I think Aquinas is very persuasive in some of the reasons he has. He says science has decided that if something is in motion, it will stay in motion until stopped, but something has to be the first mover or nothing will be moving. He also brings up it would have been impossible to start something with nothing to start with. Both of these are similar, but if something needs to move something, how come nothing has to move god first or if there was nothing, how is god there?
I think I would side with Richard Dawkins more than Aquinas. His argument made more sense to me compared to Aquinas. I don't exactly believe in god, but I don't know if I could say he just doesn't exist. There were many men in the past like Thomas Jefferson who believed in God, not all the supernatural stuff that is with religion.
Hi there Rawrgles! I agree with you that Aquinas arguments are somewhat flawed. It might be because in my life I have come to my own doubts about an existence in God, and my own acceptance of evolution. Regardless of our own thoughts, I do think that you pointed out a good point that Aquinas is giving God a “pass” in a sense. Aquinas is not applying his proofs to God, but only in what God might have done in the creation of everything. This is a huge flaw. I suppose we just have to be okay with not knowing the complete answer to this question.
ReplyDelete