here is no time-related or temporal priority of God to the world.Finally, Aquinas’ first two ways seem related to questions about the universe. The argument from motion and argument from the nature of efficient causation give rise to questions like “Has the universe always existed, or did it have a beginning in time?” If the universe did have a beginning, then what was there before? And what about the size of the universe. Is it infinite or finite? It is hard to imagine infinity, but if the universe is finite, it does not make sense to ask what is beyond it, because the universe is all there is.In conclusion, I believe that a person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say “there is no God” from his own pool of knowledge. We as humans are contingent, or finite beings, and only someone capable of being in all places at the same time with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe can make such a statement that “there is no God” based on the facts. In other words, a person would have to be God to say there is no God. Still, proving the existence of God to atheists and non-believers is a worthwhile task. If someone did come up with a complete, foolproof argument for the existence of God, the people of the world would have no choice but to believe in His existence. However, even though St. Thomas Aquinas makes a worthy and in my opinion successful effort, I believe such a task is not yet possible through logic and reasoning alone. There is an element of faith that must be present for people to believe, and if that element is not there, no matter how foolproof an argument seems to be, there will always be those who do not believe. For me, Aquinas’ first two ways are successful in proving God’s existence but my belief in the existence of God is on the basis of faith. Therefore, if that element of faith is not there, I do not think you can completely prove God&#...
