e is more of God than their minds can contain and comprehend. Seemingly, the attempt to fully understand God is like trying to place the infinite One into a finite space; that is impossible.Another weak point that appears in Aquinas’ arguments is that even if they do provide certainty about the existence of an unchanging changer or Greatest Conceivable Being that could not have failed to exist, the arguments fail to prove the existence of the theistic God. Since the theistic idea of God is a Being of perfect goodness, omnipotence, and omniscience, an issue arises. How do we know, for example, that the unchanging changer isn’t evil or slightly ignorant? Well, aside from using logic and our natural powers of reasoning to deduce whether the ultimate Being is supremely good or not, observe that an element of faith is once again necessary in this scenario. Finally, regarding the Argument from Motion, who is to say there was only one original Prime Mover? Why not two? Better still, why not a whole team of Gods, working on the project together? Perhaps our universe is one of many attempts, some good, some botched. In defense against this criticism, I believe that it is hard for humans to accept that some things may not have a reason, but there might be instances where this is actually the case. It is my view that there may be some questions that simply may not be answered correctly or known in our lifetime as mortals, or contingent beings.Criticisms regarding Aquinas’ second way, the nature of efficient causation, also result in various objections to the argument. First of all, it seems like Aquinas decides, arbitrarily, that the first efficient cause is called “God” by everyone. One may argue that given there is some First Cause, it does not follow that there is God. It does not follow either that there is just one such cause, or that this being has the other attributes ordinarily ascribed to God. The defense aga...
