Thomas Aquinas's Five Proofs

I'll expand upon Aquinas's 5 proofs here: 1. First Mover: S1. Objects are in motion. S2. If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something else. S3. There cannot be an infinite chain of movers as the universe is finite. S4. There must be a first, unmoved, mover C. God exists. 2. Causality S1. Some events cause other events S2. If an event happens it must be caused by something outside itself (an event cannot cause itself) S3. There can be no infinite cause/effect chains as the universe is finite. S4. There must be a first uncaused, cause C. God exists 3. Contingency S1. Contigent things exist. Contingent being defined as dependant on for existance (1) S2. Each contigent thing has a time when it does not exist (contigent things are not omnipresent) S3. If everything was contingent there would be a time when nothing exists (we will call this "empty time") S4. This empty time would have been in the past S5. If the world was empty at one time it would be empty forever (conservation principle) S6. If everything were contigent, then nothing would exist in the world. S7. Obviously the world is not empty (S1) S8. So there must exist a being that is not contigent. C. This is God. 4. Properties coming in Degrees S1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents S2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, there must exist some object with this property to a maximum possible degree. S3. So there is a being with all properties to the maximum possible degree C. Therefore, God exists. 5. From design S1. Among all objects that act for an end, some have minds, others do not (some have intelligence others do not have intelligence) S2. An object that acts for an end, but itself does not have a mind, must have been created by a being with a mind. C. Therefore, God exists. Rationally there is no way to disprove God. Here is combonation of Aquinas's cosmological arguments: S1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation. S2. The existence of the universe is either: a. unintelligible or b. has an explanation S3. No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality S4. A rational person should accept (2b), that the universe has some explanation for its being. S5. There are only three kinds of explanations: a. Scientific: physical conditions plus relevant laws yield the Event explained. b. Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent. c. Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition. S6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe cannot be scientific because there can't be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained. Event the Big Bang theory fails to explain the existence of the universe because modern science cannot explain where the original Big Bang singularity came from. The universe as a sum total of all natural conditions and laws cannot be explained unless we have an Archimidean reference point outside the system. S7. The explanation for the existence of the universe cannot be essential because the universe cannot exist necessarily. This is because, it could have been possible for the universe not to have existed (if the Big Bang had been slightly different it is possible for large-scale structures to not have existed). Thus, the universe is not something the must necessarily or essentially exists. S8. Thus a rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation. S9. No personal agent but God could create the entire universe. (I ask my opponent to name a personal agent that could if they wish to disprove this argument) C. A rational person should believe that there is a God. Sources 1. http://dictionary.reference.com...