Disclaimer:
I have not read any of the books or their arguments discussed in this discussion series. I only read several reviews and summaries published by those who claimed to have read (and studied) these books and their arguments. I read several reviews (including a few AI-generated summaries) to ensure that what these reviewers wrote is credible (meaning they all more or less wrote the same thing, and that they are all mostly agreed on what these books about God's existence, wrote and argued).
This post analyses Thomas Aquinas' five proofs (just the main points, not the elaboration and new spins added by others who took up these five points to elaborate and expand on them to make them more credible) and on how he deduced that they are evidently evidence of the existence of God. But not just any God as defined and proclaimed by mankind and religion generally. But specifically and solely on the God of his religion, the Roman Catholic religion as the evident answers to all five proofs.
The problem in finding out what Thomas Aquinas actually wrote is that we need to go back to his original (or source) document or writing (which is not in English). Sadly, I am unable to do that (for several reasons).
All others who took up Aquinas five proof expanded (add in twists and spins of their own), not to elaborate on what Aquinas wrote but to make it (more) valid and credible (as opposed as invalid, incorrect, or in error). For example, in Aquinas' fifth proof, he wrote of "purpose", but some rewrites or re-arguers have rendered this into "design"; while his argument of "movement or motion" most have rendered it additionally as "change". This they do to give greater credence and validity to his original five proofs, thus making them effectively not those from Thomas Aquinas but other self-perceived "superlatives" of mankind the (intellectually or intelligently) superior humans, and thus just brazen liars, charlatans, deceivers or scammers.
All of these are basically saying that some or all of Aquinas are not valid (i.e., invalid) as presented by him. That is why they have to change them to make them valid. Most of these are philosophers (published by website on philosophy or universities) or theologians (i.e., of the Christmas religions particular the great Catholic religion).
Whenever you make changes to something someone wrote or said, you are essentially showing yourself as superior to the one who wrote or said those things. Providing clarification is not the same thing as to add to and taking away from these writings to effectively change them to (make them) your "supreme takes". Which is why the Scripture commanded that we do not add to and take away from what GOD ordained, instituted, and commanded, as well as what the Scripture recorded (Deuteronomy 4 verse 2, 12 verse 32; Revelation 22 verse 19).
So here I just rely on what I can find out using the internet search engines. All of which are mostly just interpretation, with these interpreters (or plagiarizers, depending on their motives) adding in their own spins and elaborations, expanding on what Aquinas actually wrote in his five proofs. Here I present what I can make of his "dissertations", claims or assertions about God (his Triune God) and his five proofs.
According to the "internet" (a search of the internet for proof of God), (quote:) "there's no single, universally accepted scientific or empirical proof for God's existence, but many philosophers and theologians offer logical arguments (Cosmological, Teleological/Design, Moral, Ontological) pointing to a Creator from the universe's origin, intricate design, innate morality, or inherent concept of a perfect being, while believers also cite personal experiences, scripture, and miracles as evidence."
However, the term "universally accepted" is misleading. It means not everyone absolutely will accept any proof as irrefutable. If you know by now (either from reading this work or general observation of human behavior, conduct, and our senseless beliefs reported daily by major news media and from personal perception), nearly all mankind is a completely insane and senseless lot.
This has been the reason this work coined the phrases "deliberately stupid", "deliberated stupidity", and "massively stupid". Or more accurately, "deliberately pretending to be stupid", because the great majority of mankind are not really that stupid, they just choose to be so from an evil agenda and overabundance of uncontrolled lust.
Just look at all the insane and senseless things extremely intelligent mankind chooses to believe in despite their incredulous (as the play on the word "unbelievable") intelligence. Religion being the very first, having over seventy-five percent (according to the latest statistic of 2020 CE) of the total population their believers.
So then there is "no way in hell" you can get everyone to all agree to any one thing. To talk of "universally acceptable" is to talk about an impossible thing. Which of course just means that the "internet" (i.e., the AIs' search engines of web browsers) is also basically insane when it "speaks" of universally accepted or acceptable. Just so you know, or FYI.
In reference to "irrefutable proofs", the only thing we (i.e., all of those who are actually intelligent and not technically insane, partially insane, or are deliberately stupid) are looking for is "rationally irrefutable". Not "universally irrefutable" to all mankind, aka universally acceptable.
Numerous books and papers have been published about the existence of God; the far greater majority of which seek to prove the existence of God, with just a few to prove otherwise. Many of these books are of the religious/philosophical (combining religious doctrines with philosophy) genre. But of late, more and more books have been published arguing that the discovery of science does not contradict but actually validates the existence of God.
One of the earliest books arguing for the existence of God was by Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274). His five proofs of the existence of God have become the main arguments by numerous authors in other books and published papers that expanded or elaborated on his arguments.
The first thing to know about Thomas Aquinas and his five proofs of the existence of God was that he was a (Roman) Catholic, of the Roman Catholic religion. His "five proofs" were part of a theological paper (or publication) on the Roman Catholic Religion (i.e., of the Mother Church of the Christmas religion).
Among his many dissertations (or assertions, claims, or proclamations) in his "Summa Theologica", he asserted (i.e., claimed) that while God (his Triune or three persons/hypostasis in a single person God) is self-evident to God Himself (i.e., "God's nature is to be existence; so it's self-evident to God"), however it is not self-evident to mankind. This means that we by looking at ourselves, our habitat, the reality of our lives and existence (i.e., the whole universe or cosmos), we cannot or are unable to discern, note, perceive, or know that God exists. And most people will agree, but not me.
When we say that something is self-evident, it means that it is obvious, plain, apparent, clear, distinct, manifest, obvious, patent, or self-explanatory. Something we can discern and perceive by our senses or grasp by our mind by being observant, perceptive, and intelligent. Not by being totally clueless and senseless from being driven by our lust and obsession for things (such as wealth, fame, power, sex orgies, supremacy, elitism, etc.) or preoccupied with the pursuit of life. covetousness, and pleasure. Which sadly, are the primary focus and pursuit of the fall greater majority of mankind. Read my book, "Is God for Real?" where this is shown to be the case, when it comes to the great majority of mankind.
Now, to say that God is self-evident to Himself. is basically just saying that God is self-aware of Himself. Aware of Himself that He is real and that He is who He is (or exists). Though it is uncertain if Aquinas meant this (because those I read are the interpreted, summarized version of his Summa Theologica and not his original writing). It could be that the original term used by the original author (i.e., Thomas Aquinas) was incorrectly translated by all these reviewers and re-presenters into the term "self-aware". This however, is unlikely as he also basically said the same about God's existence as not "self-evident" to mankind.
Saying we are self-evident to ourselves is the exact same thing as saying that we (all mankind) are all individually self-aware (in that we are evident or self-evident to ourselves that we exist or are real).
Categorially, all sufficiently intelligent conscious entities (unless they are clinically insane) would be "self-aware" (i.e., aware or know that they are who they are and they are real) and be cognizant of their existence as someone. This statement by Aquinas is basically a stupid statement, as it is obvious to anyone intelligent that they first have to be self-aware, to be intelligent. If they are not self-aware they either have zero intelligence or are literally (i.e., clinically) insane.
No doubt he said so in order to contrast it with "God is not self-evident to man". To say that God is not self-evident to man is to say no man (includes woman) can (i.e., it is impossible for man to) know that God is real or exist from observing, looking at, analysing, considering, and understanding our reality (i.e., all that we see in and around ourselves; from discerning our habitat the reality of our Earth, and the rest of the Cosmos aka our universe). This is only true if all mankind is not intelligent or has no intelligence. If we have absolute zero ability or capability to understand the things we see around us and which interact with.
Saying something is evident is basically talking about the "proof" in these somethings. Saying something is "self-evident" just means that these things are undeniable (i.e., cannot be denied that they are true and/or valid) from all the things that we perceive (i.e., see, hear, smell, touch, etc.), know, and understand about them.
Thomas Aquinas, in saying that God is not self-evident to mankind he was saying that mankind cannot know or understand that God exists by looking at ourselves and our habitat, from all we know about ourselves and our realm of existence.
While it may be (i.e., is and can be) true during those ancient times with mostly ignorant mankind when Aquinas wrote this. But by today thanks to all the discoveries of science, no intelligent person who is in the know of the reality of our existence, this is absolutely no longer true. Unless we deliberately (i.e., both willing and willfully) choose to be in ignorance of all the knowledge that we have today.
Anyone sufficiently intelligent and not clinically insane would know God exists from our own understanding and knowledge of ourselves and our reality, what we can perceive and thus are aware of (i.e., being awake and aware). That from looking at ourselves and our surrounding reality (especially with the knowledge we have today from the discoveries of science), we can understand that God is the One who created all these things, ourselves included. (This, by the way, is one of the main points or arguments of my book, "Is God for Real?", read it for the rationally irrefutable proof that GOD is more real than real).
Then he cited his five proofs of the existence of God as the evident (i.e., discernible, perceivable, and undeniable) proofs of God's existence. He was basically contradicting himself when he said the existence of God is not evident (literally "not self-evident" and not discernible from what we see in the creation) to mankind.
I have no idea just how many thousands or millions have read his arguments (presented and represented, elaborated and expanded upon with twists and spins in many numerous other books and publications since), but no one (especially from this last one to two hundred years when more is understood about ourselves and our universe) at all absolutely even seemed to remotely discern or note that he was basically contradicting himself. What it means is that no one at all even understands what a contradiction is (or is not). It means that all these reviewers and other readers have all been staring directly at a contradiction (i.e., an invalidation) and still think that it makes sense or is valid.
This totally explains why over seventy-five percent of humans are subscribers to all the insane religions of humankind. And why our awesomely ingenious scientists (some to most of them) actually asserted that absolute nothing and absolutely everything are the exact same thing in the then (between 2010-2012 CE) newly minted (as spin of the original) theory of the Big Bang. They all absolutely had no clue that they had been believing in things that are essentially contradictions.
Contradiction tells us something "is off" or doesn't make sense. It is one of the very first indications that something presented is not true (i.e., a lie or in error) or invalid (i.e., has no validity). But hardly anyone understands it, especially if these contradictions are present subtly. Even if it is very obvious or "clear as day".
About The Five Proofs
His (original, not the revised, reviewed, elaborated on versions by others who wrote about them) five proofs basically argued that the existence of God is evidently evident in (can be perceived and understood by) these five main things (i.e., his five proofs or arguments for the existence of God). If his arguments is not to say that God (his Triune God) is self or evidently evident from this five things (his five proofs) then what was he arguing about?
If God is not evident (or "self-evident") per his five arguments than his five proofs would proved nothing and would be nothing but just meaningless blabber! This is the number one reason why I wrote of almost all of mankind are massively stupid. Because when something is very obviously in total contradiction we all willfully still continued on to believe and hold them to be true and valid.
His first argument is of the "unmoved mover" (or a first or initial mover). That for all things that move, they needed something "not being moved" to move them. This first unmoved "something aka mover" must and can only be God (i.e., his Triune God, and not some other God or Gods of other religions). This is his first causality argument. In a general context it is the same as proof number two and three.
The second argument is that of an "uncaused" cause, aka the "efficient" cause. This proof basically asserts that for anything to exist there needed to be something to cause it to exist. Quote: "Nothing is caused by itself". Something cannot cause itself to exist, it needed something else to cause it to exist. Therefore something is first needed to cause all the (other) things (that exist) to exist. This something (which itself is not cause or uncaused by anything, or any other thing) must and can only be God (i.e., his Triune God). This then is his second causality argument.
The third argument is that things can exist and not exist (quote: “We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be”). Since it is possible for things to exist and to not exist, it is impossible for these things (that "are possible to be and not to be") to always have existed. There must be something that cannot (that has no possibility to) not exist (to begin) to bring things (all these "things that are possible to be and not to be") to exist. This something must and can only be God (i.e., his Triune God). This is his third causality argument arguing that there must be a first cause to cause all the contingent (those that can exist or not exist) things to exist. Essentially this argument or proof is the same as proof number two. Just with a different focus.
The fourth argument is of degrees of qualities (i.e., virtues or positive qualities) in excellence, goodness, truth, nobility, and so on (but not the diametrical opposite of these desirable and good, the negative qualities such evilness, wickedness, maliciousness, greediness, insanity, stupidity, spitefulness, etc.). That there must be a maximum (i.e., perfection or absolute value) of these qualities which all things of lesser degrees can be or are compared with or graded against. And this maximum (or absolute to these qualities) must and can only be God (i.e., his Triune God). This is his "maximum or absolute" argument is a really stupid argument not just because his claims totally excluded the converse or diametrical opposite. You just can't pick and choose what is applicable and what is not with justify why those you did not include is not. By so doing you are just presenting a slanted or prejudiced (i.e., just a one sided argument instead of one considering all the relevant sides to the) argument.
His fifth argument is that "natural bodies" (referring to living things without intellect aka intelligence, meaning just animals or included plants) act to an end (i.e., towards a purpose). There is a need for something to "direct" these "natural bodies" to act to this end (i.e., towards the end or purpose they act towards) otherwise they could not. This something can and must be God (i.e., his Triune God). This is his "directing force" argument which is also a stupid argument except that in certain context it can be valid.
All Aquinas five proofs is just arguing for one main thing only. That a supreme being (his Triune God) is necessary for all these things. So it is all about a initial, first, always existing cause to all of them, for them to be able to be (exist and come into existence), to function (move and act towards a purpose), and to have desirable abstract attributes.
◻
Next in this discussion series: The Problem with the Five Proofs
Note:
1. Words in italics are direct quotes from other sources and for "clarification" (and not the exact the literally translated) words used by Thomas Aquinas.
2, Due to my current focus on completing the three books I am writing, and to get all these three published, I have broken up lengthy new posts in this work into a series of shorter posts. This is so that I can regularly publish new post as well have more frequent updates to this work. Rather than publishing a new post every several months or longer.
Previous Post > GOD's Communication with Mankind? Part 1
Next Post > By Their Fruits You Will Know Them.
Special Note
Next Post > By Their Fruits You Will Know Them.
Special Note
Please note that all discussions by this author are based on a general non expert assessment of information gathered from material published in the public domain (i.e., readily available to members of the general public). All of this author's discussions are presented as material for any and all lay persons with no special expertise. Anyone twelve years of age and older, who is not mentally incapacitated in some ways, would (or should anyway) be able to understand anyall the discussions of this author. No one needs to be an expert or a genius to be able to understand the simple and straight forward truths discussed by this author.
The main basis of all this author's discussions is the original inspired texts of the Christian Holy Scriptures sourced from material currently (at time of the posting) publicly available as ‘translated’ text in numerous version of the Christian Bible and extensively referenced by the Strong Exhaustive Concordance of the King James Version. The discussions' focus and context are with respect to this author's Christian commitment, worship and beliefs through the calling of ALMIGHTY GOD to the baptism of repentance into the Everlasting Covenant mediated by LORD JESUS of the Christian Bible Gospel's and the full New Covenant's accounts.
The referenced sources for all other religions and system of beliefs (hereafter referred to as the Referenced Sources), are to materials freely available and published online on the World Wide Web and other internet service protocols on the Internet. These are published by either: the generally proclaimed, acclaimed and acknowledged experts and masters; or the self proclaimed, acclaimed and acknowledged experts and masters of such beliefs and religions; as well as of all others who published dissertations and discussions on these system of beliefs and religions whether presented as biased or unbiased discussion, dissertations or compilations.
The materials directly and specifically attributed to, as sources that form the basis to this author's discussions topics on other system of beliefs and religions are by no means all the sources referenced by this author but just a small sampling of such information that are accurate contextual representations of what is widely published to discuss, proclaim, assert, pronounce andor decree as the so claimed truth andor the direct communications from the ALMIGHTY CREATOR.
Anyone who disputes the accuracy or truthfulness of the discussions, dissertations and assertions with regards to other religions and systems of beliefs (other than the true Christian faith and worship of this author) are requested to take the matter up with the Reference Sources.
This author at no point claimed to be discussing the original work of the originators of any other religions or system of beliefs other than the Christian Commitment by the Everlasting Covenant mediated by LORD JESUS. All discussions of other religions and system of beliefs are based solely on what have been published and were available prior to the time the discussion was posted, and attributed to the Referenced Sources.
Please bear in mind that almost all the Referenced Sources of nearly all religions and system of beliefs as well as those who discussed andor compiled such material information varied their doctrines, assertions, claims (to accuracy, validity or authenticity) andor teachings significantly from time to time through the course of human history, as well as by their various and differing members of those who are the contemporary proclaimed and acclaimed experts, authorities andor masters of these knowledge, information, religions and system of beliefs, whether they are those generally acknowledged by the human social order andor those who claimed affiliations to these religions and systems of beliefs, or those who are self appointed. Therefore if anyone finds any discussion by this author on these religions and system of beliefs to be inaccurate, they should refer back to those materials published on these religions and system of beliefs that were contemporary to the date the discussion was first posted.
Updated: 2025 09 10
First Published: 2026 01 02
© Quah 2025 - 2026. All rights reserved
