mltnisme124
evilrapistspongebob123
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2026
- Posts
- 4,768
- Reputation
- 7,987
idk what to mark but i guess theory since none of this is true or false considering we dont know if he even existed or if he did. but i recently noticed christians saying its proved by “hundreds of years of philosophy” but this is only one argument, in the future maybe ill try understanding more
His first three arguments basically say that everything in the universe is moving, causing other things to happen, or relying on something else to exist, so there must have been a “first cause" or "unmoved mover" to kick off the whole reaction. But modern physics shows us that particles can pop into existence at the quantum level without any specific cause, and the universe could literally just be an endless cycle of energy or a multi-universe system that doesn't need a magical starting line at all. Plus if Aquinas says everything needs a cause, it makes no sense to be like “god is the true creator” because we dont even know that.
His fourth argument claims that because we have things like "goodness," "beauty," or "heat" in different amounts, there has to be a perfect standard at the top, which he says is god. This doesn't really hold up because words like "good" or "beautiful" are just human ideas, not physical objects that need a master template in the sky. It's like saying because there are different levels of smelliness in the world, there must be a single, ultimate "Smelliest Person" controlling all smelly smells. We judge quality by comparing things to each other and using our own human brains, not by measuring them against a “supposed perfect god.
His fifth argument is the design argument, which claims that nature is so organized and complex that an intelligent creator must be directing it, just like an archer aims an arrow at a target. The big flaw in his argument here is that we already have a natural explanation for how living things get so complex evolution by natural selection. Over millions of years, living organisms adapted to their environments through random genetic changes and survival, not because an unseen hand was guiding them. Nature looks organized because the things that didn't work simply died off, not because a divine programmer built everything from scratch to fit together.
His first three arguments basically say that everything in the universe is moving, causing other things to happen, or relying on something else to exist, so there must have been a “first cause" or "unmoved mover" to kick off the whole reaction. But modern physics shows us that particles can pop into existence at the quantum level without any specific cause, and the universe could literally just be an endless cycle of energy or a multi-universe system that doesn't need a magical starting line at all. Plus if Aquinas says everything needs a cause, it makes no sense to be like “god is the true creator” because we dont even know that.
His fourth argument claims that because we have things like "goodness," "beauty," or "heat" in different amounts, there has to be a perfect standard at the top, which he says is god. This doesn't really hold up because words like "good" or "beautiful" are just human ideas, not physical objects that need a master template in the sky. It's like saying because there are different levels of smelliness in the world, there must be a single, ultimate "Smelliest Person" controlling all smelly smells. We judge quality by comparing things to each other and using our own human brains, not by measuring them against a “supposed perfect god.
His fifth argument is the design argument, which claims that nature is so organized and complex that an intelligent creator must be directing it, just like an archer aims an arrow at a target. The big flaw in his argument here is that we already have a natural explanation for how living things get so complex evolution by natural selection. Over millions of years, living organisms adapted to their environments through random genetic changes and survival, not because an unseen hand was guiding them. Nature looks organized because the things that didn't work simply died off, not because a divine programmer built everything from scratch to fit together.
