other 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 weak points. To begin with, consider Aquinas’ first way, the Argument from Motion. 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. A problem arises in that this argument could always be tested to be false by asking the question, “What moved God?” Aquinas would probably answer that nothing moved God because God has always existed. Still, to prove his first argument to atheists, 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 always have been. This would make for a kind of circular flaw in logic or paradox, in that Aquinas could not prove God existed until he proved God has existed forever, and he obviously cannot prove that God has existed forever until he proves that God exists at all.In defense against this and other criticisms, it is my viewpoint that a measure of faith is necessary to believe in God’s existence. My conviction is that God’s infinity proves that he has existed forever. When trying to understand certain of God’s incomprehensible attributes, like how He has existed forever, it is necessary to realize that we as humans are finite beings who are incapable of fully comprehending the infinite being of God. God is the infinite God. Nothing or no one created Him, or brought him ...
