Aquinas First Proof Of The Existence of God :: essays research papers

I have chosen to write St. Thomas Aquinas’ proof citing motion as proof of the existence of God. Although I must admit to being a little confused the wording, I see it as being in terms of ability too, act of, and the first to act.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The ability too, is the potential of the object to act. This potential cannot be converted to the act unless acted upon by another object already in the state of action. An example, as used in the book, of the object that would be considered to have potentiality would be wood, it is potentially hot. This wood cannot become hot until that which is hot, the fire, acts upon it. When this meeting occurs the action of the wood becoming hot is a movement or change in the object.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The object in the act of in the above mentioned example is the fire. It is in the state of action. The fire is the initiator of the woods action. It transfers its energy to the wood allowing the wood to fulfill its potential.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In this case, or any other, neither the object that has the ability too nor the object in the state of action can be the first to act. The wood cannot be the first to act, as it is in the state of ability too. When the wood is in this state, it has no action to transfer, and therefore is obviously not the first to act. The fire, although able to transfer the action, must have been at one time in the state of ability too, and therefore was acted upon, making it not the first too act.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The first to act is understood to be God. God is that which has action, but did not receive the action from another object. God was never in the state of ability too. God is only action, making God the beginning action.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Aquinas developed a proof that I can, in some ways, agree with. He basically argues that, although there doesn’t necessarily have to be an end to something, there has to be a beginning. He argues that all things are in a state of both the potential to be changed as well as the state of action, but the one understood to be God is only in the state of action. Aquinas First Proof Of The Existence of God :: essays research papers I have chosen to write St. Thomas Aquinas’ proof citing motion as proof of the existence of God. Although I must admit to being a little confused the wording, I see it as being in terms of ability too, act of, and the first to act.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The ability too, is the potential of the object to act. This potential cannot be converted to the act unless acted upon by another object already in the state of action. An example, as used in the book, of the object that would be considered to have potentiality would be wood, it is potentially hot. This wood cannot become hot until that which is hot, the fire, acts upon it. When this meeting occurs the action of the wood becoming hot is a movement or change in the object.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The object in the act of in the above mentioned example is the fire. It is in the state of action. The fire is the initiator of the woods action. It transfers its energy to the wood allowing the wood to fulfill its potential.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In this case, or any other, neither the object that has the ability too nor the object in the state of action can be the first to act. The wood cannot be the first to act, as it is in the state of ability too. When the wood is in this state, it has no action to transfer, and therefore is obviously not the first to act. The fire, although able to transfer the action, must have been at one time in the state of ability too, and therefore was acted upon, making it not the first too act.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The first to act is understood to be God. God is that which has action, but did not receive the action from another object. God was never in the state of ability too. God is only action, making God the beginning action.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Aquinas developed a proof that I can, in some ways, agree with. He basically argues that, although there doesn’t necessarily have to be an end to something, there has to be a beginning. He argues that all things are in a state of both the potential to be changed as well as the state of action, but the one understood to be God is only in the state of action.