st effect, and this would be an open mistake which is obviously false. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is in turn caused by his parents. Evidently, we cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, one is forced to suppose some first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name ‘God’.In summary, Aquinas’ second way states that no object created itself, or is found to be the efficient cause of itself because if this was the case, the object would have to be prior to itself, which is impossible. Consequently, we see that one object’s existence is simultaneously dependant on the other. However, there cannot be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist so there must be an uncaused first cause. Therefore, in conclusion, the uncaused cause exists and is called God.What are the main ideas in Aquinas’ first two ways? Basically, I perceive that his arguments are equivalent to the proposition, “There is no thing that came from nothing.”The first argument is about motion, which means every kind of change, not just local motion or change of place, but also ripening, heating, etc. There must always be a cause for any change, a “moving” cause. The second argument is very similar, about “efficient” causes. The difference between a “moving” cause and an “efficient” cause is that the moving cause produces another state of something while the efficient cause produces existence. Therefore, it is my view that without a moving cause and an efficient cause there would simply be “nothing” and the universe and concept of time would cease to exist. On that account, Aquinas’ first two ways seem to present a successful argument for the existence of the creator God.As with all arguments attempting to prove the existence of God, Aquinas’ first two ways are subjected to possible criticisms, objections and/or we...
