Twitter icon

Facebook icon

About us
Our beliefs
Is this your first visit?
Contact us
External links

Recommended books

Visitors' essays
Our forum
New essays
Other features
Buy a CD of this site
Vital notes

World religions
Christian def'n
Climate Change
 Shared beliefs
 Handling change
 Bible topics
 Bible inerrancy
 Bible harmony
 Interpret the Bible
 Beliefs & creeds
 Da Vinci code
 Revelation 666
Other religions
Cults and NRMs
Comparing Religions

Non-theistic beliefs

About all religions
Main topics
Basic information
Gods & Goddesses
Handling change
Doubt & security
Confusing terms
End of the World?
True religion?
Seasonal events
Science vs. Religion
More information

Morality & ethics
Absolute truth

Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious freedom
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
Ten Commandments
Abortion access
Assisted suicide
Death penalty

Same-sex marriage

Human rights
Gays in the military
Sex & gender
Stem cells
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news




horizontal rule
Second in a series of essays on the
existence/non-existence of God
donated by Contributing Editor
Susan Humphreys.

An alternative view of Edward Fester's
Neo-Platonic Case for God in his book:
"Five Proofs of the Existence of God."

horizontal rule

The second argument in Feser’s book "Five Proofs of the Existence of God" 1 is the Neo-Platonic proof. It is also called the argument of the First Cause.

This argument also ignores the reality of the world: the problem of Theodicy that I mentioned about his earlier Aristotelian argument. The characteristics that Theists ascribe to God create the problem of Theodicy.

There are also problems with assumptions and logic. But here I will focus on another problem: what is meant by "simple and noncomposite."

Wikipedia, in an article titled "Five Ways (Acquinas)," 2 lays out the argument in a simpler, easier to grasp manner than Feser does in his book. The Wikipedia article states:

"In the world we can see that things are caused. But it is not possible for something to be the cause of itself, because this would entail that it exists prior to itself, which is a contradiction. If that by which it is caused is itself caused, then it too must have a cause. But this cannot be an infinitely long chain, so therefore there must be a cause which is not itself caused by anything further. This everyone understands to be God."

The main problem encountered with this argument is that the conclusion doesn’t lead to a conception of God with the characteristics that Theists want God to possess. Such characteristics were defined by Feser in his earlier argument: God is perfect, fully good, all powerful and all power derives from it, omnipotent, has intellect or intelligence, is omniscient.

In line 8 of his diagram of the argument he states:

"Only something absolutely simple or noncomposite could be the first member of such a series." The first cause.

That "something simple or noncomposite" could be the subatomic particles identified by Physicists that have neither will, intent, intellect, omniscience, or omnipotence. Their only power is the ability to join with other particles to form all those atomic elements of the Table of Elements we learned about in High School Science class that form all matter.

In lines 9-12 Feser argues there can be only One simple and noncomposite cause and concludes: " So, no absolutely simple or noncomposite cause can have such differentiating feature."

In the rest of the argument he goes on to describe the differentiating features of his first cause, God.

  • Line 35: "A purely actual cause must be perfect, omnipotent, fully good and omniscient."

  • Line 36: "So, there exists a cause which is simple or noncomposite, unique, immutable, eternal, immaterial, a mind or intellect, the uncaused ultimate cause of everything other than itself, purely actual, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, and omniscient."

In the larger discussion of the argument (p. 77) he does try to claim that these aren’t differentiating features, they are different attributes of the One!

He attempts to address the question/objection:

"For aren’t omnipotence, intellect and the like different attributes, and thus different parts of the One?"

He goes on to say:

"The intellect, omnipotence, eternity, immateriality, and so forth of the One are really all one and the same thing, just conceived of or described in different ways."  

Now omniscience and omnipotence are not one and the same thing. One thing may hold both of those attributes, but the terms refer to different abilities, not to identical abilities!

And it is clear that he is indeed trying to use these "attributes" to differentiate between his God with these features and the subatomic particles of the Physicists that lack these features!

The argument hinges on what is meant by "simple and noncomposite"! It seems to me that something "simple and noncomposite" would have either one feature/attribute or no features/attributes.

I think that early Islamic scholars/theologians realized this dilemma and came up with the idea that Allah has only one attribute: pure Will! Though, there is nothing simple about that attribute!

The "no features/attributes understanding" of the words "simple" and "noncomposite" point to those subatomic particles that the Physicists have identified, not to the God Feser is trying to prove exists.

References used:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

  1. book cover Edward Feser, "Five Proofs of the Existence of God," Ignatius Press (2017). Read reviews or order this book safely from online book store Available in the U.S.: in Kindle format for $11.78, and in Paperback for $14.22.
  2. "Five Ways (Aquinas)," Wikipedia, as on 2018-APR-18, at:

Site navigation:

Home page > Christianity > Christian personalities > God > here

or Home page > Religious information > God > here

or Home page > Spirituality > God > here

or Home page > God > here

Home page > Visitors' essays > here

Home pageWebsite features > Visitors' essays > here

 Home > Ethical groups etc > Agnostic >here

Home > Ethical groups etc > Non-theistic groups > Agnostic > here

 Home > Ethical groups etc > Atheist > here

Home > Ethical groups etc > Non-theistic groups >Atheist > here

horizontal rule


Originally posted: 2018-MAY-08
Author: Contributing Editor Susan Humphreys

line.gif (538 bytes)
Sponsored link

Go to the previous page, or go to the "God" menu, or go to the "visitors' essays" menu, or to the Agnostic menu, or to the Atheist menu, or choose:

Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Hot, controversial topics

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?

Twitter link

Facebook icon

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.

Sponsored links