Firstly, three of these five proofs are basically directly saying just one thing. This is that a cause is needed to explain them (all the things that are argued in these three proofs). And this cause is and can only be God. But not just any God (as in any of the Gods of religions), but only the Triune God of the Roman Catholic religion. Here we have the number one problem with the five proofs.
Thomas Aquinas did not bother to explain or elaborate on why the cause (i.e., unmoved mover, uncaused cause, and the "unable to not exist" cause) is and can only be his Triune God. His basic assumption is that the only valid answer is God (the Triune God of his religion). Just not other Gods (as there are numerous Gods of numerous other religions, a few of these religions claiming that the God of their religion is the one who created all things. Or even God as a metaphysic, general, or generic concept (as argued by the book "God, the Science, the Evidence" by Michel-Yves Bolloré & Olivier Bonnassies). This means his arguments, claims and assertions are from a closed mind (without objectivity).
Without examining (i.e., completely discounting) other religions and other possible explanations as the cause and source for his five proofs, the exercise of Thomas Aquinas was not about proving that God exist but to proclaim his Triune God as GOD (i.e., as the ONE who brought all things into existence). Which is why, other than the argument for the five proofs, he basically lost all objectivity in his "Summa Theologica" to declare what his Triune God is and is not.
For example, Aquinas argues that the Trinity signifies the determinate number of persons, which is distinct from the relations between them. He asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons of one essence (i.e., substance), and that the term "Trinity" is not to be applied to God in the sense of plurality but rather in the sense of unity and equality.
Did he bother to ask why three and not four, two, seven, ten, twelve and a half, etc? Why just three? What does it mean three persons in one essence (or substance)? Why not three essences in one person? Or three essences in one essence? Or why does God need to be anything at all other than just be God? Senselessness is obvious to all but those who are senseless.
He further argued that (his Triune) God created mankind with immortal souls without elaborating or explaining why God would do such a stupid thing. As implied in the doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion, it is so that (his Triune) God could sadistically torture all mankind who don't believe in Him (his Triune God), in hell forever. These two doctrines of this religion alone made out (his Triune) God as either stupid or evil, or both.
Here is a joke, but nonetheless true. What do a mad person, a stupid person, and a dead person have in common? Answer: They all don't know that they are.
That is what (believing in) religions with senseless Gods does to a person. It leads intelligent people to become stupid. They are no longer able to understand the doctrines of these religions about their Gods, just don't make sense and are essentially senseless stupidity.
Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica" and "five proofs of the existence of God" were not an exercise to come to some points of truth. Especially the truth of whether GOD is or can be real. It is to advance and declare his religion as from GOD.
It is important to note and understand that Thomas Aquinas did not argue his five proofs to prove that GOD is real, but to prove that his Triune God is GOD, the GOD responsible for creating all things. This makes the entirety of his five proofs and his Summa Theologica into a general falsehood (i.e., just a lie and just totally fraudulent). Whether anything that he wrote in that document is or can be true, they were all rendered into a lie because his conclusion is a lie. They were all premises, assertions, claims, and arguments used to support and promote a lie.
When the conclusion is invalid, all the premises used to arrive at this conclusion become pointless and meaningless. Constructed just to advance a lie or falsehood.
The question to ask is, why don't all those who studied and reviewed Aquinas' five proofs even remotely understand this very obvious thing? Let us not even speak about those who read and agreed with them. And especially those who took up his five books, elaborated and expanded (adding in new spins and twists) on them so as to publish their own takes.
Now, the very next thing to note about his five proofs was that these were made during a time when mankind hardly had any scientific knowledge from scientific research and discovery. Science was just not a thing yet during those times.
Knowledge of our reality, especially our planet and solar system, and the vast diversity of life on earth, was at best nominal. Almost all of mankind then thought that the earth was flat and the center of creation (i.e., the entire universe and everything else, if there is anything else). And GOD, together with the bulk of the Angels (i.e., the Spirit personages or entities), all live and have their place/domain of existence in "Heaven", believed to be up in the sky.
One of the main problems of the ignorance of those ancient times is that if something cannot be explained, then the answer is always to attribute it to God (the God of whatever religion that is). Ancient religious mankind invariably defaulted to the cop-out answer about the God of their religions of, "how unsearchable are His thoughts and His way past finding out". This is the same way with science. Only science uses the terms "natural" and "random" to explain them away. Mankind is just a deceitful (i.e., lying) lot.
These mankind do so we don't have to give any explanation for them (all the things we can't rationalise or explain). Instead of saying we don't know or don't have the answers, we attribute them to something mysterious or pretend they do not need to be addressed(because they are totally natural or just completely random, so no explanation is necessary). More on this in the last instalment of this discussion series.
Today, of Aquinas' five proofs, is any of them valid or can still be valid (as in, can be true)?
With all the discoveries of science and the knowledge we have today (as of 2026 CE), will any of Aquinas' five proofs still hold or be perceived to be valid (as opposed to invalid, false, erroneous, or in error)?
Today, almost all the average intelligent (i.e., academically educated, especially at the tertiary education level) members of mankind know about the basics of biology and chemistry (not necessarily physics, cosmology, and genetics). The basics of nutrition and how mankind (including animals and plants) reproduce.
Some of us today additionally know that energy is what causes things to be able to change, function and move. We know we get our ability (i.e., the energy and building blocks that we need to grow and function) from the food (including other nutrients needed for health) we consume. This pretty much invalidates or renders null and void Thomas Aquinas' first proof of the "unmoved mover".
This ffirst proof of needing an "unmoved mover" (to "supernaturally" move us and all the other things and objects that move to move) is rendered into just a stupid idea in itself. No doubt some rewrite or representation of Aquinas' five proofs has since added twists and spins to this first proof to make it more valid. But in this discussion, I will not look into all these "spins and twists" as these are not the ideas of Aquinas but those of "spin doctors", aka fraudsters (someone who takes someone else's ideas to add spins and various takes to it so they can, in some ways, profit off these ideas with their spins).
These fraudsters are basically plagiarizers. But please know there is a difference between plagiarizers from those who studied someone else's original ideas to rethink and critically analyze the concepts for validity. Then find the points of validity and expand or elaborate on them as an exercise to come to the truth of some matter. Which, by the way, is not what this discussion is doing. This discussion is to critically analyze or examine Aquinas' five proofs, whether they can or do rationally, or even irrefutably, rationally prove the existence of God.
This first proof basically argued that anything at all that moves needed something to ("move them" or) be the cause or source for them to have this ability. We (those of us in the know) know that motion is powered by energy (most educated and intelligent people know this) and the four (or three-plus-one) fundamental forces (just those who are more educated who have read up on the discoveries of science, particularly the Big Bang theory).
Almost anyone intelligent (this being the keyword) knows the reason life, particularly animal life, consumes food is for the building blocks of life and to extract from the foods the nutrients and the energy to "power" their life. And many also know that plants get this energy from sunlight. This completely takes away the need for a so-claimed mover or unmoved mover to cause things to move.
The unmoved mover proof is something just from pure fantasy (as something completely invented without any knowledge of reality). What is an unmoved mover? Something actively moving things while completely remaining completely motionless? Whatever Aquinas was thinking, it just totally has no basis in reality. This means it is entirely out of fantasy, something conceived out of the blue in his grossly ignorant mind. The really stupid part is that today, many are those who still argue this point, albeit with twists and spins thrown to rationalize (to make it valid) it.
Basically, move, moving, or motion is just displacement. Even changes (any and all changes in the universe) are also just displacements. Just on a molecular, atomic and subatomic level where our eyes are unable to perceive them as just movement of some sort.
For things to move, there must first be space (or some "room" to move in) for this displacement to be possible. In other words, there is a need for either two-dimensional or three-dimensional space. This space (or realm, domain or dominion) must exist before movement and displacement can happen.
Secondly, there must be a passing or passage of time. This is why science has the space-time continuum as the first basis to our reality. Space-time is even more basic and fundamental than the fundamental forces (of science). This space-time must first exist before these fundamental forces can come into play (i.e., to exist and cause some effects). Which is why science conceived of the Big Bang "expanding" (first creating space-time in this expansion) to create our universe. More on this in the next instalment of this discussion series.
The second proof or argument of Thomas Aquinas is actually one and the same with the third. The second argued for the need for an "uncaused" cause to cause (bring all) things into existence. A cause not caused by any other cause (or in other words, a first or initial cause). The third argued for a cause that "cannot not exist" (or must always have existed, aka perpetually existing) to cause all the things that (can) exist and not exist to exist. These two proofs differ only in context, focusing on two different end results. One as this first or uncaused and the other as this cannot "not" exist cause (or in other words something that perpetually exists and not owing its existence to anything at all absolutely).
While the second (proof) still has a basis to validity, the third is essentially invalidated by the discoveries and knowledge we have from science. Notably, in atoms and subatomic particles as the building blocks for all the things of our universe (referred to as "exist" and "existence" by Thomas Aquinas). Read more on whether the Big Bang theory invalidates his second proof in the instalment, "Science's Answers for Us and Our Universe Existing", of this discussion series.
Though the (Aquinas's second) argument of a (first) cause causing reality or "existence" (i.e., our universe) is rationally and logically valid, all his premises and arguments are in contradiction with his conclusion. Additionally, the answer to Stephen Hawking's question, "If God created the universe, then who created God?", still needed to be addressed and rationally satisfactorily answered. How and why this first cause (or "causa efficiens") can or would exist in the first place.
Aquinas' problem is that he had zero understanding of the concept of perpetuity, of "always" existing. Of a first cause that must exist perpetually. Of course, he also has zero understanding of time and space as a prerequisite for things to exist and be moving (or functional).
Science somewhat understood this, which is why in their Big Bang theory, one of the very first things created in or by the Big Bang was the space-time continuum.
The third argument is basically the same as the second. This argued that there must be something (the very first something) existing without itself being brought into existence to cause all the other things (that both can exist and not exist) to exist.
Another problem then with Thomas Aquinas' second and especially his third argument, is that he didn't address the question for a perpetually existing reality. What are the needed attributes or properties for such a thing to be perpetually existing, regardless of whether it is God or whatever? Thus rendering his argument as lacking, deficient, or insufficient. He was making assumptions without justifying or giving any viable bases for his assumptions.
The fourth proof is basically the application of degree or gradation to (desirable or virtues in) abstract values such as good, excellence, noble, etc. Arguing that there must be an absolute (or "maximum" or "perfection") to these desirable or positive qualities or abstract values. Then, to say that there must be a maximum or an absolute value to the degrees or gradation for these values. All those of lesser degrees (and not the maximum degrees) for them to be compared with or measured against. And this maximum, aka perfection, can and must only be God.
The problem here is that a superlative (as a maximum or absolute value) for this gradation must equally be applicable to undesirable or "negative" qualities such as deplorables, evil or wickedness, lust, greed, contentiousness, spitefulness, hatred, maliciousness, etc. By this argument, then these undesirable or bad qualities must also be equally applicable to God as the one having the maximum of all abstract values or qualities. Which means that while gradation of "abstract qualities" exists, but to apply only the maximum of desirable or positive qualities to God and not includes the undesirable or negative abstract values or qualities, is just a subjective bias, invalidating the Triune God proposed by Aquinas as subjective evaluations and not an objective one.
But to apply both extremes of positive and desirable, and negative and undesirable as the ultimate or most extreme of all these qualities, both the good and the bad, to his Triune God will make his claimed God into a total contradiction, thereby also invalidating this God as something that can be real. This proof or argument of Aquina was stupid from the moment it was conceived and made all the more moronic with the things we know today from the discoveries of science. You cannot make arguments to apply one set of values to God without also applying the converse or diametrically opposite set also to God, without giving a valid justification or rationalization.
If (per Aquinas' argument) his Triune God is the ("uncaused") cause for all things in existence (i.e., that are), then all values absolutely, both the good and desirable together with the bad and undesirable, must and can only be cause by this Triune God. As He is the one who brought all things into existence. All these things then must include all things absolutely, including whatever abstract "qualities". Things both good and bad, values whether tangibles or intangibles, abstract or concrete. Therefore, all must be attributed to God and God only as the source and cause of all things. Unless you can come up with a valid and rational reason or answer to say why some are applicable while others are not.
The last argument of unintelligent lifeform (which he called "natural" bodies without intellect) needing "an intelligent driving force" to cause them to act (i.e., behave or conduct themselves) towards some goals. This is more or less the same as his first proof of an "unmoved mover". Only applied differently.
This argument, like the first, has been invalidated by the Evolution Theory, genetics and biology (as well as chemistry and physics). Which attributes the existence of all things to the forces or laws of all these sciences. These laws or forces essentially completely invalidated the need for some external something or someone to direct these "natural bodies without intellect (i.e., intelligence) to act according to a purpose or to some ends.
The main point or thrust of the Big Bang theory is about a self-generating and self-driving reality that does not need a first cause or any "external" causes for anything to happen other than in the very first instant of the Big Bang. Science still needs to validly account for why the Big Bang happened (as in what caused the Big Bang to begin expanding).
Genetics, chemistry, and biology in the Evolution of the Species basically explain how lifeforms (aka "natural bodies without intellect") function the way they do. Though science denies that this is "with a purpose" and explain them as just totally and purely "natural accidents" (i.e., mutation or random accidents "natural" to process of DNA replication) and completely driven by "natural selection" in a randomized process of the fit surviving while the lesser or not fit dying out with their genetic lineage coming to a "naturally selected" end.
This is why Aquinas's second proof is the only one that can have validity because the Big Bang still needs a cause both for it to exist and to start expanding. Though science is still trying to argue against this need for a cause with numerous theories, such as a perpetually oscillating (i.e., flip-flopping) expanding/contracting universe, the multiverse, parallel universes, wormholes, etc.
Regardless, this second proof of Thomas Aquinas still needed an explanation of why this cause can only be his Triune God, which he presented in his Summa Theologica. A Triune God who is just some metaphysical ideal and not necessarily something actually real. A metaphysical ideal is basically a fantasy object or thing. To attribute this ideal to his Triune God still needs proof or argument on how such ideals can be attributed to someone or something that is real or an actuality. And not just pure unadulterated fantasy, a fantasized construct o fabrication.
□
Next: Science's Answer for Us and Our Universe Existing
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 09
© Quah 2025 - 2026. All rights reserved
