Talk:Five Ways (Aquinas)

Thank you to everyone for not trolling here, however tempting it may be. TimD (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad title

The title is wrong, in latin the numbers are undeclinable.

ivansalgadogarcia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.228.143 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Title change??

Hey I had a really tough time finding a page on the 5 proofs because I was searching in English. Is there a way to make the Title include the English "Five Proofs of Aquinas." Currently wikipedia doesn't even suggest this page if you search in english. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polsky215 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This is funny, I was just about to propose the reverse :-) I think the article would be improved by clarifying reference to "proofs". I have made a little change to this end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Jelliffe (talk • contribs) 06:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

perhaps an oversimplification

I fear that perhaps this article oversimplifies Thomas' most well-known contribution to philosophy, to the point that ambiguities in the understanding make them quite incomprehensible. Without an understanding of the Aristotelian idea of motion as the "actuality of potency as such" (Coughlin, Physics) the first way does not signify the proper understanding; furthermore, the second and third ways, moving through a similar context, become too ambiguous; and the fourth and fifth ways should not go without at least some understanding, for example, of how the gradation of being implies that the best is a cause, or how the governance of things implies that the designer must be purely in act.

I believe these issues are important principally because I believe the article misrepresents the author, secondly because the words taken at face value are confusing, poorly worded, and generally difficult from which to derive the understanding which Thomas himself presents, and lastly because these ambiguities the wording presents allow the misapplication of the five ways to more frivolous things than that for which Thomas argues. This ought not to go uncorrected, as this is the most important article in the Summa (for without God, there is no sacred doctrine) and perhaps the most important philosophical series of proofs (for it argues for a higher science than philosophy through philosophy itself, as Thomas implies in Question 1.)

I hope that this is of some concern.

TonalHarmony (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have put motion as "motion" in the head section, to signal that the meaning is specialized. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreement with TonalHarmony

This article, at the very least, needs more of an introduction, exposition of the arguments, an explanation of each, explanations of difficult terms, links to other exiting Wikipedia articles for positions in Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy, and references to sources, especially web-based ones, that have St. Thomas' writings and other useful helps. As TonalHarmony implies, this section of Summa Theologiae is fundamental to the work as a whole; this difficult subject deserves a clearer introduction.

JohnofStThomas (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added links to the Wiki pages on Scholastic Instruction, and Aristotle's Posterior Analytics (as well as improvements to the new section I added last week on "Ways or Proofs" with multiple external links.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

possible clarifying suggestions

Thomas is using the Aristotelian definition of motion, a fact which is apparent from the text of Question 2 of the Summa, where he says "For motion is nothing else but the reduction of potentiality {potency} to actuality {act}." (words in brackets are alternate translations of "potentia" and "actum") (English courtesy of the referenced external link to newadvent.org)

This definition is very controversial, very difficult to understand, disagreed on by most Modernist philosophers, and absolutely essential to understand the five ways. The first amendment I would propose to the body is an explanation of Aristotelian motion, or a reference thereto, because otherwise the five ways become so ambiguous as to become nonsensical in view of their conclusion, which expresses specific and logical statements about what we can know about God. For example:

Aristotle understood motion to be of any sort conceivable: alteration, growth and diminution, and local motion. Descartes, however, in his Principles of Philosophy, disagrees:

"But motion(i.e. local motion, for I can conceive no other kind, and do not consider that we ought to conceive any other in nature), in the vulgar sense, is nothing more than the action by which any body passes from one place to another."

(Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, II 24 - Available on Google Books)

Here Descartes excludes growth and diminution, as well as alteration. But an exclusion of these excludes two senses of being a mover, senses which Thomas includes in what it is to be God. Moreover, insofar as an efficient cause lends the act to the thing having potency, to understand the second way, one needs a true understanding of the first. The third is also thus referenced to the first, for the first necessary being is required to have no potency as part of the argument, in that if a thing is "necessary", it cannot be otherwise, and if it cannot be otherwise, it must be such, and if it must be such, it cannot have potency to any other end.

The fourth and the fifth, while being more intuitive in form, still require the first, because the argument from the more and less good makes the claim that the highest is the "cause" of the lower, referencing the second way, and the argument from governance also requires motion (as the end is prior to the act), causality (as the thing imposing the order is the cause, as the sculptor to the statue), and necessity, since if the being causing and moving is not first, he must also be moved, which is impossible.)

So the first clarification needed is at least a reference to the different understandings of motion. Any thoughts?

TonalHarmony (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added some material on causality and motion. If you want to put the Descartes material in, I recommend you should put in a clearly distinct separate section titled, for example, Descartes' Reaction. We should not confuse readers about other people's philosophy when the topic is specifically Aquinas' Five Ways: lets not complexify they text by adding what everyone except Aquinas has ever said about various ideas used in the Five Ways... ;-) However, please don't take this as pushback: the article would be improved by more modest and clear sections at the end about what subsequently philosophers have understood and misunderstood or followed up: if we have Dawkins why not Descartes? :-)Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

proposed outline for revision

I propose that this whole article be reworked, because right now it is just shabby. Here's my suggested outline.

Introduction - What the Five Ways are (proofs for God's existence purely from natural reason.)

The Five Ways - (Literal quotes. Not explanations by Peter Kreeft, because that is not the actual statement, but an interpretation, and a simplified one at that, which causes many difficulties.)

Philosophical Explanation - (how motion works in terms of act and potency and how it is most manifest, how causality is understood separately from motion and is less manifest than motion, how contingency is understood separately from motion and cause and is less manifest than either, in what way the best is a motive, a cause and first in gradation, and in what way the governor is a motive, a cause and first in governance.)

Prior Articles in Relation to the Ways - (understanding of Question 1 as leading to the need for Question 2)

Relation to the Whole of the Summa - (How the rest of the Summa requires the Five Ways as proving certain things presupposed to the articles of faith)

Objections Thomas Cites - (the problem of evil, whether God is needed to explain nature)

Replies and their Basis in the Five Ways - (how Thomas' answer is rooted in gradation and governance, and thereby in motion, cause and contingency.)

With this outline, I think the article will become more helpful, more encyclopedic, and more descriptive of the intent of the author, rather than appearing much like a badly-written Cliff's Note for the most important part of the Summa.

TonalHarmony (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Fifth Way is _not_ the Argument from Design! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.244.175 (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have rearranged the article thoroughly, though not entirely in the way suggested in this comment. I have brought out and expanded the section on motion/causility which TonalHarmony suggested. I clarify the distinction with Argument from Design the other user requests.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

I think there is a confusion here for the teleological argument. The writer, in reference to biological life, says that they look "somewhat designed". I think that this a confusing use of the word design. It's used as meaning a plan, a scheme, or a project; what we do before we make things. The word should really be used in what the OED calls “a weaker sense”, to mean purpose, aim, and intention – as in “My design had been to go at once to London”.

Aquinas was definitely talking about purpose, and something that guides natural bodies so they do what he wants.

From this part of Aquinas, the natural bodies might already exist, but something (God) guides them (as it says in the text). He has already argued that God brings things into existence. Myrvin (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This, of course, a mistake in Dawkins Myrvin (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the article now reflects the concerns in the comment, following edits by others and extra links by me.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

God according to other Abrahamic faiths

Coming back to the article, there is a somewhat contentious statement that has been interjected in the beginning. Someone saw fit to say that the Five Ways will demonstrate the existence of just any monotheistic, Abrahamic conception of God; while it might be the case that many of these religions have a conception of God that is similar to that of Aquinas, many of these have a lot of philosophical and theological baggage tied in with them. The Baha'i people might deny this on principle but it is what it is. Would it not be better to just lay out the attributes that the Five Ways immediately prove and leave it at that, rather than making cross-theological assertions?

TonalHarmony (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The critical section mentions a "cosmological" argument. It's not clear which of the five arguments is the cosmological one.

Hello, I was just reading through this article and I was confused by the first line in the criticism section. It says that Kant and Hume criticized the "cosmological argument". This is the first time that term appears in this article and it's not clear what the cosmological argument is. Someone should change this so it's more clear which of the five arguments Kant and Hume were critical of. Based on the external link it seems that the cosmological argument is either the argument of the first cause or the argument of the unmoved mover, or a hybrid of the two.

Anyway, some should address that so it's more clear to readers of this article who might not be familiar with the cosmological argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.89.101 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. 108.243.188.132 (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This text seems to have been cleared up. However, I am not sure it is correct. [1] says the first three are cosmological, not the first four, as the Wiki page currently does. If anyone has a grip on this, perhaps they could correct it. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Excessive quoting

This article contain excessive quotations from the first cited resource. What was wrong with the format that was around a few months ago in which it was not block quotes used, but rather a very simplistic layout to explain each of the arguments, with the main points in a numbered list for each? If anyone else prefered the format I am talking about, perhaps the article should be edited to it. Frindro (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I'm not not sure how to go about it so i'm asking if someone will put the pronunciation of the word at the beginning of the article thankyou

Dawkins' response correctly cited?

"the fifth argument claims the necessity of a designer, considering that biological life looks somewhat designed, whereas evolution by means of natural selection explains its complexity and diversity.[4]"

Is this really what Dawkins wrote? And if so, is it lined up with the right argument? Because that doesn't even address the question. For one thing, Aquinas doesn't actually mention biological life in the argument -- and Aquinas' 'teleological argument' is NOT the same as the Argument from Design in its naive and classic form (i.e. 'Paley's Watch') - it has more to do with the observation of consistency and order in the universe. 165.91.173.228 (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a student of Aquinas, I'm not sure ANY of his arguments match up with those of Aquinas; it's telling, too, that he never ever displays the actual text of Aquinas' Ways. In the course of my education, we've more often regarded Dawkins as a good source of logical (syllogistic) target practice and an example of how the ignorant can say rhetorically convincing things about people's arguments they have quite possibly only read in digest. TonalHarmony (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

TonalHarmony I'm pretty sure most philosophers would laugh heartily at your admiration of Aquinas as a logician. 76.174.24.153 (talk)

Many sophists might laugh, but not those with a modicum of wisdom and humility. Anyway, Dawkins's take on the philosophical proofsof God was ecumenically panned. Why is it included in this article?

---

Look folks, the counterarguments to Dawkins may be relevant, but they are not understandable or interesting as currently described. They make no sense. So if you have something understandable and compelling (doesn't need to be correct) then please post. Otherwise hold off.— Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user

I understand the necessity of section called criticism BUT none can find some actual philosopher to counter the st Thomas theory? why you put in that section something so simply low and uneducated? ”Stinker?” that is the counter-argument to st Thomas? Shame… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.22.221 (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried...

• ( ... 2nd rv of Dawkins' joke: sheer ridicule, flimsy & crass... unencyclopedic, if not offensive)
• ( ... try WP:GRATUITOUS the joke is obvious, it would be uncharitable to characterize a flippant ignoratio elenchi by appeal to ridicule as Dawkins' sincere efforts)
• ( ... a reductio ad absurdum would have to demonstrate the premises lead to a contradiction, he merely stooped to an appeal to ridicule, with no attempt to show that even such a mockery is somehow unsound)

—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Complain all you want about Dawkins' snarkiness, the fact remains that his refutation adequately shows how absurd it is to say that just because varying degrees of a dimension exist that the maximal possible expression of that dimension must exist. Dawkins does use ridicule, but he ridicules the argument with its own ridiculousness. That is fair game. 76.174.24.153 (talk)

But it really doesn't show anything about Aquinas's own arguments except that Dawkins doesn't understand them. For instance, the argument from gradation is a Platonic/Neoplatonic argument, and Dawkins' crude reply shows that he hasn't understood it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.253.0.133 (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Aquinas has been refuted by respected philosophers (Hume, Kant), and the vulgar yawpings of a pop athiest like Dawkins don't enter into it. His silly "refutation" shoulldn't appear in a serious article. Please delete it, ir replace it with something decent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.122.14 (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Dawkins may have the wrong end of the stick, but he is probably the main source for what readers coming to this page already understand by "Five Ways". Then there are those who come expecting a modern "Proof". I think it is fair enough to mention those views in this page, though as distinct from what Aquinas was on about. (Indeed, what could be more Thomistic that starting with what is 'well known' to go to what is 'lesser known'?) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Introductory passage

Hi every one, it appears to me that the introductory passage needs some amendment on two points: first, the passage whereby "they [the quinque viae] are not meant to be self-sufficient proofs of God's existence" seems to me dubious. What textual evidence is there that Thomas Aquinas did not mean the quinque viae to be self-sufficient proofs of the existence of God? I'm aware that many contemporary philosophers hold that the quinque viae are not self-sufficient proofs - but this does not mean that Thomas himself didn't mean them to be self-sufficient proofs.

I noticed this too. I've put a cn tag on the assertion. I'll remove it if no ref appears. The rest of the text uses 'proof' and 'prove' all the time, and there is nothing to back up the assertions in the lead. Myrvin (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Second, the passage saying "special revelation (i.e. religious experience)" - this appears to me to be wrong. Again, many contemporary philosophers and theologians equate the terms "special revelation" and "religious experience", but in St. Thomas' thought, special revelation is contained in Scripture and Tradition / Church teaching. Section 3.1. of the wikipedia article on Thomas Aquinas sums this up well: "Thomas believed that truth is known through reason (natural revelation) and faith (supernatural revelation). Supernatural revelation has its origin in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is made available through the teaching of the prophets, summed up in Holy Scripture, and transmitted by the Magisterium, the sum of which is called "Tradition"."

What does everybody think? Guardaiinalto (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of the intro seems to be uncited and/or OR. It needs a thorough revision. There is OR in the rest as well. Myrvin (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi! the proof that Thomas did not intend the ways to be self-sufficient proofs for the existance of God is to read what he wrote in the paragraphs immediately before the five ways.

• Article I of the same question is on the subject of whether God Exists is self evident (Aquinas' answer: nope, not to us humans, formally).

• Article II is whether the existance can be demonstrated (Aquinas' answer: we have to use demonstration "a postiori" to arrive at the absolute "a priori".

• Article III (The Five Ways) is a summary of that demonstration, which he fleshes out in numbing detail in many subsequent places.

So the answer is definitely that Aquinas did not propose the Five Ways as a "self-sufficient proof" because he was proposing them because he held that God exists is not "self-evident" to humans.

Indeed, even the word "proof" begs the question about what Aquinas doing: I have removed most uses of "proof" in favour of "demonstration" and put in a link concerning demonstration (loosely the difference is that a demonstration is like a science class "And this is what we call evaporation" more than a logical proof of evaporation: hence "and this is what all men call God") and a section on Proof versus Way.

I think the thing is for the article to primarily stick as much as possible to what Aquina actually wrote, and analogs of his terminology, rather than what people popularly claim it means: he used words for demonstrate, way, and test, which are different to modern "proof"s. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Should Dawkins be included in this article at all?

The guy is smart. I know that. but when it comes to philosophy, he is about as educated as the average creationist is about evolution. His criticism is based on the abridged five proofs they teach high school kids and all of his objections were presented and refuted by Aquinas in the Summa itself 1000 years ago. Surely there is a better person, like an actual philosopher, to be listed as an expert in the criticism section.Farsight001 (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Including a pop atheist blowhard diminishes an otherwise serious article. It's just a plug for Dawkins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.122.14 (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I came here to say exactly this. Citing Dawkins objecting to Aquinas makes as much sense as citing my grandmother objecting to Dawkins' work in evolutionary biology. The section begins by noting Aquinas had been criticized by Hume and Kant -- and then cites Dawkins! Why not just cite Hume and Kant? Dawkins' reply is weak, displays amateurish misapprehensions of Aquinas and (apparently) Aristotelian metaphysics, and is far more polemic than philosophy. I was hoping to find solid critiques of Aquinas; instead, I got Dawkins. Wikipedia can do better. 114.47.45.193 (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I pulled Dawkins into its own section under a heading "popular" which indicates its status better.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction in Introduction

The intro states that the arguments are "not necessarily meant to be self-sufficient 'proofs' of God’s existence" then goes on to say "The arguments are designed to prove the existence of a monotheistic God." It looks suspiciously like a theist has edited the article in a sort of "sour grapes" bet-hedging to preemptively inoculate Aquinas' flawed "proofs" from criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.24.153 (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I added a section dealing with the status as proofs or ways.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to change this entire article

(I think this, and most of the other comment sections are now moot, because the article has been substantially edited, headed, re-arranged, linked and expanded since most of the comments in Talk were made. I looked at the comments in doing these edits, and I hope it is an OK basis for further community edits.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC))

This article needs some serious work, and I propose to take it upon myself to do it. No need to quote the latin, or even the full English translations; brief summaries should be fine. It needs an explanation of the distinction between essentially-ordered and accidentially ordered series. The ridiculous Dawkins section needs to be removed and replaced with genuine criticisms. If nobody objects, I'm going to be making some of these changes. Hammiesink (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Well, Hammiesink, for this kind of drastic editing you're going to have to find consensus. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hi. Well, who is in charge? I see people talking about the horrors of this article for ten years now, and yet nobody rarely seems to change anything. I find myself with the interest and resources to improve it, including multiple academic books. But I think it mostly needs to be chucked and re-written from scratch. Hammiesink (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Collaborative project: no one is in charge. But "chunking" is typically going to lead to being reverted, esp. without edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Ok...where and how do I start? If this gets bogged down in bureaucracy nothing is going to happen. For example, I see people complaining, rightly, about the Dawkins section for years and yet here it still sits. Hammiesink (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
      • One thing you can do is make smaller edits and explain them. Start with that one section, maybe. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

In place of the quoting of the entirety of the arguments, we should have brief summaries

Anybody can go to the Summa and read the arguments themselves. Read Copleston and how he briefly summarizes the arguments in readable form. We should try to emulate that. There is no reason to just copy and paste the entirety of the Latin, which nobody can read anyway, followed by the English. I would like to gradually replace these with summaries. Hammiesink (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I propose a title change

Now that I've done some major revision of the entire article to address many of the proposals and criticisms above from almost ten years ago (!!!), I also propose we move the page to "Five Ways (Aquinas)" as this is more in line with Wikipedia naming conventions. Specifically, the [title naming convention] which states that Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above." Almost everyone searching for this is going to call it "the five ways," not "quinque viae." I almost never see references to its Latin title, even in academic works. I'll leave this here for awhile before I move the page to get any additional comments. Hammiesink (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Mention of Dawkins in Controversy/Defense

Dawking is mentioned in the Controversy section, inside the Defense sub section, but his criticism is never mentioned in the Criticism section. It's strange to read a rebuttal to an argument that was never made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.22.212.136 (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Good point. I kinda petered out near the end, and I've had some issues figuring out how or if to address Dawkins. I feel he should be left out completely, but unfortunately he has been influential, so we may need to mention him. I'll try to fix it soon. Hammiesink (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

---

I have rearranged the section Controversy to replace headings "Criticism" and "Defense" with "Philosophical" and "Popular." I have moved a few paragraphs up, accordingly. So the Dawkins material is only in the "Popular" section.

The book was a best-seller, so "popular" is clearly the word. and Prof Dawkins is not a general philospher (the Philosophy of Science is a different thing, and the modern notion of Science is also a different subject from the medieval/Aristotelean one.)

My hope is that this meets some of the multiple concerns above (about what Dawkin's version is doing in an article on Aquinas' thought, and whether he is positively misleading about what Aquinas said, or whether he should be lumped in as a philosopher like Hume or Kant, etc. etc.) by better organization and framing, without actually changing any of the existing content. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems a little odd to have a single sentence paragraph mentioning Dawkins' criticisms, followed by two extended paragraphs arguing against them. --tronvillain (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Five Ways (Aquinas). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051122134556/http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm to http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Fifth Way renamed from Teleological Argument

I have renamed the fifth way back to its more common non-jargon name, as "Argument from Final Cause or Ends" because

1) "Teleology" is incomprehensible jargon to most readers. A reader may not know what Aristotles Four Causes are, but they at least know the individual words "final" and "cause". This kind of over-jargonization is the bane of Wikipedia entries on philosophy and theology. The references to Teleological are kept in the text in two places as well as in parenthesis.

2) I have removed the parenthetical "argument from design" because it is just incorrect, as indeed this Wiki page already points out. This is made worse because the current Wiki page on "argument from design" (which is the same page as "teleological argument") does not properly distinguish the different usages in its introduction. It completely conflates the Cosmic Watchmaker argument with the Final Cause argument, rendering the term equivocal and therefore likely to mislead. Until that page is cleaned up, it is better not misdirect readers to it: I have changed one of the links to point to the Wiki entry on teleology which is more on-topic.

3) In the Summa theologiciae, it does not use "teleology" which was only coined in 1728 Baron Christian von Wolff. The article is better limiting itself close to the terms Aquinas used. Theologians and philosophers will not be disadvantaged. I note that the Dominicans translate it (they say 'literally') "The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world." [2] which is so far from "intelligent design" as to be unrecognizable. I think the Dominicans are correct, and I will add that definition and that link.

I have also added references to the Wiki pages on Aristotle's final causes, and to First Cause for the Second Way, since that is where the arguments come from.

Muse: Of course, the existance of topics like the Five Ways, where the popular belief of what they are have an independent life to what the original author actually wrote, presents a good opportunity for Wikipedia to point out that both these independent threads exist, and readers need to ascertain which thread (Aquinas or b*st*rdized --which is not a swear word--) any outside material is relating to. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Background Section. Accidential and Essential Causal Chains subsection

I have added a section heading "Background" and put in subheads for material that is probably necessary but somewhat tangential for each particular way. This allows the Five Ways section to be more focussed too.

As part of this, I created a subsection "Accidental and Essential Causal Chains" and moved the material on this from the Unmoved Mover section. I have added extra references and material to clarify. I have split paragraphs, because the combined paragraphs were misleading about who said what: I have put material about Duns Scotus into a separate paragraph, it is tangential and not quite right.

(I have similarly moved material about Anselm's Ontological Argument out of the head section, since it is also tangential and perhaps debatable. RANT: What use does it do to stick in such tangential there, I don't know!: it just adds noise: I think the problem is that if an article does not have systematic headings to reflect the actual content, all a writer can do is pile paragraphs in whereever they seem least bad: not good enough! I have found in a couple of times now that a horrible page can often be improved just by vanilla editing tasks: figuring out headings that reflect the contents and rearranging paragraphs and notes to cope with tangents and digressions.)

I also added a paragraph in the Unmoved Mover section, with Aquinas clarificaion on simultaneous cause. I used the technical term transitive too, without going into it, since [[3]] thinks it is important. That is a very good source for more information, and I recommend it to subsequent editors.

I have added a reference to the Kalam Ontological Argument, since that is more like the popular view of the Five Ways (and, indeed, the view that I had slipped into, though I recall now being taught differently.)

Minor: To the subheadings for each Way I have added the Latin "Prima Via" etc, since these are the words that start each relevant paragraph in the ST, and because without some numbering it is difficult to track what is meant when the page says "The first way" or whatever. And it gets some Latin in there, without it being intrusive I think.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the Latin subheadings. The original article was titled "Quinque Viae" but I never hear anyone refer to it in the Latin. Even academic scholars usually refer to them as the Five Ways, and each individual argument as the First Way, etc. I'd vote to put the English titles back. Hammiesink (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization of God in the proofs

I came across this article before coming here and noticed that the word "God" is capitalized in his arguments which stood out to me because the article claims that Aquinas a made a distinction between "God" as a proper noun and "god" as a common noun and that his proofs were written to prove the existence of a god rather than God as a specific being. The original latin just uses the word "deus" and, per the article, this often gets translated as "God" since latin lacks the indefinite article "a" that would serve as a disambiguation. It's a small distinction that likely goes unnoticed for most but when viewing the page from a philosophical frame of reference I think it's an important one to make since it could be considered a misrepresentation of what he was trying to say. Like I said I just came across this so I'm not exactly well-learned on the subject, nor am I getting the information from a primary source, so I didn't want to make the change myself without discussing. If no one has any objections I suggest de-capitalizing God and maybe adding a note about the distinction. Aupri (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

5th way and Swinburne

I noticed that Aquinas's last Way resembles Richard Swinburne's cosmological argument, which appeals to the reason why things behave the way they do (particles and etc.) to a basic fact/explanation which would be God. Maybe it would be profitable to put that note in there (I won't do it myself because I think is adequate to see if at least someone else agrees). Momergil (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Does second sentence state that Aquinas proves the existence of God?

“Five ways of St. Thomas Aquinas for the existence of God managed to prove the existence of God through nature.”

I don’t know if I’m reading this wrong but it seems to state that Aquinas succeeded in proving the existence of God through nature. The article needs to state the arguments without opining on their validity. Maybe this can be fixed to:

“Five ways of St. Thomas Aquinas for the existence of God are logical arguments intended to prove the existence of God through nature.” 71.231.199.34 (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

First proof and Suarez's version?

The article says that Suarez objected to the first proof (the argument from motion) on account of the possibility of self-motion, and then the article goes on to give Suarez's version. I'm a little confused though. Suarez's version just looks to be a variant of the second proof (the argument from causality). If so, it seems out of place (although I do think his objection is worth noting). 2601:49:8400:26B:3170:25FA:2133:DA67 (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)