Thomas Aquinas's Five Proofs

Conclusion: 1. First mover. S1. Objects are in motion. At a quantum physical level all objects are moving. Furthermore, those objects that do move which we can observe are moving. S2. If something is in motion. My opponent has not proven their objection to this is valid therefore, we must discard it. Furthermore, the Universe is expanding therefore, it must have had a beginning there is no way to get rid of a beginning that is characterized by cosmic expansion (1). If the universe is cyclical it must be expanding. S3. Infinite chain of movers You have not successfully backed up your objection therefore, we must regard it as invalid. Something cannot move itself. The Universe cannot start it self. S4. There must be a first I have shown my opponent objection is false. Something unmoved can still move an object (in this case the universe) from potentiality to actuality. C. God exists 2. Causality S1. Events --> other events Dropped S2. Events must be caused by something outside itself My opponents sole objection here is using stars. I have shown their objection is invalid. S3. no infinite cause/effect My opponent utilizes a cyclical universe for their objection. But, even a cyclical universe has a beginning. S4. First un-caused cause My opponent did not prove their is more than one cause. Their objection to this point is invalid. C. God exists 3. Contigency S1. Contingent things Something dependent on something else for existence depends on something else for existence.... S2. Each contingent thing My opponents objection to this point is invalid as I have shown. S3. Time My opponents objection is impossible to decipher. S4. Past My opponent never provided an explanation for their "objection". S5. Empty This is an if/then statement. If it was empty at one time it would be empty forever therefore there must be a creator. S6. Contingency=non existence Their objection is the cyclical universe. I have explained how the cyclical universe must have a beginning. S7. The world is not empty. Dropped. S8. There must exist a being that is not contingent. Their objection is kind of convoluted and as I said their must exist a being which is not dependent on something else or there would be nothing. C. This is God. 4. Greatness S1. Objects have properties I have proven my opponents objection invalid. Objects do not have space or time or sound. It may have more color or less color, more or less ideas, more or less logic. S2. Lesser v greater extent All properties have some form of magnitude. My opponents objection is invalidated. S3. Being with all properties Despite the convoluted objection, I believe my opponent agreed this must be true. C. God exists There must be a source of all greatness. Therefore, something must be great to the maximum possible degree. My opponent did not answer what better word there was than God. 5. From design. S1. Minds v non-minds There was no objection to this and I believe my empirical evidence proves things without minds (intelligence) have purpose. S2. Objects act for ends An object without intelligence does not have intelligence. C. God exists My combination. My opponent basically dropped this combination of Aquinas's cosmological proofs. Therefore, I have proven God must rationally exist according to Aquinas. They never provided their so called "flawless dis-proof". Thomas Aquinas's 5 proofs of God are completely valid. My opponent has not made a valid argument to disprove his proofs. Someone rational must believe a God exists. God must exist for 5 different reasons. I have defended these arguments, my opponent has not touched them. My opponent has not disproven anything and cannot do so as this is the final round. 1. http://www.godandscience.org...