If so, is matter the God Aquinas is referring to as the first cause? Furthermore, this second way of proving the existence of God is somewhat related to the first one and also rests on the Aristotle’s theory of motion. To Aquinas, since nothing can exist prior to and as cause of itself, there must be an order, chain of efficient causes in the world. Similarly to the idea in the previous argument, Aquinas states that there can't be an infinite number of efficient causes, and thus he identifies the first efficient cause as God. Again several paradoxes are formed from the formulation of this argument. To begin with, the question appears of how St Thomas Aquinas decides that everyone calls this first cause "God." Obviously, this proof relies heavily on acceptance of the first proof. Aquinas again assumes that motion has purpose, and that purpose denotes an intelligent planner. There is no evidence that simply because God is the first cause and pure actuality, God is the cause of His own being. By stating that the line of causes cannot go on to infinity, Thomas Aquinas establishes the endpoint of God. On the contrary, speaking of first efficient cause, why didn’t St. Thomas Aquinas argue matter as the first cause? Matter as we all know is the substance that any physical object is composed of. Matter is closed and finite, with no beginning or end. Could one not put matter in the place of God in Aquinas’ argument and still assume there is a first efficient cause? The theory that matter “is” is just as plausible as the theory that God “is”. Matter is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning or end. Putting Matter in the place of God in the end of the argument given by Aquinas is just as plausible. In fact, matter is an easier concept to understand and to believe in than God. Everyone has a different view of what God is and even what he stands for, Christians believe He’s just a...
