Get help from the best in academic writing.

The results of research studies advance theories or models, writing homework help

The results of research studies advance theories or models, writing homework help.

Using 200 words or more respond with in-text citations APA format to the post. The results of research studies advance theories or models by identifying the theory or model that will be used in the study and to explain how the problem under investigation relates to the theories or models (Maul, 2016). The theories in my dissertation are advanced through the synthesis of literature justifying the theoretical foundation connecting the study and theory together. The advancement of the researched theories defines the structure of the study such as the appropriate method to collect data, and answer the research questions for full understanding of the topic in the discussion of the study. My theories: Full Range of Leadership Model, will provide in-depth knowledge and understanding of transformation and transaction leadership in administrators with corresponding behaviors of influences. The second theory is Interpersonal theory that will be researched to specifically address the comprehensive nature of the underlying leader behaviors and activities (Lamm, Carter, & Lamm, 2016).The results of my dissertation study are expected to advance knowledge of the Full Range of Leadership Model and the Interpersonal theory with a new perspective and understanding of the theories on administrative behaviors. The reader will gain an insight into the mannerisms, thoughts and mindsets, personalities, attitudes, and behaviors of school administrators to understand why situations and decisions are made and handled certain way.References:Lamm, K. W., Carter, H. S., & Lamm, A. J. (2016). A Theory Based Model of Interpersonal Leadership: An Integration of the Literature. Journal of Leadership Education, 15(4), 183-205. Retrieved fromhttp://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail? Vid=26&sid=3700dbe2-afb5-4cca-b5a26cfl5583%40sessionmgr4010&hid=4105&bdata=JnNpd GU9ZW RzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=ehh&AN=119233599Maul, J. (2016). GCU Doctoral Research: Analyzing Research. Retrieved from http://lc.gcumedia.com/res861/gcu-doctoral-research-analyzing-research/v1.1/#/chapter/6
The results of research studies advance theories or models, writing homework help

Michelangelo Buonarroti: A Pioneer of the Renaissance

Michelangelo Buonarroti: A Pioneer of the Renaissance. Outline THESIS: The Italian artist Michelangelo Buonarroti was skilled in the use of various media including painting, sculpting, and architecture. He had an incredible influence on artist throughout the world and is still a major influence on the artist of today. His own personal style ushered in the next major movement in western art through his use of mannerism. Michelangelo Buonarroti was a true pioneer of the renaissance and his artwork is still relevant today. Michelangelo as a painter, painting the Sistine chapel, and his views on painting as an art form. Even though he is well known for his painting of the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel Michelangelo never considered himself as being a skilled painter. Michelangelo felt as though painting should not even be considered a true art form and reluctantly took on the commission of the Sistine Chapel. Michelangelo’s detailed use of human anatomy was involved in creating his famous sculptures that he is world renowned for such as his Moses sculpture. The Moses sculpture is a true masterpiece displaying Michelangelo’s true love of sculpting that took over forty years in order to complete his masterpiece. The Moses sculpture displayed the depth of his knowledge of human anatomy that he possessed and use of tension which is a hallmark of his artwork. Michelangelo’s use of mannerisms in his architecture in comparison to earlier works of High Renaissance architecture. The Laurentian library architecture that was designed by Michelangelo displays his use of mannerism throughout the library. The architectural work done on the Laurentian library compared to that done by Michelangelo on the Palazzo Farnese displays how his architectural artwork evolved over time. Michelangelo Buonarroti A Pioneer of the Renaissance The Italian artist Michelangelo Buonarroti is most renowned for his work on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. He had an incredible influence on artist throughout the world and is still a major influence on the artist of today. He was skilled in the use of various media including painting, sculpting, and architecture. He believed that the image the artist’s hand produces must come from the artist mind which is then the reality that the artist’s genius must bring forth (Gardner and Kleiner 633). Michelangelo’s considered sculpture work to be above all other forms of art and he displays his refined talent as a sculptor with his Moses sculpture that is a true marvel. He shows us his skill in the use of mannerism depicted in his architectural work on the Laurentian library. His own personal style ushered in the next major movement in western art through his use of mannerism. Michelangelo Buonarroti was a true pioneer of the renaissance and his artwork is still relevant today. Michelangelo as a Painter As a youth, Michelangelo studied under the painter Domenica Ghirlandaio however he never fully completed his training (Gardner and Kleiner 634). He practiced drawing works of art created by the great Florentines Giotto and Masaccio (Gardner and Kleiner 634). However, the critical opinion of him as a painter during the sixteenth century was that even though he was a great artistic thinker he never had the chance to learn how to paint in a skillfully harmonious way nor did he ever show interest in ever learning such skills (Manca 118). Michelangelo did not consider painting as his profession. He repeatedly had said that it was not his forte that he never actually liked painting, and that it was an inferior form of art (Manca 118). He never wanted the commission that was granted to him by Pope Julius II to paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling and reluctantly took it on (Gardner and Kleiner 622). The fact that Michelangelo was no painter was argued by friend as well as by foe, by writers of the sixteenth century, and by Michelangelo himself in his own private correspondence (Manca 119). By knowing that the cinquecento writers of the sixteenth century thought of Michelangelo as an untrained clumsy painter who lacked knowledge and skill does that give us even more reason to marvel at what he did manage to accomplish? That despite all these handicaps that he was able to still stun the art world with the use of his brush as he painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (Manca 119). His techniques are considered as bolder and freer as his works progressed throughout on the Sistine Chapel (Manca 119). Critics of today are more inclined to consider his clever coloring which was used to symbolize and display spiritual energy (Manca 119). However, his work as compared to other artist of his time as well as by the critics of his time his colorito was considered conservative and his pictorial skills were rudimentary (Manca 119). Were his paintings ahead of their time in that even though they were not admired among the peers of his time that they were meant to be admired by esteemed artist to come. There is much debate by scholars as to the intention of whether his frescoes in the Sistine Chapel true genius or lack luster work performed by someone lacking in the refined knowledge of painting. One thing is clear is that Michelangelo painted with a sculptor’s eye for detail as he painted heroic figures that resembled painted statues (Gardner and Kleiner 622). He highlighted the human anatomy in the figures that he painted in the Sistine Chapel by leaving them simply nude many with little to no background and no ornamental embellishment to take the eye away from the elemental aspect of the human form itself which he found to be of simplistic beauty (Gardner and Kleiner 623). He made use of light and shadow in order to reveal volume as well as surface in his paintings (Gardner and Kleiner 623). Sculpting Michelangelo’s true passion Michelangelo believed sculpture superior to painting in that the sculptor can share in the divine power to “make men” (Gardner and Kleiner 623). As a child he grew up around stone as his wet nurse was the wife of a stone cutter (Muntz 1516). He reveled in the fact that the sculptor pulls the idea from the block and can bring forth the living form that the artist had envisioned (Gardner and Kleiner 633). He did not rely on mathematical proportions in order to ensure beauty in his sculptors but relied on his eyes to reveal the beauty he created. He studied sculpture under Bertoldo di Giovanni who was a former collaborator of Donatello’s (Gardner and Kleiner 634). Afterward he went to Venice then moved onto Bologna where he became the protégé of Francesco Aldobrandi where he completed many statuettes for San Domenico church (Muntz 1468). After creating his captivating seventeen-foot-tall sculpture David which sparked the interest of Pope Julius II who sought out Michelangelo to begin work on his memorial tomb in the early 1500’s (Muntz 1409). Michelangelo’s commission was quite ambitious at first in which he was to create nearly 40 statues for the two-story tomb to memorialize Pope Julius II, which was later scaled down due to lack of funding (Gardner and Kleiner 637). One of the statues that now resides as the centerpiece of the tomb is the Moses sculpture which is one of his famous works of art (Muntz 1508). Michelangelo was a perfectionist and had exceedingly high expectations which is why many of his statues where left unfinished for many years. So, it is no surprise that the statue of Moses was over forty years in the making (Wallace 9). Out of all the sculptures for the tomb Moses was the only statue that Michelangelo retained for the final version (Wallace 14). Michelangelo lived with this statue day to day he made alterations here and there for many decades (Wallace 9). The statue would almost taunt him with its unnerving fiercely accusatory glare that only reminded him that the commission to finish Julius II tomb was yet to be finished which loomed over Michelangelo for over forty years (Wallace 9). It is ironic coincidence that in the bible it tells of Moses spending forty years wandering the wilderness and that Michelangelo spent over forty years perfecting the statue before it reached its final resting place (Wallace 10). The Moses statue was one of the largest that Michelangelo had sculpted after David of course (Wallace 9). Even seated the Moses statue stands taller than any standing person which displays the immensity of the figure (Wallace 19). Michelangelo was able to capture movement of the human body and anatomy of the human figure in the statues he carved like no other artist. He created a figure so realistic that it easily can be imagined that the statue possesses the ability to move and speak (Wallace 19). His piercing eyes and sideways gaze as though addressing God seems more than that of a mere human because it has seen divinity (Wallace 19). Moses face shows his rippling facial muscles, lustrous long beard, and his head which is adorned by two horns all contribute to the transforming power of Moses’ expression (Wallace 19). His fingers are exaggeratedly long in length as they pull at strands of his voluminous beard (Wallace 19). This is typical of Michelangelo’s art to depict subconscious thought animating unconscious nervous movement (Wallace 19). The figure reveals a muscular build underneath drapery of his loose sleeveless tunic and the commandments are tucked under the figures right muscular arm (Wallace 19). He carved the torso disproportionately but knowing that it was going to be raised it is hardly noticed by viewers (Wallace 19). With this statue much like his David statue Michelangelo depicts a scene of contemplation and intense evoking of emotion before the action occurs in the stories that are depicted. Michelangelo is masterfully skilled at displaying the rising tension in the statues bodies as well as in their faces. Works Cited Gardner, Helen, and Fred S. Kleiner. Gardner’s Art Through the Ages: A Global History. , 2015. Print. Manca, Joseph. “Michelangelo As Painter: A Historiographic Perspective.” Artibus Et Historiae, vol. 16, no. 31, 1995, pp. 111–123. Müntz Eugène. Michelangelo. Parkstone International, 2012. https://lmulibrary.on.worldcat.org/oclc/787847676. Accessed 17 Feb. 2020. WALLACE, WILLIAM E. Michelangelo, God’s Architect: The Story of His Final Years and Greatest Masterpiece. Princeton University Press, 2019. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvg252vv. Accessed 16 Feb. 2020. Michelangelo Buonarroti: A Pioneer of the Renaissance

Project Why, Why, Why NO OUTSIDE SOUCRES TEXTBOOK ONLY WATCH:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZoJKF_VuA BOOK: Michael, K. (2014). Think Smarter: Critical Thinking to Improve Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Skills. Wiley Professional Development (P

assignment writer Instructions This week we are going to debrief one another’s LHC “Left-Hand Columns” that were posted in last week’s discussion forum. Verify this is last week’s discussion. Taking the discussion posts further, you will decide if the “starting with why” approach would have resulted in more positive outcomes during their conversations. Prepare your responses in a Word document. You do not need to use any additional resources, but you may and should use your textbook. Include a cover page and include your textbook on the reference page. Your report should be approximately two to three (2-3) pages long, not including the cover page and the reference page. STEP 1 Read two of your classmates’ debriefs (situations) in last week’s discussion. Choose one discussion and copy/ paste this debrief at the top of your page. Assume you are the person your classmates are speaking to. How do you interpret what you, as the other person, said or did? STEP 2 Summarize each of the two situations. How can they transform their conversation by “starting with why” to help bring about good and positive outcomes? Can you sense their “purpose” within their conversation? How could they insert or breathe more purpose into the conversation?

Scientific and Behaviourist School of Management

Management in all business organization activity is simply the act of getting people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives. It comprises of planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling an organization for the purpose of accomplishing a goal. Resourcing encompasses the deployment and manipulation of human resources, financial resources, technological resources, and natural resources. Management has therefore defined as a process of getting things done with the aim of achieving goals effectively and efficiently. Management is a goal oriented process. Management increases the efficiency of the organisation and the development of society. Management is a continuous process with separate functions performed by all managers at all times. Management is a dynamic function and has to adapt itself to the changing environment. An organisation interacts with external and internal environments and needs to change itself and its goals accordingly. Management is responsible for setting and achieving objectives for the organisation. A few of its basic objectives are to survive, generate profits year on year, growth in terms of sales volume and product line while sustaining the social environment. Introduction of Scientific Management Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856 – 1915, Philadelphia) was a trained engineer who advocated the concept of Industrial Efficiency. Taylor is known as the Father of Scientific Management and is regarded as one of the first most successful Management Consultants. He is most famous for his ‘Time and Motion Study’ and the ‘Piece Rate’ system that he introduced Scientific management is a theory of management that analyzes and synthesizes workflows, with the objective of improving labour productivity. The core ideas of the theory were developed by Frederick Winslow Taylor in the 1880s and 1890s, and were first published in his monographs, Shop Management and The Principles of Scientific Management. Taylor believed that decisions based upon tradition and rules of thumb should be replaced by precise procedures developed after careful study of an individual at work. Its application is contingent on a high level of managerial control over employee work practices. Taylorism is a variation on the theme of efficiency it is a late-19th-and-early-20th-century instance of the larger recurring theme in human life of increasing efficiency, decreasing waste, and using empirical methods to decide what matters, rather than uncritically accepting pre-existing ideas of what matters. In management literature today, the greatest use of the concept of Taylorism is as a contrast to a new, improved way of doing business. In political and sociological terms, Taylorism can be seen as the division of labor pushed to its logical extreme, with a consequent de-skilling of the worker and dehumanisation of the workplace. The Principles of Scientific Management Taylor’s scientific management consisted of four principles: Replace rule of thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the tasks. Taylor believed there was only one way to increase efficiency was through study and analysis. Scientifically select and then train, teach, and develop the workman, whereas in the past the employee chose his own work and trained himself as best he could. Provide “Detailed instruction and supervision of each worker in the performance of that worker’s discrete task” Divide work equally between managers and workers, so that the managers apply scientific principles of management to planning the work and the workers actually perform the tasks Taylor decided the workers should get rest after time intervals to recover from time fatigue There should be complete harmony between the management and workers. Management should share the gains of the organisation with the workers. Techniques of Scientific Management 1. Standardisation and simplification of work Standardisation refers to the process of setting standards or benchmarks which must be adhered to during production. Simplification refers at eliminating superfluous varieties, sizes and dimensions. 2. Method Study Method study means to find out the best way of doing a job there are various methods of doing a job. To find out the best way and carry it out from procurement of raw materials till the final product is delivered. eg Ford Motors used this concept and was very successful. The objective was that to minimise the cost of production and maximise the quality and satisfaction of the customer. 3. Motion Study Motion study refers at eliminating unnecessary movements like lifting objects, sitting and changing positions which are undertaken while doing a typical job. 4. Time Study It determines the standard time-taken to perform a well-defined job. Time measuring devices are used for each element of task. The objective of time study is to determine the number of workers to be employed frame suitable incentive schemes and to determine the labour costs. 5. Fatigue Study A person is bound to feel tired physically and mentally if she/he does not rest while working. The rest intervals will help one to regain stamina and work with the same capacity. This will help the organisation to increase productivity. 6. Differential piece wage system Taylor was a strong a strong advocate of piece wage system. He wanted to differentiate between the efficient and the inefficient workers. He had standard time to complete a job. He also rewarded the efficient workers. Introduction to Behaviourist School of Management Elton Mayo (1880 – 1949, Australia) was the Director of the Department of Industrial Research at Harvard University. He is known as the founder of the Human Relations Movement. Mayo’s involvement in the most famous ‘Hawthorne Studies’ led to an altogether different school of thought on management known as the Human Relations Movement. Organisational behaviour is concerned with: the study of behaviour of people within an organisational setting. Organisational behaviour started to be recognized in Harvard business school in 1962. The science of organisational behaviour has developed out of a growing commitment to the belief that people are the most important part of an organisation. Organisational behaviour consists of theories like motivation, leadership, groups and group formation, culture within organisation and change. Principles of Human Relations Management Motivation Motivation is one of the most traditional topics of organisational behaviour. Motivation is the process of stimulating people to action to desired goals. Motivation depends upon satisfying the needs of people. Motivation leads to a drive in the human beings. The organization must try to understand and respect the emotions, sense of recognition and satisfaction of non-monetary needs of the employees. Individuals are motivated by social needs and good on-the-job relationships and respond better to work-group pressure than to management control activities. Organizations are co-operative social systems. Satisfaction of psychological needs should be the primary concern of the management. Informal work groups can have a substantial effect on productivity. This has been proved by the Hawthorne experiment. Leadership Leadership indicates the ability of an individual to influence others. Leadership is not guaranteed from people with leadership titles and informal leaders can emerge at any level where, through being well liked or skilled they exert influence over others. The function of the leader is to co-operate among the employees and to work for the betterment of the organisation. Groups and group formation A group consists of two or more people to achieve common goals. There are two types of groups’ formal and informal groups. Formal groups are formed to achieve organisational goals and informal work groups emerge naturally in response to the common interests of organisational members. Group formation helps in deciding and dividing the work amongst each other. Group work is very efficient: the team encourages open ended, problem-solving meetings Comparisons between Scientific and Behaviourist School of Management The function of a manager under scientific management is to set a work criterion and to divide the work among the labourers and it was seen as a figure of high authority. While under human relations the leader is responsible to facilitate co-operation and co-ordination among employees and providing them with opportunities to excel as well as to help them in their personal growth and development. Taylorism was against the informal groups because they believed the employees worked as mechanical passive only for monetary rewards whereas the behaviourist school of management believed in informal groups as this facilitates communication and co-operation among employees which will help to achieve the organisational goals. Scientific management is only aimed at the organisational growth and very little attention is paid to the worker’s growth or performance. While in human relations it is aimed at organisational growth as well as individual growth of the worker. As per Taylor, the sole motivator for a worker was ‘monetary incentive’. Therefore, the worker under scientific management was an ‘economic man’. According to Mayo, satisfaction of social wants of the workers like communication and the sense of acceptance was the driving force of the organization. Therefore, the worker under the human relations movement was a ‘social man’. Scientific management treated the worker as a ‘human machine’ and used the ‘differential system’ for motivation. While, the human relations movement held that the satisfaction of the worker would enhance his productivity at the work place. Conclusion Both the schools of management thoughts were so different from each other in their approach they shared common grounds on one issue increasing productivity which is the ultimate goal of an organisation. “Scientific management believed that planning should be separated from doing, Human resources believed in a far wider participation when it came to decision-making”. Whereas, Reshef. Y says in his web publication that “The Human Relations movement emphasized emotional aspects in human behaviour, yet still maintained the division of labour between those who planned and those who executed. ” While both mean the same, there is a slight difference in the two statements. Hence it can be concluded both aim towards the common goal. Hence it can be concluded both of them have different principles and policies their final is to achieve organisational goal through organisational excellence and increased efficiency. A good manager is one who applies a blend of both the management theories into practice. Thus scientific management and human relation management can be two wheels of the same cart and none is superior to the other.

Thomas Aquinas and the Proof of Gods Existence Research Paper

Introduction Discussion Several theories have been explained by philosophers in attempt to prove that God exists. However, it is important to defend faith by first beginning to understand the fact of the existence of the world as a way of proving existence of God. Such lines of arguments are referred to as “cosmological” arguments (Thompson 284). My objective in this paper is to state and explain St Aquinas’s five ways on proving the existence of God. Thomas Aquinas was a Christian theologian of the thirteenth century who applied Aristotle concepts to Christian theology. He endeavoured to devise a rational proof of existence of God by incorporating in part, upon conjectures of Aristotle that there must be a first cause (Owen 14). The first cause was the prime cause for creation. Initially, he devised five ways to prove existence of God; however, the first cause was termed by Thomas Aquinas as one which proceeds from the movement of sensible things. The argument St. Thomas gives from motion had long and varying history. In regard to that history, it would seem at initial glance to be anything but an easy and manifest prove that God exists as Thomas understood as a Christian. The paper begins by reviewing literature related to Thomas Aquinas and the Proof that God Exists by examining (Owen 16). A Review of Related Literature Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence Cosmological arguments are arguments presented to justify the existence of God. St Thomas Aquinas finds it useful to defend faith by presenting a way of proving that God’s existence emanates from the fact of existence of the world. The term cosmological refers to as ‘based on the fact of the cosmos’ (McKeon 14). The term has to do with cosmology a branch of metaphysics concerned with the universe as an orderly system. Obviously, the world exists and yet cannot explain its own existence. As such, something else must account for it. But, if we still don’t develop another unexplained existence of some kind, this “something else” must have within itself the cause of its own existence. Such example of an uncaused being is God (Thompson 284). This simple explanation provides the essence of cosmological argument; however it is enhanced and made logically defensive when stated more candidly. St Thomas Aquinas developed five ways of explaining the existence of God. The first three arguments are cosmological in nature (Wadia 54)). The First Argument from Change The first way of proving God’s existence is the argument from change. St Thomas thinks that our senses indicate without doubt that some of the things in the universe are changing. In essence whatever change must be caused to change by something other than itself (Thompson 330). As a Christian theologian, Thomas embraced the concepts advanced by Aristotle to explain God’s existence. The argument when looked at in this way has its sources in physics and metaphysics (Thompson, 410). In physics, proof from motion seems to reach nothing further than a celestial soul. In metaphysics, Aristotle’s demonstration arrives at a plurality of separate substances, each of which, although act without any mixture of potency, is nevertheless a finite entity. His argument in either case, that is, both physics and metaphysics, does the result of the proof at all resemble the Christian God (Thompson 284). Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More The Prima Via structure in the Summa Theologiae is remarkably clear (Reinchenbach 30). Its beginning point is situated in things of the sensible world, things which are evidently perceived through sensation to be in movement. Thomas Aquinas gives examples of fire heating wood and hand moving the stick which pushes something else. Analysis of this movement of sensible things reveals emergence of two successive propositions (Thompson 318). In the first proposition, whatever is being moved is being moved by another; and second that an indefinite series of movents that are being moved cannot account for this motion. The conclusion from the analysis of the movement seen in sensible things is therefore that there is a first movent which is not being moved by anything, and this is all understood to be God (Wadia 420). Accordingly, St Thomas constructs the arguments as follows: first, the starting point where some things in the sensible world are being moved; second, propositions where whatever is being moved is being moved by some thing else. In addition, an indefinite series of moved movents cannot account for motion; and three, the conclusion where there is a first movent which is not being moved by anything at all, and this is understood as the existence of God (Wadia 416). The first of the two propositions emerges from a metaphysical examination of the movement witnessed in sensible things. It is not agreeable in any a priori way, either analytic or synthetic, but is reached as a conclusion from what is seen happening in the sensible world. Thomas Aquinas reasoned with an evident example before his mind. “A piece of wood which is cold is being heated by a fire. The movement in this case is alteration, change in quality. Insofar as the wood is being moved from cold to heat, it is in potency to being hot. This is at once seen to be the necessary condition for being moved. The thing that is being moved has to be in potency in the same respect. So nothing can move itself. If it is being moved, it is being moved by something else. The basis of this argument is that the act is something over and above the potency, something more than the potency, and so has to come from something which already has or is that act (Reinchenbach 96). The Second Argument from Causation The second proposition follows from a continuation of this study of sensible movement in terms of act and potency. If that which is causing the motion is thereby being moved itself, it is also necessary being moved by another. If this third is also a movent that is being moved, it is likewise being moved by still another. But one cannot proceed this way indefinitely, for there will be no first movement. Therefore there must be a first movent which is not being moved by anything; and this is all understood to be God (Fredrick 64). We will write a custom Research Paper on Thomas Aquinas and the Proof of Gods Existence specifically for you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Quite evidently, this evidence derives its force from the doctrine of act and potency explained in the proof of the first preposition. Anything that is being moved does not have of itself the act towards which it is being moved. So in an indefinite series of moved movents, none would have the act of itself. Therefore, such a series would never be able to account for the motion. Since there is sensible motion, then there must be something which of itself is act, in the sense that it is in no way being actualized by anything whatsoever in causing the motion. Such a movent, Thomas notes without least hesitation, to be understood by all to be God (Fredrick 62). In sum, Aquinas argues that there must be something on which this entire causal order depends for its existence. To him, God is this first cause who makes things to be and sets them in motion in turn makes other things to occur. It is therefore important to note that for Thomas the strict idea of temporal beginning of creation, as distinct from its eternal dependence on God as its first cause, cannot be derived from the basis of human reason, but must rather, come from revelation (Wippel 323). Aquinas Argument from Contingency St. Thomas third argument of contingency has become synonymous specifically as cosmological argument. He viewed it as an observed fact that some things have a start and an ending. These items are thus capable of either to exist or not to exist. This implies they are not necessary but contingent. For if these things were necessary, they could not have had both the beginning and the ending. This leads to the conclusion of the presence of the necessary being to cause contingent beings; if not nothing could exist (Fredrick 60). Reichenbach (1972, 19-20) provides a modern angle of this argument when he states: A contingent being exists. This contingent being is caused either by itself or by another. If it were caused by itself, it would have to precede itself in existence, which is impossible. Therefore, this contingent being is caused by another, that is, depends on something else for its existence. That which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either another contingent being, or anon-contingent (necessary) being. If then this contingent cause must itself be caused by another, and so on to infinity. Therefore, that which causes (provides sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either an infinite series of contingent beings or a necessary being. An infinite series of contingent beings is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being. Therefore, a necessary being exists. Not sure if you can write a paper on Thomas Aquinas and the Proof of Gods Existence by yourself? We can help you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More We note that both Thomas and Reinchenbach’s forms of arguments commence with the existence of a contingent being. Contingent beings are vividly described by St. Thomas whereas Reinchenbach does not as it is an assumed fact that such exists. They postulate that a being that is contingent is one that doe s not need to exist. In other words, it does not have the cause of its existence within itself, but relies for its being upon one or more other things. Contingent in terms of explaining God’s existence can be proved on the basis of time and change. All that exists in nature survive in the context of time (Reinchenbach 20). Consequently, everything existing time undergoes change. In case change does not happen, imperatively, time has not elapsed. In other words, everything in nature undergoes changes. Nevertheless, everything that changes does so because it is affected by other things. If it had its various forms all together within itself, all these forms would exist at once, and in essence no change could happen. Thus, since everything that is affected by other things is contingent, everything in the universe is contingent (Thompson 312). As a result of everything contingent being caused by something else, every being or item had to have a cause when people them in the natural realm. When people locate this cause, it is contingent and thus has a cause. This process may continue to infinity and still have a series of caused beings. Because none of these could cause itself, none could exist unless there were anon-contingent being. Such a non-contingent being has its own cause in itself, thus is different from the other beings in that it must exist. In sum, it is possible to prove the existence of a non-contingent being because contingent beings exist (Ariel 298). Aquinas third way differentiates between necessary and contingent beings. Human beings for instance, are contingent beings which come into existence and which can cease to exist. However, St Thomas argues contingent beings can only come into existence if they are caused to do so by an original cause of being whose existence is there as a matter of necessity. Aquinas claims as before that this idea of a necessary being is what people refer to when speaking of God. Cosmological argument also offers distinction between existence and essence. For instance, the essence of man consists of all properties that make him a man, that is, his characteristics (McKeon 434). The properties that make the individual man do not make him exist. Therefore, a man’s essence is separate from his existence, and he is a contingent being. Essence and existence in the eyes of God are identical. In other words, the essence of God is existence (Owen 14). God is a necessary being since it is God’s very nature to exist. God offers His creatures existence. However, the existence that he provides to them, though real, is not self existence like His own, but contingent existence (Thompson 345). Argument of God’s Existence from Degree of Perfection St. Thomas fourth proof of God’s existence is extracted from hi argument found in finite objects. He postulates that some things appear to be better, truer, nobler compared to other things. Every individuals has the ability to rate specific objects to be superior or more superior to other objects. However, the degree of perfection can only be determined if there exists a being that is more perfect. To insinuate that something is more perfect than something else is to concur that it more closely approximates the perfect. In affirmative, the perfect must exist (Caputo 686). Aquinas fourth argument observes values in human beings such as beauty, goodness and truth. He inquires where such things come from. He argues that existence of such values means that something must exist that is the most good, beautiful and true and this brings such human values into existence. Infact, that something is God who is the perfect and original cause of these values (Caputo 680). Aquinas’s Argument of God’s Existence from Design In this way of explaining the existence of God, St. Thomas argues that there exist clear signs of design within what terns as natural order. According to him, things don’t just occur; they appear to have been designed with some form of purpose in mind. This aspect of nature has been examined often in relation to natural sciences. The orderliness of nature evident, for instance, in the laws of nature, seems to be a sign that nature has been designed for some purpose. It essentially for this point that naturalists approaches to science especially those that argue that matter possesses an intrinsic capacity to organize itself, are viewed as such a threat by some modern Christian apologists (Southgate 52). Aquinas’s design argument became popular following the scientific revolution. The universal law of gravitation and laws of motion by Sir Isaac Newton suggested a mechanistic universe, carefully designed with a purpose in mind. However, the weaknesses of this argument were philosophically exposed by Hume David who intimated to the degree of disorder or natural evil in the world as a significant countervailing fact. It was also exposed by Charles Darwin when he provided an alternative explanation of apparent design of the natural world in his evolution theory by natural selection (McGrath 182). Aquinas viewed creation as both depending on God for its existence at every moment, but as also having been granted its own integrity to unfold according to its God given nature through the action of secondary causes striving, under inspiration change drawn from God’s spirit, too attain their desired end and fulfillment in God. The fifth way views the intelligent design in the world, that is, things seem to be adapted with certain purposes in mind. The source of this design or natural ordering must, St. Thomas reasons, in be some intelligent being, God, who works out God’s purposes in creation (Southgate 52). With his arguments for existence of God, Thomas developed the concept that nature had purposes deriving from God’s design. These purposes did not only offer evidence of God, they also provided a natural revelation of the end of creation. Thus, the eternal law of God is revealed in divine law through the scriptures and in natural law, reflected in the nature of creation itself. If every part of creation naturally tends to seek its natural end or good, in the case of human beings this takes particular form in the search to know God and to construct an ordered society reflecting the well being of God’s good order. In constructing such a society, in addition to biblical commands, natural law means that human beings can identify universal and eternal moral standards. Human law is therefore laid on these moral standards, and indeed the natural law provides a framework for laws in specific situations. The advantage of this is that it offers the opportunity of agreement on international law across different countries and cultures. This is evidenced in the role it played in developing concepts such as just war theory. Objections to Cosmological arguments Cosmological arguments received a number of objections from various philosophers. Kant Immanuel and others are among those who have objected that Aquinas cosmological arguments are depended upon ontological (Runyan 56). According to objectors of cosmological arguments views, they eliminate cosmological arguments as an independent proof. Kant noted that the argument proves the existence of a necessary being. He however, alleged that it relies upon the ontological argument to indicate the properties of that being are those of God (Ariel 298). Reichenbach on the other hand objected to this argument. He intimated that Kant classified cosmological argument into two categories; one, which Kant contented to be sound to prove existence of a necessary being, and two, which Kant claimed to, disagree, indicates that this being is God (Reichenbach 142). Works Cited Ariel R. Theistic Proof and Immanuel Kant. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 1974. Caputo, John D. Kant’s Refutation of the Cosmological Argument. Journal of American Academy of Religion, 1974, 686-691. Fredrick, Copleston B. A History of Philosophy. New York: Image Books, 1962. McGrath A. Christian Theology. New York: Wiley