An Analysis Of Aquinas Arguments For The Existence Of God

Does God exist? - Yes, No or Is the question relevant?

In this paper I will explain Aquinas' argument in support of God's existence and Russell's challenge of Aquinas' proof in support of God's non-existence. I will argue that first we can't define God and second we will never know if that something called God exists or does not. The question of God's existence would therefore be irrelevant. My argument will be based on contemporary physics theory. In Summa Theologica Aquinas offers proof for the existence of God. One of them is called The First Cause. In the world there's a series of Efficient Causes. Each object or event that we sense should have been caused by something else. Nothing can cause itself or else it would have existed before itself, which cannot be. If we examine backwards the series of efficient causes, that series can't continue forever and there has to be a first efficient cause that started it all. For example, the sun burns and emits energy in the form of heat. Something caused the sun to

As human beings, we don't know and we will never know whether or not there's one God, a number of God's or no God(s) at all. We will not know what's beyond our known universe, or what we call space-time. Based on Einstein's general theory of relativity it can be argued that there's what's called a limit of knowledge, and it goes as follows: Nothing can travel faster than light. Imagine that a ray of light is sent to attempt reaching the "edge" of space-time, in order to probe what's there. The light will never reach the so-called edge, since space-time also expands at a speed of light. Moreover, the ray of light which was sent will bend due to space-time's mass gravitational pull and will travel in a curve, which means it will never escape the edge. What this means is that nothing that leaves our planet (or any other planet) will ever be able to reach the edge of space-time in order to know what's