Reflecting on Aquinas and Leibniz: Necessary Being or Contingent Universe?

Francis Aquinas and Gottfried Leibniz are renowned for their philosophical arguments regarding the existence of a necessary being. However, does their view stand up to contemporary scrutiny, or are their assertions merely rational justifications for beliefs grounded in irrationality?

The Rational Flaws in Aquinas and Leibniz’s Arguments

Badamasi Sarki succinctly summarizes the argument that asserts Aquinas and Leibniz are simply theists forced to define their God into existence. They present a rational justification for a belief that may, in reality, be irrational. The assertion that everything in the universe is contingent on something else for its existence is not inherently supported by the universe itself. The universe neither cares about our assertions nor is it necessary to accept the existence of a "uncaused first cause" or "necessary being" simply because its alternative is equally troubling.

Both concepts—the infinite regression of causation or the existence of a necessary being—are beyond our ability to fully comprehend. Neither idea can be fully explained by human reasoning, and the question becomes whether one is asserting the existence of one impossibility to argue against another.

The Universality of Existence

The presupposition that there must be a uncaused first cause is a critical element of both Aquinas's and Leibniz's arguments. However, it can also lead to a circular reasoning fallacy, as it essentially states that because everything is contingent, there must be a first uncaused cause which is God. This does not provide a logical or empirical basis for the existence of such a being. Instead, it merely redefines the problem without providing a solution.

Controlling for the Uncaused Cause

Aquinas himself admitted that the assertion of God as the uncaused first cause is a prima facie assertion, meaning it may be initially accepted without proof. However, this approach only shifts the burden of proof without establishing the necessity of a divine existence. Furthermore, the assertion that this being must be a "necessary being" or "necessary being" with intelligent attributes is arbitrary and does not logically follow from the assertion of a first cause.

The Static Universe Argument

Another perspective to consider is the idea of a static universe that could have always existed. While it is challenging to conceive of an infinite regression, the concept of a static universe without a first cause is also problematic. Both ideas are equally philosophically troubling, if not more so, because they challenge our understanding of causality and the nature of existence itself.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while Aquinas and Leibniz provide compelling arguments for the existence of a necessary being, these arguments are not without flaws. The concept of a uncaused first cause is a concept beyond our current understanding, and the assertion of a divine being as the necessary being is a predetermined conclusion rather than a logical necessity. Both concepts are ultimately beyond our grasp, and it is essential to question the rationality of such assertions and consider alternative explanations without predetermined conclusions.

If you are interested in further delving into this topic, you can read more about these arguments in my other articles: