something that we can make physical sense of. It is known that nothing just happens, that there has to be a cause. Although, we do not know the original cause. The most difficult to understand is The Third Way because every other rule contradicts itself. How is it safe to assume that every being is contingent when we are told a few rules later that nothing is contingent? I also do not understand the idea that things go in and out of existence while it seems that we, and everything else on earth, are always here.
The way that is easiest for me to understand out of the five is the second way. Nothing can result from nothing and for every cause there is an effect. If there is no cause then nothing can possibly result from it. It's quite simple for me to understand because nothing can create itself. Now, the way that is the most difficult for me to grasp is the fourth way. As I try reading it over and over again I somewhat get what it is saying, however, I don't completely understand it.
Honestly I'm a little confused by all of them, for me personally I just believe that God is there and kinda don't worry about it. Not for like copout reasons but just because in my heart I know there is something greater then me out there. So looking at the 5 ways is a little bit confusing the one I get though is way number 3. I dont know why I get it but it just makes sense to me. I know I'm not "enough" to make this whole world and all the people in it, no one is, therefore there has to be someone else to do all this and that someone is God. That just makes sense to me. I didn't really undrestand way 5. I got the impression that it meant everything I do is already written down on paper and I'm not making my own choices. And I believe that God sees everything we do but I don't think He controls what we will do. He gives us options and we make choices that's how we learn and grow. Maybe God already knows what we will do but He wants to give us the choice. Way 5 made me feel like I'm not in control of my life and I don't think that's what its saying but that's what I got from it.
I feel that the the easiest way to understand is the second way, the Argument from efficient causes one. I understand that everything happens for a reason. I think the hardest one for me to understand was the fourth one because I was just very confused on that particular section.
The easiest for me to understand was the 5th Thomas Aquinas Way. The one that was the hardest for me to understand was the 3rd way.
I think the easiest to understand was the1st way. I get how it says all things in motion needed a force to move it. Things can't move by themselves. The hardiest way for me to understand is the 4th way.
The easiest for me to understand is the first one because I think that it relates to all that we learned last week, especially number 5 of that way. The most difficult was the third way.
The second way was easiest becuase I believe every cause has an effect or reaction and the fifth way is the most difficult to understand becuase we do not know how we were designed or how we are made in God's image. It is confusing.
The hardest of Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways for me to understand was the concept of the unmoved mover, because Aquinas never explains what moves the first mover. The easiest to understand was the degree way, how there must be a perfect standard for all to be compared to.
For me, the 1st of the Five Ways was easiest for me to understand, knowing that all effects are there for some reason, there is no action without a reaction. Although, the hardest of the Five ways for me to grasp was the third point. It is hard to find to the main idea that Aquinas was trying to get across.
Dear Mr. Murry,
To me the ways are all equally understandable to me, but if i had to pick the easiest one i would most likely chose the 3rd one, because that is the one my elementary teacher spent the most time on
The 5 was the easiest for me while the 2 was hardest.
Of st Thomas aquainas's five ways the one I most understood was the second because I have a string understanding that everything has to have a definite cause. The one I do not quite understand is the third way because I really just don't understand the point it is trying to convey
The easiest way for me to understand was the first way which says that nothing can be moved by itself. This is the easiest to understand because everyone knows that some force needs to be exerted in order for it to be moved. The hardest to understand was the third way, saying that beings can't come from nothing, so something must have always existed in order to
Create the beings. I had never thought of it in this way before which is what makes it even more confusin.
The easiest of the five ways to me was the statement that everything in existence moves with some sort of goal. In order to have such goal, there must exist something to administer that goal and see over it as to direct it. This director of all goals would be God. O)f the five ways, the hardiest to understand was that of the third concept. This statement uses a lot of confusing terms and phrases and resolves around the idea that nothing can exist if nothing existed. That is why this concept was the hardest to comprehend.
All of these concepts are fairly simple because they are all logic, at least to me. however the idea that i find most intriguing is the one that states that there must be an eternal initial cause to everything. without this initial cause nothing would exist because nothing would have started the first happening in time... nothing would have started time. without this initial being how would time have started and how would we exist?
The first way; argument of motion was most likely the easiest of the ways for me to comprehend. I can understand that even as I can move as I please, God ultimately is the force which causes my body to work in such ways and there is an ultimate driving force behind each movement made. However, the most confusing way for me was the third way; Argent from possibility and necessity. The whole concept confuses me and I'm not exactly sure what point that way proves.
The easiest concept for me to understand is the third argument. It makes sense that everything we know is contingent upon another thing. The hardest idea for me to grasp is the fourth argument. Who says there needs to be a being with the highest degree of perfection? What does perfect even imply?
Matthew 5:48 tells us to “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”. This is always something of a puzzle for those that hear this teaching, as we are so aware of our imperfections before God. Later on in the summa, Aquinas is going to enquire into what it means for us to be perfect and into how the life of grace forms us in such perfection. But first of all, he is going to ask about what perfection is in general and in particular what it means when we ascribe perfection to God. Aquinas will conclude that the notion is to do with how God is the first efficient cause of every created thing; since effects resemble their causes, it is natural at this point for him to also inquire into it means for a creature to resemble God.
In the preamble to this question Aquinas notes that there is a relationship between the idea of perfection and the idea of the good. As he is going to discuss the latter in the next question, it makes sense to see these two questions as a doublet.
The Thread of the Argument
A1: If we look at the etymology of the word “perfect” we see that it carries meanings like “thoroughly made” or “completed”. Since God is not in any sense made, then surely we should not apply the idea of perfection to God. Similarly, if we consider God to be the origin of all things and we observe that origins tend to be less perfect than the completed beings to which they are directed (an acorn being less perfect than an oak tree, for example), then it is hard to attribute perfection to God.
Aquinas answers by making a distinction between meanings of the word “origin”. One should observe that God is the origin of a thing in the sense that He is the first efficient cause of that thing, sitting as the foundation of the chain of causes bringing it from potentiality to actuality. This is in contrast to the notion of origin, exemplified by the acorn, which refers to something material which is in potentiality to become the actuality of the completed thing.
Everything created is a composition of actuality and potentiality and God is the first efficient cause of the movement of such beings from potentiality to actuality. Since the first efficient cause of everything has to be the most actual thing possible, it is reasonable to identify this thing as the most perfect of all things. Indeed, we can go on to extend this notion of perfection by analogy from God to creatures by saying that something is perfect when it has achieved actuality in all that makes it what it is.
The easiest one for me was to understand was number 1 which was the argument from motion. The understanding behind this is that if you want to move something you have to put effort into it and the cause of you to move was something greater then your brain telling you to move. Another example was a pool game which means if you want to hit a pool ball you put the stick to the ball and push the pool stick forward. The hardest one for me to understand is the fifth one the body design because that one make me feel like we are not in control of anything we do on a daily basis it makes me feel like we are a puppet and god is a puppet tier and i think that was not how it was supposed to come across. Also it doesn't make sense to me of how god can control us the way he can.
The easiest way for me would be number two because everyone knows this is true from experience and can be proven visually. the hardest way for me would be number eight because of the belief in God completely.
After carefully reading and trying to understand Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways, I found that I do not completely understand the Fourth Way. Aquinas wrote, “The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.” I comprehend how “Predictions of degree require reference to the ‘uttermost’ case,” and the example of hot, hotter, hottest. However, when I try to put these ideas together, I am slightly puzzled. How is the maximum in the “hottest” genus the cause of all in the “hot” genus? Let’s say that fire is the maximum, the hottest of the hot. Now, my hands feel warm when I rub them together – a result of friction. I can say that fire is hotter than the heat from my hands, but fire did not cause my hands to become warm. One can argue that fire is not the maximum of the hottest genus, which is understandable. You can say that the sun is the maximum, but that still did not cause my hands to feel warm. On the other hand, the easiest way for me to understand was the Third Way. Anything that is contingent does not exist at some point. Therefore, no contingent thing is eternal. But if no contingent thing is eternal, then there must have been a time of complete nothingness. If there was nothing, what would cause the world to come into existence? Thomas Aquinas and I seem to agree that the universe was not created out of nothing and is not compromised of infinitely contingent things. Now I recall one of our previous lessons – there can be not effect without a cause. Thus, there must be a first cause that pushed the world into existence. I believe this is God.
After reading Thomas Aquinas "Five Ways," I found out that I do not understand the Fourth Way. I do not understand what Thomas was trying to say here. The one way that i do understand is the Second Way. "Nothing exists prior to itself." This brings back the whole idea of cause and effect. Everything that we do in life has a cause and effect. This way is very easy to comprehend.
The First Way was, for me, the easiest to understand, for the idea that nothing can move itself is similar to the idea of cause and effect. Number 8 is especially easy for me to understand for it is how I have thought about everything. I do not quite understand the Fourth Way in terms of it proving the existence of God.
The easiest “way” for me to understand is number five argument for design. IF you just look at our human bodies, everything is designed so perfectly and precise. Nature and everything else all seem so perfect and can function even though most things do not have knowledge. The hardest for me to comprehend is number three because I do not understand how we can have nothing at one moment but then something at the next. For me this is by far the hardest to comprehend.
Honestly, I understand all of these proofs by Aquinas. But the easiest to follow is The First Way: Argument from Motion, becuase this explanation is the most visual of the five ways. It is the most tangible idea in our world. We see motion in everything from trees swaying in the wind to planes flying in the sky. And I guess the most difficult for me to comprehend is The Fifth Way: Argument from Design, becuase if the intelligent being of God created us, then he must be directing us towards our end. But then free will comes into play. Furthermore, I've had personal experience in manipulating the physical world around me without directly acting on the objects (touching them), so in that instance, I could say that I am that intelligent being who is directing that object to an end I foresee. But then Aquinas would argue that I was created by an intelligent being, so that what I am directing is being brought about by this higher being via Aquinas' Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes. Therefore, a theologian would say that I would be a co-designer with God, but not the designer myself.
All of the proofs Aquinas gives are pretty easy to understand, but the easiest one to understand in my opinion would be the proof of motion. This proof says that we see things that are in motion and each thing that is in motion is moved by something else. And that first thing that started motion of everything else must have been moved by something and that goes to the idea that the first mover is understood as God. One that makes the lease sense to me however, is the fourth way. I do not understand what Aquinas is saying when he brings up Gradation and how some things are better than others.
I think the easiest proof for me to understand is the first one because it is very relatable. In everyday life their are many things in motion and all of them had to be moved by something else. This relates to cause and effect because God was the cause of the universe.The hardest proof for me to understand is the third one because it is very long and in depth.
I have to say that the first way is easiest for me to understand. Its sequential logic derivce from some basic understandings of the universe proves that, providing the universe is not eternal, there was a first "mover." It seems simple to me that everything leads to one source, one true beginning that does not have a beginning.
The most challenging for me to wrap my head around is the third way. It's just a little tricky to think about, but I can still understand it. I understand the concept, but applying it to life becomes difficult for me for some reason. Being a person of math and science, it's hard for me to follow how something derives from nothing and that nothing must exist so that the something can exist.
The easiest way to understand for me was the second one referring to the Argument of Efficient Causes. I understand that everything has a cause within the universe including the start of mankind. Therefore God had to be the ultimate unmovable force, which led to the domino effect of things to come. The hardest of his five ways to understand was the third way as it is refereing to the Argument of Contingent Being. This way was very confusing for me as it says that their could of been a time where nothing existed and for me this is hard to wrap my head around because then God would of not existed and life itself would not exist.
The easiest concept For me to understand would have to be the second one, which is "Nothing exists prior to itself". This concept can be looked deep into by the fact that it is cause and affect. We can go into science where we learn motion cannot happen without an object acting on it to move, so how can we all be created if there was no one object that created us all. The concept I do not understand would have to be the fourth one simply because I do not understand what he is trying to say here.
The easiest one for me to understand was the fifth one, because I do agree that there are too many complex pieces in the world that fit together and become something even greater. To me this just could not happen on its own, I don't think everything just happened on accident, so I believe it was a greater design to everything. To me ways 1-3 are basically the same saying that it needed to be a first thing, all Aquinas did was rewwrite the same thing in a different way with an new example to the same idea, so the hardest one for me to understand was the fourth way, I just don't get that one.
The easiest of The 5 Ways for me to understand was the second way, Argument From efficient causes which deals with cause and effect. It is really obvious to me that there had to have been something to start the never ending cycle, that one thing having to be eternal, meaning God. The hardest of the Five Ways for me to understand has to be the fourth, I do not quite understand what it is saying and how to exactly can prove the existence of God.
After looking at St. Thomas Aquinas' 5 Ways, I find the easiest way to understand is Motion, especially the eighth one. It talks about the need for a first mover, something that was not moved by something else, and that must be God. The one that I find most difficult to understand is Design, especially the fourth one. This Way speaks of how somethings lack intelligence so something must have designed it. I also do not understand the example of the planets moving.
I think the easiest one for me to understand was the second way which talks about cause and effect. I understand that God is the ultimate cause and we, as humans, are the effect. He created us and is the reason why we are here. The most difficult one for me to understand was number three, the argument of possibility from necessity. I don't really get what it says about contingency and I don't understand how it proves God exists...
the first one was easiest for me t understand because everything in life needs something to move it, nothing can move by itself. the fourth one was hardest for me to understand because i dont really understand where he is getting at with this one.
The easiest of the five ways for me to understand is the second one. Argument from efficient causes is easiest for me because i can apply it to my daily life. Everything can be related back to cause and effect. The hardest of the five ways for me to understand is the fourth one. I just don't understand it at all and it makes no sense.
The easiest way for me to understand was the fifth way, the one about design. The arrow explanation in and of itself offer a perfect example for this theory in action. Like stated, an arrow is not intelligent to shoot itself, and that means that something intelligent must shoot the arrow. In this sense, we are not nearly as intelligent as God, and we are his arrow, headed towards the target, more specifically our goal in life. I feel that I was at least in some way able to understand each of these ways. I had a little trouble with the Third Way, but eventually when spending time thinking about it, it just clicked in my head and I was able to understand the very basic (and I'm talking very basic here) meaning of it. All of the ways laid out by Thomas Aquinas are able to be understood by most people if laid out in the right terms.
The easiest of the five ways for me to understand is the first, motion. The hardest for me to understand is the fourth, Gradation of Being. I think I find the first easiest to comprehend because it involves an analogy to something physical. I tend to, like many, to trust more in something I can do on my own or have experienced. I think the fourth is hard for me because I don't see where the genus analogy really fits into my life. It is kind of an idea that is "out there". But if anyone feels the need, please clarify for me, I am curious!
The easiest for me to comprehend is the second way because it only makes sense that things cannot create themselves in this universe. We learn the way that things are created through science. The hardest for me to understand is the fourth way because it is hard to understand the way the it is worded and simply doesnt make sense to me at all.
The easiest of Aquinas' Ways for me to follow was the The Second Way: Argument From Efficient Causes. I understand nothing is of an efficient cause within itself. No single object on this earth can create itself from nothing. There had to be something or someone that inevitably created the objects that we have today. I also understand that if a cause did not exist than the effect would not exist either. The Second Way is easy to understand because we all know that something needs to occur to make a change. There needs to be a cause for there to be an effect.
The First Way: Argument From Motion was the hardest for me to comprehend. It states that there has to be a first mover that started the movements of everything else and that mover is God. This perplexes me because I am told that God is eternal but I do not necessarily believe that God was the first mover. We do not know if there was a mover that moved God and then God moved us. There is and infinite amount of aspects that we do not know and/or understand about the beginning of everything. How do we know that God is the first mover? There could be evidence that shows that God is not the first mover but we will never get that evidence. It is hard for me to believe that God is the end all be all of everything that exists or has ever existed. God is a shaky subject. Do we know if he was the first ever mover? No we do not. God would have to tell us directly and I don't see that happening any time soon.
The easiest way for me to understand was the first one. It makes sense that a first push must be made so something could move, and if there is no first push nothing can move. An object can't just decide to move, it needs to be given a push so it could start moving. It also relates to the cause and effect concept.
The hardest way for me to understand was the fourth one, I can't understand it.
The easiest way for me to comprehend is the first way, which is Argument from Motion. This is easiest for me to understand because it can be seen by my own eyes and I can be a "mover" by giving a force to an object that is not in motion and cause it to move. Another reason why this concept is easy to comprehend is because it is what we have studied in any generic science class, that an object remains motionless until an outside force causes it to move. The hardest way for me to understand is the third way, which is Argument from the Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument). I honestly just do not understand what St. Thomas Aquinas is trying to portray to us.
The "way" that is easiest for me to comprehend is the fourth, The Graduation of Being. This is easiest because I can apply to anything in life. To say that something is bigger than another thing means that there most be something that is the biggest of them all. Therefore you can make the comparison. The "way" that is hardest for me to understand is the third, Necessity and Possibility. If there was a time when nothing exsisted than how did everything come into exsistence? But I do understand the fact that this is where faith is God comes into play and people have to make that leap and say God is the creator of all things.
I understand them all pretty well. the first way is the easiest for me to comprehend because it sort of uses newtons law of motion to explain it. it is a concept that i already understand from learning about it for many years, but it just adds that there was something that set the first thing in motion, so there must be a greater first motion then ourselves. the second way makes me really think about how confusing yet fascinating this can be. i struggled with the fourth way the most because i dont exactly understand what it is saying.
The easiest AND hardest one for me to understand was the first way: Argument from Motion. I could relate to it because it talks more about logic and such. These things can be proven with science. However, the last statement in this topic stumps me. It talks about there must have been a "first mover, pushed in motion by NO OTHER. Everyone 'understands' this to be God." I can't process this through my brain. How there could have been something that was not created (put in motion) by something/someone else. Part of the reason that I don't understand it is because I can't open my mind to this belief, this thought that there was one thing that just came out of nowhere. I guess this is where faith comes in.
The easiest "way" for me was the 5th way. I can understand that all things were put on this earth for a reason. Our unltimate goal is to live a good life and reach heaven when we die. The hardest "way" to understand was the 3rd because it is hard for me to understand that we cause each others existence.
the easiest to understand was the first one because it is like the law of cause and effect. particularly the fact that nothing can put itself into motion, something has to cause it to move. the hardest one to understand was the 4th one.
The easiest of the five ways for me to understand was the fifth way. It is hard to imagine that the beautiful world around us just happened by coincidence. Even though mountains and rivers don't have intelligence they are still guided by God to create some of the most amazing sights in our world.
The hardest way for me to understand was the fourth way, i didn't get it.
I think the first way is both the easiest AND the hardest to understand. Nothing on earth can move without having something else make it move first in the first place. That is simple to understand. It goes back to the idea of cause and effect. This is where I get completely baffled though. If something moves, something had to cause it to move. But then something had to move that thing that moved the first thing. And that thing had to be moved in order to cause the thing that moved the thing that moved the first thing to move, and so on. That chain goes on and on until it reaches God. God is the mover of all things. But, if all things have to have something make it move, what is the thing that causes God to move?
The "argument from design", known as the Fifth Way, is the easiest to follow. When I look at natural structures and learn about chemical and biological relationships and mechanisms it seems to fit into patterns that make sense and come together in logical ways. It seems purposeful and "planned". It seems to support the idea that God has orchestrated all of existence. The "argument from motion", known as the First Way, is probably the most difficult for me - and I'm not sure I can buy into the idea that a sequence of motion cannot extend "ad infinitum".
I found the Second Way the easiest to understand because it's easy for me to wrap my mind over the fact that everything has a certain cause. I always think about the whole "If you killed a butterfly you could destroy a city" hypothetical. The most difficult to understand is the Third Way mainly because it seems to be the most conditional of the Ways. (therefore therefore therefore, etc)
Th easiest way for me to understand was the third one. It makes sense to me that every contingent being needed a source that brought them into existence because they are not, have not been, and will not be on this world forever. This is what makes them contingent beings. However, the source of all these contingent beings must be, has always been, and will always be the source. The only source powerful enough to do this is God. The fourth way was the hardest for me to understand.
The easiest concept for me to understand was The First Way with the discussion of motion. It makes sense that no intelligent thing can move itself to say, start the universe. The most difficult to understand is a tie between the Fourth and Fifth way, although I'll have to say the Fourth wins by a margin. I'm not even sure what it means after reading it several times and contemplating the reasoning.
The eaciest one for me to understand was the first way because its the whole conecpt of nothing can move itself, there has to be a bigger force to move everything. The most difficult for me to understand was the Fifth way because you have to grasp that whole concept of there being one main source that started and controlled everything.
The one that is easiest for me to comprehend is the first way, argument of motion. This is because everything needs a starting point and a creator which is God. nothing can create itself. The hardest for me to understand is the fourth, Gradation of Being. I think the fourth is hard for me because I do not fully understand what it is saying and how it is part of my life.
In my opinion, the hardest proof for me to follow was that everything must have a mover, and the first mover was god. I don't understand how we can settle with calling the first mover god, when the same logic would show that there is no first mover, and that things have always been moving. The easiest proof for me to follow was that the fifth because it makes sense that everything would follow a natural order.
For me, the Second cause being The Argument From Efficient Causes was the most comprehensive concept to grasp. Although all of them being still very hard to understand, this one at least let me put it into my own perspective. If I really think about it, everything was made by something that was made by someone or something, and so forth. If you keep going down that timeline, it only makes sense that a higher being (God) was the start of all of the worlds offerings.
The proof that was the easiest for me to understand was the second proof of causality. This proof was basically just stating the ideas of cause and effect. Everything had to have a mover and that initial and eternal mover was God. The proof that I had the most difficulty understanding was the third proof of contingency. This proof was just way over my head and very difficult for me to comprehend.
The easiest "way" for me to comprehend from Aquinas was the first way describing potential motion into actual motion. I like to think about science and have my mind blown and confused, so i like this first way of motion even though it can be very challenging to understand. i understand that everything has a mover. and to trace everything back to the first mover the answer will only come with faith and believing that there was a "first mover", God. The moest difficult for me to understand is the fifth way about design. Even though each person has a goal, where does the intention and feeling of striving so hard for something come from. Maybe our brain or conscience coming from God. its very hard to think that God knows exactly where we are and knows every move in a sense. If each of us have intelligence and God is intelligence then are we all parts of God? Even those who dont believe have God in them?
The eaisest way for me to understand is the fifth way. I have always been taught that God is our creator and he has a plan for each and every one of us. Our journey called life is God's was of directing us in the direction of our plan, and eventually leading us to our final destination. The hardest way for me to understand is the third way. I have a hard time understanding how not everything always existed. And how at one point there was just nothing.
Thomas Aquinas' 1st way was his easiest for me to comprehend simply because science along with common sense shows us that nothing can move itself, period. Another reason why it understandable is because it talks about how it's impossible for any sequence of motion to be infitum. I don't see how anything can move forever unless there was an eternal force moving it. That eternal force would be the God that I believe in. The "way" that I found the most difficult to understand had to be the 2nd way that delt with efficient causes. Over periods of time I developed that same perspective as Thomas Aquinas only because my faith in God had drastically increased. If I had no faith in God, I would see this theory as somewhat ignorant, which I don't, but my reasoning for that would be caused by the idea stating that nothing exists prior to itself. Obviously it's difficult to understand this because naturally human beings would question that theory asking how God was created. But I do believe the 2nd way, all people need to do is think deeper into their minds.
Thomas Aquinas' easiest way to understand was the second because it is easier to understand the idea that something was made from something else. The hardest way was the 4th because I just simply couldn't understand or rap my mind around the point that Was trying to be made.