• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Aquinas and his version on the Teleological Argument

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐Aquinas and his version on the Teleological Argument Thomas Aquinas was a famous Italian priest from the time of the twelve hundreds, with his own version of the design argument. Aquinas' design argument was described in the five ways, which his cosmological argument was also described within this. In his final way he speaks of the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas then states that it is our common sense that tells us that the universe works in such a way, so one is supposed to end with a conclusion that it was designed by an intelligent designer who is supposed to be god. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by an intelligent designer. ...read more.


So they are said to been given an order by being with intelligence (possibly sujesting god). Aquinas' Argument begins with the empirical observation of the design and order of the universe. That is why, this argument is an à posteriori argument, and the conclusion is not supposed to be fully certain.So Aquinas' design argument here is basically suggesting that inanimate objects (like planets), could not have ordered themselves (so for exmaple the planets got themselves into the orbits they have), because they lack the intelligence to do so. But due to the planets being aligned so perfectly, this means it must have been done so by a being with the intelligence to do so. Although humans are intelligent, they cannot move planets etc, so that leaves us with God (who Aquinas believed could). ...read more.


When you look at the natural world you can see that everything in it follows natural laws, even if the things are not really conscious, thinking etc. This would mean If things follow natural laws they tend to do well and have some goal or purpose. However, if something cannot think for itself then it does not have any goal or purpose unless it is directed by something that is a thinker (sujesting god) Again the exmaple of an arrow it can only be directed to its goal or target and used for its purpose by someone, such as an archer. It needs some external intelligent thing acting upon it to direct it towards its goals, aims or purpose in the same way of the universe and everthing in it that cannot think for itself needs a being (God) to think for it to help direct it. So the logical conclusion is that this observable ?design? must have been the result of a creator. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Outline the teleological proof of the existence of God

    Male and female maybe, even a whole society of gods that could be born and eventually die. There could be even institutions of gods learning how to make a universe and that ours was a "rude attempt of some infant deity who then abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance".

  2. Assess What Can Be Concluded From The Teleological Argument

    This is a strong argument as many would argue a watch and the universe are by no means comprisable. In contrast there would also be the argument that God had designed and created the watchmaker with the skills to be able to make the watch, which would further the argument for an ultimate designer.

  1. St Thomas Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

    Hume claims that causation is a habit of relationship. He notes that when we repeatedly observe one event following another, our assumption that we are witnessing cause and effect seems logical to us. Hume holds that we have a natural belief in causality, from our own natural habits, and that we can neither prove nor discount this belief.

  2. Can computers think?

    This enables us to consider the second possible consequence of the Chinese Room analogy. A consequence I am sure that Searle never intended. It is conceivable that humans are on the same level as the Chinese Room and do not actually think in the way Searle infers either.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work