The 5 Proofs of Thomas Aquinas for God are logically sound

Hello,I think I underestimated the time and number of words an argument of this magnitude would require.I apologize if the arguments seem a little disjoint at times.For the first 3 ways, aptly summarized as the cosmological argument, I would like to support it using 2 methods: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.2.I will demonstrate using philosophical arguments why something must have caused it, and why it cannot possibly be nothing then I shall present why the existence of a timeless,changeless, transcendent being is much more rational and likely. The Big Bang theory and the Theory of relativity gives ample support for the first 3 ways.I understand that this may detract us from the main argument.But I want to be absolutely sure that all the Implications of the Big Bang theory are understood and want to demonstrate why this is most likely to be true.I will first state the Observed evidence for the Big Bang Theory and will briefly explain only the first piece of evidence and will provide links for the rest:1.Hubble's law and the expansion of spaceHubble's Law states that"1.Objects observed in deep space are found to have a Doppler shift interpretable as relative velocity away from the Earth; 2.This Doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is approximately proportional to their distance from the Earth for galaxies up to a few hundred megaparsecs away. This is normally interpreted as a direct, physical observation of the expansion of the spatial volume of the observable universe"The quantity by which it expands is given by:v = HD,wherev is the recessional velocity of the galaxy or other distant object,D is the co moving distance to the object, andH is Hubble's constant,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:2.Cosmic Background Microwave radiation3.Abundance of primordial elements4.Galactic Evolution and distribution5. Primordial Gas CloudsThe theory of relativity says that the only true constant is the velocity of light and that time and space form one continuous 3 dimensional fabric,Once again this is requires a long and detailed explanation that will detract our discussion.I recommend you to see the sources that I have provided.The important thing to take from this is:1.Time and space itself are always expanding.It is not merely the distance, but the 'Space-Time continuum' fabric itself.2. If it is expanding, it means it was smaller yesterday, and even smaller the day before that.This when extended infinitely, enables us to come to a time when it should have been infinitely small, the size of a primordial atom.3.This space-time continuum came into existence only after the Big Bang.4.Something must have caused the breaking of the super-symmetry of the primeval atom to cause the Big Bang.I hope this gives overwhelming scientific proof that the Universe needs a definite cause for existence.Proceeding deductively:4.This something is outside the realm of Space and time itself, as they both were created only after the Big-Bang5.The only things that are outside the realm of Space-Time are abstract objective concepts(the perfect circle etc.) and the Mind6.Abstract objects cannot be efficient causes, but the Mind can.7.So whatever caused the Big Bang must be similar to the Mind.8.This something is what is called as 'God' and is personified as a person in many cultures around the globe.Why 'nothing' cannot cause the universe?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.Nothing is the absence of anything.If something could come out of nothing,it would run contrary to everything we have learnt about thee nature of the Universe so far.This is why it is absolutely necessary for the Universe to have a Cause outside time and Space. The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of BeingThis might well be my weakest argument, but when seen as part of 5 arguments, this can argue for the goodness of God.If you want to argue against this, please provide arguments against the other 4 too.Firstly, I want to explain the true nature of good and evil through an anology. Many people are of the opinion that both light and darkness exist and that both heat and cold exist.This is not true.According to thermodynamics, there is only heat in the universe and it is the vibration energy of molecules.Cold is merely the absence of heat.Cooling devices absorb the heat in one location and dissipate it elsewhere, but they cannot actively spread 'coldness' like heating devices.Likewise, light is the existence of photons, and darkness is merely the absence of photons. There is no particle of darkness(Dark matter and anti-matter are different and are explained in the sources.)this is why we can have a torch that spreads light, but cannot have a device that dissipates darkness.In this manner, an objective 'Good' exists in the minds of all men and is called conscience.This objective good is independent of one's cultural and religious background, but adults get de-sensitized to it as time goes by.Only God's mind has the quality of this perfect goodness.Evil is merely those places in which there is an absence of this Good.Nature is morally neutral.Animals merely do what is needed for them to collectively procreate and survive.Only humans are capable of understanding abstract concepts of an objective good and evil.Only Humans can perceive that something is intrinsically good and evil.Only humans can actively make informed choices about how they react when a particular stimulus is given.For example,Only we can consciously make a choice to be Vegan .Only we can choose to remain celibate and go completely against our base desires.This is why only we who have the knowledge of good and evil can make informed conscious decisions to do evil.The 'devil' is once again a personification of the various forces that hide this 'good' from us and evil in the world is the result of our not following this conscience properly.The source of Objective moral values must be something that is outside of Nature.There are several animals like ants and bees that sacrifice their lives for the good of their colonies, but Humans can remain true and objectively good even when they do not have any colonies to defend.They can make life altering deceisions for good for purely personal reasons.Only humans can meditate and actively find the reasons their minds work in a certain way. 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.From argument 1,2,3 we see that this must be God.I know this is not an exact interpretation of the 4th argument per se, but still is a valid way to interpret it.The Last argument,the argument from intelligent design.I know that the way this was interpreted by St.Thomas Aquinas is different from the way it is understood today,but still the postulates remain.I seem to be running out of space and so will keep this brief.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.In order for us to fully understand the diversity of life forms on earth from a scientific perspective.Firstly, the existence of a common primordial ancestor for all species and the fact that this ancestor has undergone a process of change and diversification due to environmental pressure for survival over time.This was a widely prevalent Idea well before Darwin.St.Augustine of Hippo made similar arguments in the 4th century itself when he spoke of 'potencies'.But Darwin's unique contribution to this theory lay in the fact that he claimed that the mechanism behind evolutionary change is natural selection operating on random variations in living things. It is this mechanism which Darwin used to explain the adaptedness of organisms to their environment without the necessity of a designing intelligence.But modern research shows that this may not be the case.Our experience with Malaria and HIV shows that these Viruses are really adaptive to evolutionary pressure and have an astounding mutation rate.They have successfully managed to develop resistance to every drug we have managed to throw at them so far.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.Malaria has developed resistance to various drugs as it requires only a simple,single-point mutation.But it has never managed to infect people with sickle cell anemia.Even HIV has never been able to display any change in the basic biochemical mechanisms it has.all this points to the differentiation of species as an extraordinarily improbable event that definitely fits into an independent pattern, showing that intelligent design is also probable.Hope to have an interesting debate.I wish you will narrow down the debate so we can focus better and stay within the word limit.Regards,CynicalDiogenesSources:http://www.big-bang-theory.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution