Revisiting Aquinas’ Proofs for the Existence of God

Robert Arp, PhD (2004), Saint Louis University, is a research analyst working for the US Army. His work in philosophy of religion has appeared in Religious Studies, History of Philosophy Quarterly, International Philosophical Quarterly, Journal of Philosophical Research, and American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly. See robertarp.com.

CONTENTS

EDITORIAL FOREWORD
KENNETH A. BRYSON

INTRODUCTION
ROBERT ARP

THE FIRST PROOF

One: A Motion to Reconsider: A Defense of Aquinas'
Prime Mover Argument for the Existence of God
HEATHER THORNTON MCRAE AND JAMES MCRAE

Two: The Prime Mover Removed: A Contemporary
Critique of Aquinas' Prime Mover Argument
RICHARD GEENEN AND ROGER HUNT

Three: A Response to Geenen and Hunt
HEATHER THORNTON MCRAE AND JAMES MCRAE

Four: A Response to McRae and McRae
RICHARD GEENEN AND ROGER HUNT

THE SECOND PROOF

Five: The Relevance of Aquinas' Uncaused Cause Argument
GAVEN KERR, OP

Six: The Irrelevance of Aquinas' Uncaused Cause Argument
HERB ROSEMAN

Seven: A Response to Roseman
GAVEN KERR, OP

Eight: A Response to Kerr
HERBERT ROSEMAN

THE THIRD PROOF

Nine: From Contingency to Necessary Being
ADAM BARKMAN

Ten: Problems with Aquinas' Third Way
EDWARD MOAD

Eleven: A Response to Moad
ADAM BARKMAN

Twelve: A Response to Barkman
EDWARD MOAD

THE FOURTH PROOF

Thirteen: A Fourth Way to Prove God's Existence
DAVID BECK

Fourteen: Not So Superlative: The Fourth Way as
Comparatively Problematic
BENJAMIN W. MCCRAW

Fifteen: A Response to McCraw
EDWARD N. MARTIN

Sixteen: A Response to Beck
BENJAMIN W. MCCRAW

THE FIFTH PROOF

Seventeen: Aquinas' Fifth Way and the Possibility of Science
MICHAEL HAYES

Eighteen: Science and Nature without God
KEVIN S. DECKER

Nineteen: A Response to Decker
MICHAEL HAYES

Twenty: A Response to Hayes
KEVIN S. DECKER

WORKS CITED

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

INDEX