The 5 Proofs of Thomas Aquinas for God are logically sound

I think I underestimated the time and number of words an argument of this magnitude would require. Don’t feel bad the whole site does that. 1.I will show how there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the Universe, and everything in it including time and space came to existence at a specific point in history. That is a contradiction in terms, time cannot begin at a specific point in time. I am sorry if it seems like I am ignoring a lot of what you’ve said but I can’t take any argument that relies on the idea of time being created or space having a point of origin or anything of that nature seriously. We know for sure that the Universe was always expanding, and that the expansion is not a later development due to the following observed phenomena: I am no cosmologist but I fail to see how those phenomenon prove your claim. I hope this gives overwhelming scientific proof that the Universe needs a definite cause for existence. It doesn’t, if there was a super symmetry to be broken that means something existed to be broken beforehand. There are those who say the universe has no definite size. Infinity divided by infinity is undefined. You cannot then say it was any specific size much less the size of whatever a primordial atom is. 4.This something is outside the realm of Space and time itself, as they both were created only after the Big-Bang Again the concept of creation relies on the concept of time. You cannot measure how long time has existed any more you could measure the length of distance. 5.The only things that are outside the realm of Space-Time are abstract objective concepts(the perfect circle etc.) and the Mind I believe I recently commented in a thread in the philosophy forums about how I don’t believe that the idea of an atemporal mind is coherent, nor by the way is the idea of a circle without space. Without time a mind can’t make a decision, that is a state change from one time to another. Therefore this proposed mind could never make the decision to create anything. 6.Abstract objects cannot be efficient causes, but the Mind can. Causation is a time dependent concept. One state affects the next state in the linear advancement of time. Without time, without linear advancement there is no state changes. 7.So whatever caused the Big Bang must be similar to the Mind. Even given everything else this appears to be a clear fallacy. X could do it so whatever did it must be similar to X. If you find a tree knocked over an alien tractor beam could have done it so whatever did it must be similar to an alien tractor beam? i would reply to this by asking why is it that only universes are caused by nothing?why not Unicorns and ponies and Rabbits.If 'nothing' could do something, then it must really be something. I would ask why it is that only Gods are caused by nothing. Only Humans can perceive that something is intrinsically good and evil. Do you know what it means to be intrinsically good or evil? It means something is good and evil in its own nature not depending on any other context. I can only think of one example and that is life, and only because life is the axiom of good and evil, the source of its definition. All religions are attempts by men to find and purify the source of this in our minds.The source of good must be something that is changeless, space-less , Timeless and everlasting. If that is the case then good must be in a timeless void. What is good in a timeless void? Its potential to become something with time, space, and life? We know when something is designed or not when it fulfils two criterion:the event to be explained is extraordinarily improbable and, secondly, the event corresponds to an independently given pattern. That does not follow. If the event is extraordinarily improbable it probably didn’t happen. What you mean is the explanation, the proposed mechanism by which the event occurred is improbable. In which case you have ruled out the explanation. That does not support any others. We have no independently given pattern, all we know of life or ideal life is given or inferred from life as we know it. But even they, with such a huge number of organisms(over a trillion in a single infected Human) and an incredible number of life cycles over the many years have never displayed multiple simultaneous mutations or a sequence of blind mutations that are necessary for the formation of different species,even when there was evolutionary pressure for them to do so. Your own statements contradict this claim. Viruses reproduce asexually, essentially cloning. The definitions of the word ‘species’ is surprisingly vague but the best one floating around is a group of organisms capable of interbreeding. Viruses don’t breed, every single one is progenitor of a new ‘race’ of viruses if it changes from its parent. The very fact that a virus has adapted to something means that the old ‘species’ died and what you are looking at is a new ‘species’ different only in its ability to handle whatever drug you were using. If in two sealed chambers you applied the drug to one chamber until they virus became immune that would not mean the drug will now work in the other chamber. You now have two variants of the same source population. You have isolated and established diversity. Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution Heh I saw that coming from your examples. I am probably one of the very few people who would debate this with you, and yet has read that book.