toward an end. (It is this observation of the universe that is the basis for the sciences, especially the science of physics.) We also see that non-intelligent things cannot move toward their end unless directed by an intelligent being. As an example, St. Thomas Aquinas uses an arrow. An arrow will not achieve its purpose (that of reaching its mark) unless directed to do so by an archer. Obviously, humans are the intelligent beings that direct the small objects of our world, but there must be a greater intelligence that directs the larger bodies of the universe, such as the stars and the planets, since we obviously have no control over them. This higher intelligence is what we call God. These two arguments approach the problem of proving God's existence in two completely different ways. One goes the route of saying there must be something that started everything, and the other says there must be something that controls the things that are here, even if "it" did not create them. Both of these arguments seem, at first, to be good and valid in their separate approaches. However, the first on does have one major flaw as I see it. St. Thomas Aquinas says that the line of movers cannot go on to infinity, which common sense would tell you to be true. He thus establishes the arbitrary endpoint of God. The problem I see is that this argument could always be tested to be false by asking the question, "What Moved God?" St. Thomas Aquinas would probably answer that nothing mover God because God has always existed. I personally believe this to be true, but, to prove his first argument, St. Thomas Aquinas must accompany it by another argument that proves God has existed forever. Then, God would not need to have been moved since He would have always been. This would make for a kind of circular flaw in logic or paradox, in that he could not prove God existed until he proved God has existed forever, and he obviously cannot prove that God has existed fo...
