Five Proofs of the Existence of God
- Downloads：7962
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-08-20 08:54:35
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Edward Feser
- ISBN：1621641333
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
This book provides a detailed， updated exposition and defense of five of the historically most important （but in recent years largely neglected） philosophical proofs of God’s existence: the Aristotelian， the Neo-Platonic， the Augustinian， the Thomistic， and the Rationalist。
It also offers a thorough treatment of each of the key divine attributes—unity， simplicity， eternity， omnipotence， omniscience， perfect goodness， and so forth—showing that they must be possessed by the God whose existence is demonstrated by the proofs。 Finally， it answers at length all of the objections that have been leveled against these proofs。
This work provides as ambitious and complete a defense of traditional natural theology as is currently in print。 Its aim is to vindicate the view of the greatest philosophers of the past— thinkers like Aristotle， Plotinus， Augustine， Aquinas， Leibniz， and many others— that the existence of God can be established with certainty by way of purely rational arguments。 It thereby serves as a refutation both of atheism and of the fideism that gives aid and comfort to atheism。
It also offers a thorough treatment of each of the key divine attributes—unity， simplicity， eternity， omnipotence， omniscience， perfect goodness， and so forth—showing that they must be possessed by the God whose existence is demonstrated by the proofs。 Finally， it answers at length all of the objections that have been leveled against these proofs。
This work provides as ambitious and complete a defense of traditional natural theology as is currently in print。 Its aim is to vindicate the view of the greatest philosophers of the past— thinkers like Aristotle， Plotinus， Augustine， Aquinas， Leibniz， and many others— that the existence of God can be established with certainty by way of purely rational arguments。 It thereby serves as a refutation both of atheism and of the fideism that gives aid and comfort to atheism。
Reviews
spirit-salamander
，
I didn't find it convincing。Here is a criticism of the Aristotelian proof that occurs in the book。Start from a worldly substance， which is best conceived of as a finite line from A to B。 In the mind's eye， this line exists。 So we can say without difficulties， the line （substance） exists。We will now always stick to the line because it simplifies the argumentation a lot without losing philosophical relevance。I can only look at the line in two ways。 On the one hand as a holist， on the other hand as I didn't find it convincing。Here is a criticism of the Aristotelian proof that occurs in the book。Start from a worldly substance， which is best conceived of as a finite line from A to B。 In the mind's eye， this line exists。 So we can say without difficulties， the line （substance） exists。We will now always stick to the line because it simplifies the argumentation a lot without losing philosophical relevance。I can only look at the line in two ways。 On the one hand as a holist， on the other hand as a reductionist。The holistic thinker would say that this line is continuous from A to B and is actual as a whole。If you asked him how he explains this line， he would say: Maybe it has always existed in this length。 Maybe it was "drawn" once in the past。 Or perhaps it was once joined together by many small lines to the present form。 Or it is a splinter of a division of a still much bigger line。 These answers would deeply satisfy the holist。The reductionist would say this line is a set of finitely many discrete points。 And he would explain it by the fact that the points have found each other due to their adhesive power。 The points could be real points without extension， but with an energy field surrounding them。 Or they could be minimally extended （as dots）， but all in one piece and with absolute cohesion。Now the Thomist Feser would come and say to both of them: No， no， it doesn't work that way。He would explain to the holist that the line is made up of constituents （small lines）。 Because you could make an intersection in the middle of the line， so that we have two parts that cause the whole。 These two parts also each have a middle and so we could make intersections again so that we get even more parts that would cause the first two。This could be carried on and on， but nothing should go to infinity， otherwise the line would never come into existence。 For the parts stand in a certain causal relation to the so to speak "whole" whole， like the parts to the "whole" parts and so on。The concept of hierarchical causality （simultaneous and instrumental） requires that there is a beginning and that this beginning can only be accomplished by an external God。（Minor digression: Such a hierarchical causal series cannot be proven empirically and inductively at all。 On the contrary， empiricism rather speaks against such a series。 The assumption that such a series cannot be infinite in an abstract and logical sense is also unfounded。 Not even the transitivity （simultaneity and instrumentality）， recursively， leads to the fact that a recursion ad infinitum is not possible。 Even if this were not possible， one would by no means get a primum movens which exists， as if the impossibility of something could justify the existence of something else。）The holist would answer: You cut the line only retrospectively and retroactively， that is， after the line has been recognized naturally as a holistic substance， and thus artificially arrive at your result。 But you don't have to do that。 I am not forced to see it that way。 Here at least assertion would stand against assertion， namely mine against yours。 One can by all means justifiably ask: Why can't an immanent and holistic principle， intrinsic to the substance， make a unity out of the complexity （Feser's line）， whereby God becomes superfluous？Moreover， your approach is very reductionist。 The line would end up depending on its parts （e。g。 the whole human being would be at the mercy of the behavior of its smallest parts）。 But as I said， you don't have to see it that way。 Your dividing of the line is also no real dividing in the sense of cutting。 Because your midpoint between the two partial lines is a zero， an extensionlessness， a true ideal point， that means the two partial lines have a seamless transition to each other and that means again， they are not real parts。 There are no extended "sticking" boundaries between the parts， no vacuum or empty space in between。 So， you are still dealing with a holistic whole line in which parts are neither conceivable as discretely actual （because the seamless whole is in fact actual） nor as potential （because a potential part is not a part at all。 It can be anything but just not a part and there is no set of potential parts that would be oddly and ineffectually dependent on their potential parts and so on）。The reductionist would say either my points are indivisible because they are without extension， or they are extended but divisible only in thought and not in reality。 With the reductionist， the division finds an ungodly end with many points or dots。Feser would now point to the theory of Thomistic hylemorphism。 One can reject this strictly。 There are many alternatives to this hylemorphism， for example also a neo-Aristotelian hylemorphism， which does completely without God。 Or something that has nothing to do with hylemorphism。In Thomistic hylemorphism， for example， properties are regarded as real parts， but even Aristotle thought that properties were not parts of a thing， but aspects， e。g。 the form itself being an aspect of a thing。 For Aristotelian hylemorphism of a substance there is no need of a third （god）， of a connecting principle or， more banally， of a kind of glue or putty （making the form and matter stick together）。 In general， matter and form are at most conceptually distinguishable ontological instances， aspects， or modes of （or in， on， at） the ontically one existing thing， which nonetheless exist in reality unseparated。Now there could also come a fourth thinker who is monistic and in some sense pantheistic。 He would now say that a line can only start from a point。 But this point is God Himself or Nature Herself。 God （or Nature） as a point cannot take another god as a starting point for "drawing" the line。 Therefore， the one divine or natural punctiform simplicity must spontaneously extend itself into a line。 God （or Nature） as a point forms with the line as extension a continuum without actual parts。It is then so that this point cannot appear on such extended line， since it is everywhere and nowhere on it， i。e。: nowhere as an intersection point in it， everywhere， however， as the point in it extending to it， hiding itself in such extension。Only therefore， at every place of the line， a mystical sense can make the "everywhere and nowhere" point become a "point of intersection"， that is， visible or experienceable （unio mystica）。 God would be in the world， he would stand internally to it and not externally as with Feser。By the way， the basic problem of Thomists， like Feser， is that they can see things either only as totally dependent （the universe） or only as totally independent （god）？ Nothing in between。 In my opinion， that is a very one-sided view。 A semi-independence of things makes the most sense to me。 For obviously things can both causally compel others and be causally compelled by them。The Thomists also seem to be approaching a Far Eastern view。 Like: There is no spoon， there are only its conditions of existence （the spoon would be identical with the sum of its conditions）， and these actually don't exist either， only their conditions of existence do and so on。 And some meta-language won't be able to talk the spoon into reality。 I mean， I can only pretend that the spoon really exists， as if it existed （in and of itself）。With this whole topic it comes to mind that in the Thomistic world view potentials in the strict sense possibly exist only in our heads idealiter， thus are there only in relation to our mind。For the Thomistic God does not create the world by actualizing a potential situated in front of him （or in him）， but by creating substances directly ex nihilo （which is again logically questionable， if we have not hypostasized and reified nothingness）。 However， every substance as a whole is， at every instant in which it is created， completely in actuality。We limited humans infer only a potentiality within the substance， because we cannot grasp the continuous process of God's re-creation。 At the deepest ontological bottom， the world possibly always transitions from act to act。 And why should it not transition from act to act without God？ Potency that actively moves and mobilizes （at least in a certain sense） would be contained in the worldly actuality。 The Thomists apparently define potentiality as purely passive and make this their rule of thought。 But ontologically it is probably not true。Here are some examples:"Potentiality made no sense， for example， unless it was understood as a direction toward something， and so as a motion。" （Frederick C。 Beiser - Late German Idealism）And:"I'll argue that there are two distinct kinds of potentials， the one consisting of potentials that are marked by their being logically entailed by the given existence of the actual， and the other， of potentials that are merely suggested by similarity or inductive considerations。 The ontological difference between them is that whereas the entailed potential is fully effectual [。。。]， the analogical or inductive potential is merely a necessary condition and thus necessarily ineffectual。" （Zev Bechler - Aristotle's Theory of Actuality）And:"Franz Brentano， from whom Husserl took the notion of intentionality， proposed the concept of teleiosis in order to resolve Zeno’s paradox of movement （at any determinate moment， a flying arrow occupies a certain point in space， so when does it move？）; teleiosis stands for the virtual orientation of an actual point。 Take two arrows at a certain point in time， one of them at rest， the other flying: although each of them occupies a determinate point in space， they do not occupy it in the same way， because their respective teleiosis is different—the teleiosis of the first arrow is zero， while the teleiosis of the second one is positive （its strength depending on the velocity of its movement） and with a given direction。 This potentiality of movement is part of the actuality of an object: if we want to describe an object in its full reality， we have to include its teleiosis。" （Zizek， Slavoj - Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism）And finally from the point of view of modern physics:"There is conservation of momentum: the universe doesn’t need a mover; constant motion is natural and expected。 It is tempting to hypothesize—cautiously， always with the prospect of changing our minds if it doesn’t work—that the universe doesn’t need to be created， caused， or even sustained。 It can simply be。 Then there is conservation of information。 The universe evolves by marching from one moment to the next in a way that depends only on its present state。 It neither aims toward future goals nor relies on its previous history。These discoveries indicate that the world operates by itself， free of any external guidance。" （Sean Carroll - The Big Picture）"Conservation of momentum immediately tells us that the Earth won’t go careening off in a random direction[。]" （Sean Carroll - The Big Picture）The conservation of momentum and information would stand for active potency。 Here is a possible ontological structure of individual things in an atheistic world。 The individuality or existence of the thing strictly considered as such would be static potency， which appears timeless， nevertheless is active in some sense （physically perhaps the particle）。 From this so considered existence possibly arises in spontaneity the essential form structure of the thing， which arises steadily in a transition from act to act （physically perhaps the field of the particle or the wave of the same）。 A completely passive potentiality of the whole thing would perhaps not exist。 Because either the thing has already an inherent tendency to something or it can be forced to something， but not without resistance， not without giving up its own activity。 A Thomistic description of a transition from potentiality to actuality would concern only a conceptual matter and would have to be interpreted ontologically by means of the concepts of coercion and tendency。It is of course very easy， actually much too easy， to explain the just described subject with God， who then just does everything as a metaphysical "stopgap"。 Either way， the influxus physicus is a difficult matter。 Besides， if there should be a real difference between actuality and potentiality within a thing， then it is not enough if God only "holds" them very close to each other or next to each other。 He must unite them （elimination of their heterogeneity to each other）， by which， however， only the actuality can remain in the unification， otherwise there would be no world with true identity。 And with no identity there would be no entity。These thoughts of mine fit better to the Aristotelian principle that a cause can only give what it has itself。 God as pure actuality can give only actuality。But if we keep all these thoughts in mind when looking back at the Aristotelian proof， then this proof seems very questionable all at once。 I argue with potentiality， although in retrospect it does not really exist。 It would be an argumentative collapse。One more point would be worth mentioning。 Feser believes that everything is and must be explained by his simple God。 If one says that the universe as a whole just is and any question about a why of the universe is meaningless， then Feser would declare this as an unjustified statement。 But this is only because Feser has dogmatically made it a rule of thought that everything that seems complex must be explained by something simple or simpler。 But as already said， it is only a man-made thinking rule。 Besides， the universe can have aspects which also do justice to Feser's thinking rule as for example quantum stuff， singularity， space-time， strings， the vacuum or just the universe considered as a whole。 If one asks for a divine reason of the universe and is not biased in this respect， but absolutely neutral， then one knows that there is either such a reason or not。 If I hypothetically assume parallel to my question that there is a God， then the question is a meaningful one。 If I hypothetically assume that there is no God， then it is a meaningless question。 After having read the following quote， I came to the conclusion that the agnostic stance on the matter of God's existence might be the most reasonable:"There is no reason which is nobody's reason and which belongs， in Adam Smith's phrase， to an 'impartial spectator'。 In this respect， there are no impartial spectators， nor are the differences between believers and unbelievers due to mistakes of logic on one side。" （LUBOR VELECKY - Five proofs）I generally think that when theists and atheists discuss with each other， they should all have access to the following argumentation and appeal to "cards":Appeal to analogical predication （I may describe things metaphorically， in mere analogy， as a mere as-if， without it being in any sense literal or translatable into the literal）Appeal to mysteriousness （I may point out that certain things will forever remain mysterious and "undecipherable" to us because of our limited minds）Appeal to immunity of something to the Principle of Sufficient Reason （I may explicitly assume or presuppose brute facts or just is facts without any controversy otherwise I would implicitly just be question begging）It would be an unfair discussion if only one party had access to these "cards"。 And if both interlocutors had them， the initially neutral observer and listener would have to remain neutral， i。e。 agnostic， at the end of the conversation。 。。。more
Mohammed Alam
，
This book is written with easy language。
Lewis
，
This book is the best， simple explanation of the major philosophical arguments for the existence of God that I have ever read。 He lays out very clearly and even lists the steps of the arguments identified as Aristotelian， Neo-Platonic， Augustinian， Thomistic and Rationalist。Anything worth it requires hard work and discipline。 The arguments to understand why civilizations for millennia have espoused a God of the universe does require substantial effort。 This book is a wonderful way to begin such This book is the best， simple explanation of the major philosophical arguments for the existence of God that I have ever read。 He lays out very clearly and even lists the steps of the arguments identified as Aristotelian， Neo-Platonic， Augustinian， Thomistic and Rationalist。Anything worth it requires hard work and discipline。 The arguments to understand why civilizations for millennia have espoused a God of the universe does require substantial effort。 This book is a wonderful way to begin such an effort。Nonetheless， it is very difficult to read due to the nature of the subject。 And， the author constantly argues with points that he dismisses ironically as not worth his time。 That detracted greatly from the work。Bottom line: I am very glad I picked up this book。 It will affect my thought forever。 I learned I am not a philosopher; however， I am very glad there are such people。 。。。more
Samuel Parkison
，
Zipped through this to fill in a gap of my dissertation。 Very good。 Feser is part of a rare breed: a readable philosopher。 He’s a brilliant educator （and very witty）。 I’ve stumbled across a new favorite author， I think。
A D
，
Q。E。D。
Johannes Swanepoel
，
Insightful and extraordinary reading！ My mind is blown away！ One of the best books to read in life。
Aid
，
A very good overview of the arguments for the God of classical theism， it was clear and easy to read， although a bit repetitive at times。 I enjoyed the Aristotelian， Augustinian and Rationalist arguments the most， the Thomist and Neo-Platonic arguments just felt like variations of the Aristotelian one。The discussion of divine simplicity and how that fits with the divine attributes was interesting。 I'm still kind of confused as to how God's act of creation can be a cambridge property though。 The A very good overview of the arguments for the God of classical theism， it was clear and easy to read， although a bit repetitive at times。 I enjoyed the Aristotelian， Augustinian and Rationalist arguments the most， the Thomist and Neo-Platonic arguments just felt like variations of the Aristotelian one。The discussion of divine simplicity and how that fits with the divine attributes was interesting。 I'm still kind of confused as to how God's act of creation can be a cambridge property though。 The final chapter which addresses various dumb objections to natural theology should be a useful reference for twitter debates and stuff， but I mostly skimmed it since he goes over this stuff in his other books。 The book isn't supposed to be an exegesis of the works of the various philosophers from whom he takes the arguments， he alters them to make them as strong as he can。 I'd highly recommend the book， definitely one of Feser's best from what I've read。 。。。more
John Chrysostom
，
I was familiar with some of the arguments for the existence for God before reading， especially the argument from contingency， or what Fesser refers to as the Platonic proof that was used by Father Copeland to stunt Bertrand Russel in their 1948 BBC debate。The utility of this book is that the arguments are amalgamated in one place， and modern language and analogy's are drawn to promote maximum ease of understanding。 Fesser is great at this， this is far from a philosophical slugger that requires m I was familiar with some of the arguments for the existence for God before reading， especially the argument from contingency， or what Fesser refers to as the Platonic proof that was used by Father Copeland to stunt Bertrand Russel in their 1948 BBC debate。The utility of this book is that the arguments are amalgamated in one place， and modern language and analogy's are drawn to promote maximum ease of understanding。 Fesser is great at this， this is far from a philosophical slugger that requires many repetitions to grasp。 I strongly recommend this book for anyone trying to get a passable grasp on the Arguments for the Existence of God， or anyone who is taking their first step into the subject。 May God bless you all。 。。。more
Laurent Dv
，
A la fois une présentation， une vulgarisation et une défense précise de cinq preuves de l'existence de Dieu par Feser， un philosophe thomiste （lié à l'école de Thomas d'Aquin） à la fois compétent et pédagogue。 Après avoir prouvé l'existence de Dieu， Feser explique les différents attributs de Dieu tels que la majorité des chrétiens jusqu'à aujourd'hui l'ont toujours compris （le théisme classique） et montre qu'ils ne sont pas illogiques ni contradictoires （l'unité， la simplicité， l'immatérialité， A la fois une présentation， une vulgarisation et une défense précise de cinq preuves de l'existence de Dieu par Feser， un philosophe thomiste （lié à l'école de Thomas d'Aquin） à la fois compétent et pédagogue。 Après avoir prouvé l'existence de Dieu， Feser explique les différents attributs de Dieu tels que la majorité des chrétiens jusqu'à aujourd'hui l'ont toujours compris （le théisme classique） et montre qu'ils ne sont pas illogiques ni contradictoires （l'unité， la simplicité， l'immatérialité， l'éternité， l'immuabilité etc）。 Enfin il traite brillamment les objections courantes contre les monothéismes : le problème du mal， les miracles， Dieu se cache， Dieu et le paradoxe du roche， si Dieu contrôle tout il n'y a plus de libre-arbitre etc。 C'est un de mes livres préférés d'apologétique， j'aurais vraiment aimé l'avoir lu plus tôt。Ces preuves qu'il aborde sont les plus importantes dans l'histoire de la philosophie （hormis l'argument cosmologique du kalam） :1） L'argument aristotélicien （Aristote， très similaire à la première voie de Thomas d'Aquin） qui part du changement : les choses de l'univers changent， des choses causent leurs changements， on doit remonter à une cause ultime pour réussir à expliquer tous ces changements。2） L'argument néo-platonicien （Plotin， un néo-platoniste） : les choses composées ont besoin d'être harmonisées par quelque chose de simple （qui n'est pas composé de parties）3） L'argument augustinien （Augustin） : les idées abstraites （les lois mathématiques， les universaux， les propositions logiques， les nombres， les mondes possibles cf。 la philosophie analytique et la logique modale） pour pouvoir être objectives doivent exister dans un intellect qui existe de manière nécessaire。4） L'argument thomiste （Thomas d'Aquin） : la distinction entre essence et existence montre que les essences （ce que sont les choses abstraction faite de leur existence） ont besoin d'une cause dont l'essence est l'existence， qui existe nécessairement pour leur communiquer l'existence。5） L'argument rationaliste （Leibniz） : le principe de raison suffisante sous une formulation thomiste （"Tout ce qui existe a une raison qui explique son existence"） appliqué aux êtres contingents （qui peuvent exister ou ne pas exister） dit ce que ces êtres là ont besoin d'être expliqué ultimement par un être nécessaire （qui existe forcément）。Paradoxalement， elles sont soit les moins connues， les plus négligées ou les moins bien comprises aujourd'hui à notre époque contemporaine au détriment de d'autres arguments à la mode tels que le kalam， l'argument téléologique de Paley， l'argument du fine-tuning， l'argument moral， l'argument ontologique de Plantinga etc。。。 Mais elles sont très puissantes car elles ne reposent pas du tout sur les données de la science qui est sans cesse mise à jour。 Les conclusions qu'elles offrent sont certaines et rigoureuses。 Elles ont à la fois l'avantage d'être valides même si le monde est éternel （sans commencement） contrairement au kalam et de prouver quasiment tous les attributs de Dieu en même temps。 Cela inclut même le fait qu'il est constamment en train de soutenir le monde et non pas juste l'horloger de Voltaire qui une fois son horloge créée， la laisse fonctionner toute seule。Le gros chapitre sur les attributs de Dieu est semblable au développement que Thomas d'Aquin fait sur les attributs de Dieu Dieu après avoir prouvé son existence par ses cinq voies。 Mais en beaucoup plus accessible et synthétisé。 Ce chapitre permet à tout lecteur curieux de faire connaissance avec le Dieu de la Bible （dont certains attributs sont repris par les philosophes et les théologiens musulmans） et de trouver des réponses à des questions épineuses。 De même， le croyant pourra approfondir sa compréhension de Dieu， qui est si superficielle dans les Eglises de notre époque （cela est souvent dû à une ignorance de la tradition chrétienne et une crise identitaire des chrétiens du 21ème siècle）。 L'analyse philosophique （"qu'est ce que ça veut dire précisément" et pas juste une liste de versets） des attributs de Dieu est beaucoup plus poussée que celle qu'on trouve généralement dans les théologies systématiques les plus populaires d'aujourd'hui （MacArthur， Grudem par ex）， c'est donc une bonne manière d'approfondir ce sujet。 En lisant ce livre， le lecteur s'initiera au notions fondamentales de la philosophie scholastique （du Moyen-Âge） : le quatre causes， le principe de causalité， le principe de raison suffisante， le principe de causalité proportionnelle， le principe de l'analogie （d'attribution et de proportionnalité）， agere sequitur esse， les couples acte et puissance， matière et forme， essence et existence， simple et composé etcEnfin sur le plan de la rhétorique， le livre est intéressant car Feser prend le temps de répondre à la fois aux objections des athées assez mauvais （Dawkins， Hitchens， Harris， Dennett） mais aussi à celles de athées compétents （Graham Hoppy， Michael Martin， J。 L。 Mackie）。 J'étais aussi agréablement surpris par son honnêteté intellectuelle : il est bien conscient que des Protestants partagent aussi ces arguments， la philosophie de Thomas d'Aquin et cette vision de Dieu （le théisme classique）， il en cite et recommande même de les lire （James Dolezal， Greg Welty） ！ 。。。more
Ryan
，
I'm a guy who dabbles in philosophy。 I do not consider myself a philosophically erudite person， and this book was deeply challenging for me。 I really enjoyed Dr。 Feser's approach but it really was a challenge to keep up and really piece through what I was reading。 In the end though， It was absolutely fascinating。 I'm a guy who dabbles in philosophy。 I do not consider myself a philosophically erudite person， and this book was deeply challenging for me。 I really enjoyed Dr。 Feser's approach but it really was a challenge to keep up and really piece through what I was reading。 In the end though， It was absolutely fascinating。 。。。more
Mike
，
Professor of philosophy Edward Feser provides a detailed and systematic summary of five major theological arguments for the existence of God。 Despite being a Thomist， Feser does not simply present Aquinas' Five Ways here。 Instead， he focuses on historical proofs which tend to be a little less well known， specifically: The Aristotelian Proof （there is change in the world; change constitutes the actualisation of potential; no potential can be actualised unless there is something 'purely actual' wh Professor of philosophy Edward Feser provides a detailed and systematic summary of five major theological arguments for the existence of God。 Despite being a Thomist， Feser does not simply present Aquinas' Five Ways here。 Instead， he focuses on historical proofs which tend to be a little less well known， specifically: The Aristotelian Proof （there is change in the world; change constitutes the actualisation of potential; no potential can be actualised unless there is something 'purely actual' which can actualise without itself being actualised）; The Neo-Platonic Proof （the things of our existence are composite; the ultimate cause of such things must be something which is absolutely simple or non-composite， termed 'the one'）;The Augustinian Proof （abstract objects are in some sense real; the only possible ultimate ground of these objects is a divine intellect - the mind of God）;The Thomistic Proof （the contingent things of our existence have a distinct essence and existence; nothing in which there is distinction could exist for an instant unless caused by something in which there is no such distinction， an uncaused cause of all things whose essence is its existence）; and the Rationalist Proof （everything is intelligible or has an explanation for why it exists; there cannot be an explanation of the existence of any of the continent things of our experience unless there is a necessary being， the existence of which is explained by its own nature）。 After explicating each proof， Feser pre-empts the rebuttals that a sceptic is likely to offer， and offers detailed responses to each。 Satisfied with having sufficiently proved the existence of God not just once but in five different ways， he then finishes the book by taking the arguments one step further and providing an argument for the existence of the Christian God in particular。 Specifically， he provides arguments for the existence of the divine attributes of simplicity， immutability， immateriality， incorporeality， eternity， necessity， omnipotence， omniscience， perfect goodness， will， love， and incomprehensibility。 Though written for a lay audience， this book is unapologetically rigorous and precise， which can make it challenging。 As a reader with an interest but no real education in philosophy and theology， some of the arguments were confusing and difficult to follow。 Possibly Feser could have done a better job with guiding readers like me through some of the more challenging terminology （although he does attempt to explain things as clearly as possible and use examples to help bring abstract ideas to life）， but on the other hand I understand that the major objective of the book is to provide a thorough and irrefutable account of these proofs。 Overall， that objective appears to be achieved， and a very compelling case for the existence of God is made。 7/10 。。。more
Talha Gülmez
，
While I admire Feser I sometimes feel like he overstates his arguments and understates their criticisms。 Other than that， good work。
BoB Lever
，
Not having read a lot of philosophical works， I was still about to get through this book。 It’s written in a way that’s approachable but not ‘dumbed down’。 The book taught me a few new things and cleared up some misunderstandings that I had as well。 It also left me with things to ponder and question。
Mark Birmingham
，
Accessible， yet challenging。 A great primer for his other more in depth books！
Kate Hawkins
，
There is any number of ways in which people prove the existence of God to themselves， some do it by looking at nature， some do it through an experience they had at one point in their life， and some simply believe that God exists because it makes sense to them。 What those personal affirmations do not always do， however， is convince others that some divine being exists and is largely responsible for everything they see and experience。 Personal testimony can be a very powerful motivator for belief There is any number of ways in which people prove the existence of God to themselves， some do it by looking at nature， some do it through an experience they had at one point in their life， and some simply believe that God exists because it makes sense to them。 What those personal affirmations do not always do， however， is convince others that some divine being exists and is largely responsible for everything they see and experience。 Personal testimony can be a very powerful motivator for belief but it rarely convinces vast swathes of people， so what exists that possibly can？ This is the essential question behind Five Proofs and I think that Professor Feser did an excellent job in answering that question。tWhat I want to be sure to say at the start is that this book doesn’t have a theological bend towards one system of belief or the other， from what I understand Professor Feser is a Catholic but his book doesn’t present a case for Catholicism。 All the book does is explain historical proofs for the existence of God from philosophers and thinkers in history。 Two of those thinkers， Augustine and Thomas Aquinas， were religious men but their proofs for God do not rely on the Bible or Christian theology in order to prove their point。 This fact， that the book represents viewpoints detached from a certain system of belief， make it an incredibly important volume for a time in which almost no-one who preaches an existence of God does so from a position outside of a religious order。tArguments in the realm of theology are no longer about God existing or not but are effectively Atheist vs Christian or Atheist vs Muslim or some other iteration of a religious system。 This doesn’t help the discussion at hand because anyone representing the side that believes in God has two arguments to make whereas the Atheist only has one。 You have to both prove God’s existence as well as the truth of the faith you represent in the debate when a healthy debate between the two modes of thought should revolve solely around whether a divine being does exist。 Five Proofs represents the best possible volume of information for the religious man or woman to define natural ways in which to explain God’s existence as a definitive fact。 tFor the same reason， the book removes a particular religious order from its text， I’ll do the same with my review。 Each of the proofs offers a good explanation for God from a naturalistic standpoint， and they’re written in a way that makes the book accessible to a very wide audience。 First， Professor Feser breaks the explanation of each proofs into a non-formal explanation， then he goes to a formal explanation in list format， then he refutes common objections to the historical proofs。 This is a really intelligent way to lay out the information so that not only is there repetition for the reader but a very thorough explanation of how the proof works。 tNow， I will say that it is not always in as plain of language as possible， Professor Feser comes from the world of academia so there is plenty of academic language used， but I firmly believe that anyone can understand this book if they take their time with it。 Additionally， he uses a lot of analogy to illustrate his points， which can go a long way for some readers to understand the text and the argumentation of each of the proofs used in the book。 Overall， the writing here is completely understandable and one of the most accessible academic works of philosophy that I’ve ever read。 tAfter the explanation of all five proofs， there are two extra sections。 In the first， Professor Feser extrapolates out the attributes of God based upon the proofs he’s explained， and it’s in this section that some definition is given for who God could be。 The historical arguments used here would point to a monotheistic western understanding of the deity as opposed to a more eastern understanding， but he makes no judgment on what religion that God would belong to， which keeps the impartial nature of the book securely intact。 Then， in the last section of the book， he offers up more refutations to common objections to theism based upon natural theology， and all of his refutations are just as impeccably written and cited as the ones present in the first five chapters of the book。tWe live in a world where there is less and less focus placed upon religion than ever before， more and more people are defining themselves as Agnostic or Atheist and while I respect anyone’s decision to identify themselves as such， I believe that there is enough logical argumentation to the opposite viewpoint the make Atheism and Agnosticism untenable。 I believe that much of the problem in our modern time is that the existence of God has been traditionally defined within the confines of the church， which not only brings up the issue of double proving an argument， as I explained above， but also connects the existence of God with any atrocities or crimes committed by the religious institution that the positive side of a debate represents。 tIn this way， Five Proofs represents a landmark work in getting back to the early argumentations of the enlightenment in which first and foremost the question was whether God exists。 Whether you’re Atheist， Agnostic， or religious I highly recommend this book because it will either challenge the viewpoints you currently hold or it will give you more tools in your belt to help debate a negative viewpoint on whether God exists。 Once there is an agreed-upon answer that God does exist， the two sides， now having common ground， can shift to which religion has the correct concept of God and the correct way to both worship and find oneself in the camp of the saved。 There should be more literature like this， and it needs to be eminently approachable if we have any hope of changing the predominant viewpoint on God in the 21st Century。 Five Proofs represents an excellent first step towards that goal， and now it’s in the hands of people to read it to continue pressing on。 。。。more
mm
，
I started this but soon realized I'm lacking a philosophical model to understand what its saying。Oh well - back to Marcus Aurelius' rational that a just god won't be a petty attention whore。 I started this but soon realized I'm lacking a philosophical model to understand what its saying。Oh well - back to Marcus Aurelius' rational that a just god won't be a petty attention whore。 。。。more
Andrew
，
The first and second chapters especially gave me two potent arguements for the existence of God。 The third chapter was immeasurably influential on my metaphysics。 A very useful book for curious Christians， philosophers， and apologists。
Ryan Ballard
，
Great defense of the traditional arguments for the existence of God and the classical attributes such as unity， simplicity， omnipotence。。。etc。 the whole book is amazing， but the last chapter in which he deals with common objections against natural theology is incredible。 I pictured Feser in a boxing match， taking out his opponents blow by blow。
Ben
，
"It has now been argued that any such cause must be one， immutable， eternal， immaterial， incorporeal， perfect， omnipotent， fully good， intelligent， and omniscient。 That is to say， it must have the key divine attributes。 In short， the things of our experience can exist at any moment only if sustained in existence by God。"The author lays out logical philosophical arguments for the existence of what one would conceivably call God。 As a longtime agnostic who "wants to believe but just doesn't know"， "It has now been argued that any such cause must be one， immutable， eternal， immaterial， incorporeal， perfect， omnipotent， fully good， intelligent， and omniscient。 That is to say， it must have the key divine attributes。 In short， the things of our experience can exist at any moment only if sustained in existence by God。"The author lays out logical philosophical arguments for the existence of what one would conceivably call God。 As a longtime agnostic who "wants to believe but just doesn't know"， I am not nearly smart enough to refute the 5 proofs explained in this book。 Feser even addresses a litany of common arguments， cutting me off at the pass。 I would recommend this book to anyone， but especially agnostics and atheists。 It's far from zealotry or proselytizing， don't worry。 But it will broaden and question your core understandings of a higher power and maybe even reality itself。 。。。more
Malory
，
A tough read。 Very intellectual。 Helped me develop a more in-depth knowledge of what God is and how we know of his existence。
Kevin Jackson
，
I picked this up after seeing Ed Feser on Ben Shapiro's Sunday Special。 For those familiar with William Lane Craig's five arguments， this is a logical next step。 The arguments are dense and in some cases a little harder to grasp; but each argument is offered in a formal and informal version。 One is more casual as if being discussed with a friend in a coffee shop， the other is more academic like something you'd expect in an advanced philosophy class。Feser's five contain some similarities to Craig I picked this up after seeing Ed Feser on Ben Shapiro's Sunday Special。 For those familiar with William Lane Craig's five arguments， this is a logical next step。 The arguments are dense and in some cases a little harder to grasp; but each argument is offered in a formal and informal version。 One is more casual as if being discussed with a friend in a coffee shop， the other is more academic like something you'd expect in an advanced philosophy class。Feser's five contain some similarities to Craig's， but they are far more powerful in the sense that they rest entirely on metaphysical principles。 It's difficult to refute them with without introducing a double standard， contradiction， or some kind of fallacy。The last chapter of the book contains refutations to popular atheist arguments。 To echo the endorsement on the back jacket， this chapter alone is "worth the price of the book。" 。。。more
Brian
，
Like Feser， I'm a Christian theist， so I agree with many of his ultimate conclusions。 Feser is a respected philosopher， and he has some decent endorsements。 I wanted to like this book。 But it was a massive hair-pulling struggle for me to get through it。 Perhaps I don't get scholastic metaphysics because Feser is a respected representative of the philosophy， and seems skilled in the art。 Being as charitable as I can， I'd rate The Five Proofs of the Existence of God - 3。5 stars。Half of the book is Like Feser， I'm a Christian theist， so I agree with many of his ultimate conclusions。 Feser is a respected philosopher， and he has some decent endorsements。 I wanted to like this book。 But it was a massive hair-pulling struggle for me to get through it。 Perhaps I don't get scholastic metaphysics because Feser is a respected representative of the philosophy， and seems skilled in the art。 Being as charitable as I can， I'd rate The Five Proofs of the Existence of God - 3。5 stars。Half of the book is spent getting the reader to accept an Arche - the foundation on which the existence of all things rests。 Near the end of each argument， there is a brief attempt to link the Arche with God's attributes， with promises of more detail to follow in the second half of the book。 But getting to an Arche is trivial。 No Arche implies metaphysical nothingness。 With a little thought， it is axiomatic。 Van Inwagen， in his _Metaphysics_ assumes it outright and takes the reader immediately to the real question: Is the Arche a Logos or is it a Chaos？ Is the purely-actual actualizer mind or non-mind; the First-cause God or the multiverse？ Is the universe the Arche's work ex nihilo， or a mindless byproduct ex materia？ I found myself saying: "Alright already， it's obvious there is an Arche， but let's look at why the Arche is God！"To be sure the arguments are in part verbose to prepare the reader for a case for divine attributes。 But the second-half question， the sixty-four-thousand-dollar question， （Is the Arche a Logos？） was never answered well。 Part of the problem linking the five arguments to divine-attributes is Feser's analogical approach under the dubious dependency on divine simplicity。 If God's power， goodness， wrath， omniscience， and love are all the same thing under the hood， then the words mean practically nothing （at least to me。） If we view them as univocal concepts， then we are off the simplicity-reservation because now God is composite？That leads to my second source of continual mental anguish during this read: I can't make heads or tails out of the concepts used in scholastic metaphysics。 What in the world does it mean for the essence of a thing to be equivalent to its existence？ I thought about this off an on for three days and finally gave up。 What does it mean for an immaterial being to be composite or noncomposite？ How do we even conceive of a composite immaterial entity？ And as for Christianity， whatever the Trinity is， if it's not composite in some way， then I am sure I don't get what Feser is saying。Is the immaterial， transcendent， timeless Father， no different than the material， in-time Son who returns and reigns from the New Jerusalem？ Under divine simplicity and the ambiguity of analogical attributes， somehow the Father， Son， and Holy Spirit do not make up a composite （whatever composite means。） I can't get my head around that。 Thankfully my sanity was restored in about two minutes reading two pages from Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview （Craig， Moreland） which in no uncertain terms releases the reader from having to buy into divine simplicity。 Don't even get me started on divine timelessness - another dependency for scholastic metaphysics。 。。。more
Dan Borza
，
Great book， although the arguments didn't 100% convince me after the first reading。 I'll have to go through them one more time。 Feser describes them with great clarity and provides ample discussion for various objections to them。The last section "Common Objections to Natural Theology" offers a very good list of objections to Natural Theology and answers to them。 My main wish is that I'd like to see authors like ET engage with Eastern Orthodoxy and their essence/energies distinction which if my u Great book， although the arguments didn't 100% convince me after the first reading。 I'll have to go through them one more time。 Feser describes them with great clarity and provides ample discussion for various objections to them。The last section "Common Objections to Natural Theology" offers a very good list of objections to Natural Theology and answers to them。 My main wish is that I'd like to see authors like ET engage with Eastern Orthodoxy and their essence/energies distinction which if my understanding is correct goes against Aristotelian/Thomistic conceptions of divine simplicity。 。。。more
Daniel
，
This is pretty good。 Feser tends to be too quick and dismissive in places， but he has the rare ability to translate complicated metaphysical arguments into a very readable （and enjoyable） prose。
Ben Holloway
，
Feser is probably one of the most able Thomists alive。 This is so， in part， because he can write so well。 Feser provides an informal treatment of each argument informally followed by a more formal presentation and then replies to common objections。 By the end of each argument， I was thoroughly versed in the argument。 At the end of the book， Feser gives a sterling defense of natural theology。 An excellent book， well written， and worth your time。
Renee Kahl
，
Apparently you have to mark a book "read" to get it off "currently reading"， but I have added this to my get back to later shelf after reading about a third of it。 My gut feeling is that it is only the possibility of the existence of God that can be irrefutably proved， not His actual existence。 But it is worthwhile to understand the classical reasoning。 This book does a good job of fulfilling its aim to lay out these proofs systematically and precisely in terms the layman can understand。 I will Apparently you have to mark a book "read" to get it off "currently reading"， but I have added this to my get back to later shelf after reading about a third of it。 My gut feeling is that it is only the possibility of the existence of God that can be irrefutably proved， not His actual existence。 But it is worthwhile to understand the classical reasoning。 This book does a good job of fulfilling its aim to lay out these proofs systematically and precisely in terms the layman can understand。 I will definitely use it for reference。 。。。more
John
，
If you are semi-acquainted with God-proofs like me， meaning you have encountered them and read about them and even understood them， their force and some of their weaknesses， then this book is a great way to establish and understand their strengths and grasp them even further。 This is not a book about the 5 proofs of Aquinas， but rather an inspired take on five different kinds of proofs including one of Aquinas。 This is a great read because it gives you a breadth and a qualified discussion on the If you are semi-acquainted with God-proofs like me， meaning you have encountered them and read about them and even understood them， their force and some of their weaknesses， then this book is a great way to establish and understand their strengths and grasp them even further。 This is not a book about the 5 proofs of Aquinas， but rather an inspired take on five different kinds of proofs including one of Aquinas。 This is a great read because it gives you a breadth and a qualified discussion on the proofs， you get a very good introduction to them that becomes quite complex and then the objections to the proofs。 These proofs hints， or points at， the qualities of God - and these are then discussed further in the sixth chapter， and then a seventh and last chapter is then added to discuss more objections but more primarily the modern new atheist strawman arguments。The book does have a fair share of repetition， as many of the arguments have some of the same elements（like infinite regress） and encounter the same kinds of objections（who caused the cause？） - but in a way， they are alluded to and ignored（rather than repeating them in detail）， but expanded on if necessary。 There is a weakness in that the "formal" argument made has so many points that the chain of reasoning is doomed to be found weak in some of the parts - at least if one takes them in themselves without the previous discussion in mind。I will definitely come back to this book to both reiterate the arguments， but also to check the proof if some arguments against them are made。 That being said， it is a very good and in-depth book that is well written， but it is also written in a style that is accessible to more than people within academics。 Feser could， as I know him， have been much more thorough and detailed even though the disposition feels just good enough。 。。。more
Paige Skipper
，
Dense but clear explanation of basic proofs of God。 It strikes me as a much less aggressive look than his previous novel 'The Last Superstition。' Dense but clear explanation of basic proofs of God。 It strikes me as a much less aggressive look than his previous novel 'The Last Superstition。' 。。。more
Jacob O'connor
，
5 Proofs is provocative and exotic。 I feel like the shepherd who stumbled on the Dead Sea Scrolls。 Working through these arguments feels like gnostic rediscovery。 Fun， challenging， and even bizarre。 They're less 5 different arguments than a family of similar ones。 I'll need to play around with them， field test them， to crystallize my understanding。 Notes:1） "four kinds of change: qualitative change （the coffee cools down）; change with respect to location （the leaf falls from the tree）; qua 5 Proofs is provocative and exotic。 I feel like the shepherd who stumbled on the Dead Sea Scrolls。 Working through these arguments feels like gnostic rediscovery。 Fun， challenging， and even bizarre。 They're less 5 different arguments than a family of similar ones。 I'll need to play around with them， field test them， to crystallize my understanding。 Notes:1） "four kinds of change: qualitative change （the coffee cools down）; change with respect to location （the leaf falls from the tree）; quantitative change （the puddle increases in size）; and substantial change （a living thing gives way to dead matter）。"2） Change is the actualization of a potential （16）3） "When we say that a hierarchical series of causes has to have a first member， then， we don’t mean “first” in the sense of being the one that comes before the second， third， fourth， fifth， and so on。 We mean it is the first cause in the sense that it has inherent or built-in causal power while the others have only derived causal power。 It is their having only derivative causal power that makes the other members secondary rather than first or primary。" （21）4） "Something is perfect to the extent that it has actualized its potentials without privations。" （25）5） Actualizer argument summarized （30）6） "in that case we are back to a vicious regress and haven’t reached a first actualizer after all" （53）7） "matter all by itself and apart from any form is， for the Aristotelian， nothing but the potential to be something。 It is only actually some thing if it has the form of some particular kind of thing。 So， though form and matter are different， there is a sense in which form depends on matter and matter depends on form。 We would thus have an explanatory vicious circle if there were not something outside them which accounted for their combination。" （59）8） "In the previous chapter， we started with the distinction between actuality and potentiality， and concluded that there must be something that is purely actual。 In the present chapter， we started from the idea of things that are composed of parts， and concluded that there must be something which is simple or noncomposite。 But it turns out that these are just different ways of thinking about one and the same thing。" （62）9） The neoplatonic argument summarized （64）10） "substance—something existing in its own right （rather than being a mere image or reflection or otherwise parasitic on something else）， and having an intrinsic source of its properties and characteristic activities （as opposed to deriving them entirely from some extrinsic source）" （79）11） The augustinian prior summarized （86）12） "The thesis that this is the case is known as the principle of sufficient reason， or PSR for short。 This principle is most famously associated with the early modern rationalist philosopher G。 W。 Leibniz， but has been formulated in many ways by writers of diverse philosophical commitments。 Two characteristic Thomistic formulations would be “everything which is， has a sufficient reason for existing” and “everything is intelligible。”1 A third is that “there is a sufficient reason or adequate necessary objective explanation for the being of whatever is and for all attributes of any being。” （115）13） "Why should we believe PSR？ One important argument for it is a variation on the empirical argument for the principle of causality we considered in chapter 1。 Considered as an inductive generalization， PSR is as well supported as any other。 For one thing （and as noted already） we do in fact tend to find explanations when we look for them， and even when we don’t， we tend to have reason to think there is an explanation but just one to which， for whatever reason （e。g。， missing evidence）， we don’t have access。 For another thing， the world simply doesn’t behave the way we would expect it to if PSR were false。3 Events without any evident explanation would surely be occurring constantly， and the world would simply not have the intelligibility that makes science and everyday common sense as successful as they are。 That the world is as orderly and intelligible as it is would be a miracle if PSR were not true。" （115）14） "the universe undergoes change， which entails that it has potentials which are actualized and thus is not purely actual; and it has diverse parts， which entails that it is not simple or noncomposite。 Hence， it cannot be a necessary being" （130）15） Evil being the privation of good argument （173）16） Feser discussing divine concurrence。 Could give a working account for compatiblism （184）17） Man is a "real" secondary cause。 Inert without divine assistance。 （184）18） Blatantly comparing man's free will to the brick from my analogy above。 Feser is using chalk。 He says the chalk has a real effect on the causal chain。 for instance， while the chalk does nothing without the first mover， the effect would be much different between a piece of red chalk as opposed to blue （185） 。。。more
William F
，