St. Thomas' Invalid Claims

At first glance, St. Thomas Aquinas' five proofs for the existance of God appear fairly valid. However, a in depth examination of his argument reveals many hidden fallacies that would otherwise go unnoticed. His very first claim, "The Argument of Motion" already exhibits one of the many common errors of statements. He argues that God was the first being to give motion to the universe, granting it with the wealth of potential energy it possesses today. He has in essence, begged the question, or in other words assumed a condition about something based off the title it holds. Just because God is presumabley almighty, doesn't mean that he is capable or even responsible for granting the universe with what it has. In addition, he assumes based off no evidence that God did not have an original, other wordly mover. Viewing things that way, something had to have given God that energy in the first place so it could be transfered to us.

The second argument, "Causation of Existence," states how one cause had to be the origin of all objects and things in existence. This claim is an assumption in itself, as suggested by the statement, "There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist." Here, he makes a hastey generalization regarding the nature of matter. They did not know then, nor do they know now, exactly how physics works. Modern science has not progressed nearly far enough, to be making such claims, especialy without any evidence. Just because we have not seen something happen does not mean it can't happen. As for the other arguments, other common assumptions are frequently displayed throughout, such as the claim of contingent and necesary beings. He claims that only beings can give rise to other beings, though as demonstrated by numerous experiments, scientists have indeed proven that beings can arise from inanimacy. Given the right conditions and materials, the environment can give birth to the basic proteins of life, which ultimatley cause organisms.