I would like to say at the outset that Professor Feser’s reconstructed version of the Fifth Way is by far the most detailed formulation of Aquinas’ argument that has been put forward by any Thomist scholar. On Feser’s view, the existence of an Intelligent Creator of Nature can be rationally demonstrated without arguing that the cosmos had a beginning, or that its laws are fine-tuned, or that neo-Darwinism is false. Feser contends that Aquinas’ argument (when properly understood) is a valid proof, which can provide us with absolute certitude that God exists, making Intelligent Design theory redundant. And there can only be one such God: an Intelligence Who is Being itself is necessarily unique. Moreover, this guiding Intelligence can only be a Being Whose essence is identical with its very act of existence – in other words, an Intelligence Who is Being itself, and Who can therefore be identified with the God of classical theism. But Feser doesn’t stop there: he maintains that the conclusion of the Fifth Way is not merely that there is an intelligent being guiding Nature, but rather, an Intelligence Who sustains Nature in being. On Feser’s account, the argument proceeds from a set of very simple facts about the natural world, and then demonstrates that the only way to explain these facts is by positing an intelligent being (or beings) guiding the behavior of natural objects towards their characteristic effects. In this post, I’m going to critically analyze Aquinas’ Fifth Way – or more specifically, Professor Edward Feser’s reconstructed version of this argument by Aquinas. Thomas Aquinas’ celebrated five proofs of the existence of God, the Fifth Way holds a special place: it is the only one which explicitly attempts to show that the cosmos is dependent on some Intelligent Being, Who directs all natural objects towards their built-in ends.

Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Flipboard Print arroba EmailĪmong St.

Edward feser 5 proofs