Aquinas’ response to objection 2
Objection 2 argues that every process, event or occurrence in the world can be accounted for by certain principles that do not involve God. This means that there are logical reasons or explanations for every process in the world, for instance, rain produced by the water cycle, life brought about by fertilization and growth of cells among others. Since all these processes can take place without God having to personally perform or facilitate them himself, then God does not exist. Moreover, all things that people do voluntarily are based on human reason without God intervening and all natural things obey the laws of nature.
Aquinas’ response to objection 2 is that the principles that cause or influence natural things and voluntary decisions in the world are based on a determinate beginning and end under the direction of a higher agent or belief that is immovable or unchangeable. A constant factor evident in all natural things, process and voluntary human decisions or actions is change. People can change their choices, decisions and even actions due to a change in human reasoning. Nonetheless, these changes in human reasons area based on an immovable and unchangeable original principle or fact which can only be explained by the existence of God. In terms of natural things, they are accounted for by nature. However, changed and defects in nature and subsequently natural things must have a uniform and unchangeable foundation that explains all the changes, thus, proving the existence of God.Aquinas’ response to objection 2
I find Aquinas’ reply satisfactory more so with regard to immovable and self-necessary first principle in the context of human reason. Unlike natural things that can be predicted and influenced based on the study of nature, human reason is still unpredictable despite years of research detailing how to predict human reason and its manifestations in terms of decisions and actions. Morality and ethics are concepts that are absent in natural things, but present in human decisions and actions. As such, human reasoning though changeable and with immense defects, is most certainly based on one unchangeable first principle which cannot be controlled, predicted with utmost accuracy or explained as to where it came from in terms of knowing the basis for determining what is right and wrong for every individual. People may have discordant opinions of whether an action is good or bad, a person may always commit evil acts but end up committing a good deed unexpectedly, an individual may be brought up in a negative environment but end up becoming good and vice versa. This unpredictability in human reasoning and consequently actions and decisions despite numerous studies and theories to predict human demeanor and outcomes is what I can contemplate as a satisfactory reply for the existence of a higher agent or a God that people believe in despite all the research that they can choose to use to influence their decisions or actions but choose to ignore every time or occasionally.Aquinas’ response to objection 2