Aquinas’ first argument is basically stating that everything is a chain of things that move from being moved by something before but The Unmoved Mover at the beginning was not moved by anything.
There are some criticisms of Aquinas’ first way- nothing changes by itself. For example his first way conflicts with Newton’s first law of motion. Its my opinion that when science challenges a theory and proves the theory wrong then it is no longer viable. Therefore Aquinas’ first way has failed because of development in science. In addition to this there are things that do move or change themselves of their own accord.
The philosopher Richard Swinburne dismisses the first way as it does not argue from the existence of physical objects but from change in them, this theory clashes with Swinburne’s way of thinking and cannot agree with Aquinas. However in contradiction Gottfried Leibniz accepted that God was the Unmoved Mover which everything else depends upon.
There are many views from philosophers that give sufficient reason to believe Aquinas first of his three ways to justify the existence of God and there is sufficient evidence to reject his theory.
Aquinas’ second way to prove the existence of God is cause.
He observed that nothing can be caused by itself as this would have to mean it had to exist before it existed. This was a logical impossibility, however Aquinas rejected an infinite series of causes and believed that their must have been a first, uncaused cause. This first cause started the chain of causes that have caused all events to happen. The first cause was God.
It seems that Aquinas, in this argument contradicts himself. He states that everything appears to require a cause, but then there is an exception to this rule-God. This therefore is no logical, when reading this argument I find myself asking the question; why cannot God have been caused?
Modern science again challenges Aquinas’ argument. Subatomic physics states that particle have been observed to disappear and appear without any apparent cause.
Aquinas’ third and final way was the argument of Contingency. Things come into existence and later cease to exist, Aquinas’ concluded that their must have been a time when nothing existed. Therefore the cause of the universe must have been a ‘necessary being’, to bring everything else into existence. The necessary being was God and he concluded that if God did not exist then nothing would exist.
Many philosophers believed that this final way of forwarding his argument was the most fascinating. This final way can be backed up with modern science. The Big Bang theory appears to support the idea of a time when the universe did not exist. In contradiction to this Ed Miller says that since it is not possible to add to an actual number of days, the universe seems to be finite.
In conclusion it seems that Aquinas does not give sufficient reason for the existence of God. Hume has an excellent challenge to the argument that Russell agrees with. They believe that the universe does not have to have a beginning. Russell observed that just because a child has a mother that doesn’t mean that the universe had to have a mother.
As, Russell stated, ‘I should say that the universe is just there and that’s all’.
Also Leibniz criticises Aquinas’ second way of the uncaused causer.
‘Suppose the book of the elements of geometry to have been eternal, one copy having been written down from an earlier one. Even thought there is a reason for the present book out of the past one their will never be a full reason. If you suppose the world eternal, you will suppose nothing but a succession of states and you will not find in any of them a sufficient reason.’
Leibniz also rejected that their was an infinite universe as he believed that the evidence for this was unsatisfactory.
It is evident to me from studying the cosmological argument and the critics of it that St.Thomas Aquinas does not give sufficient evidence for his argument and that science objects to his theory. In two of Aquinas’ ways modern science actually proves his argument wrong. Therefore it seems that Aquinas’ argument for the existence of God is quite weak and unsatisfactory.
