What are some arguments against St Thomas Aquinas quinquae viae?
Well the first three of the quinque viae are just variations on the cosmological argument and basically just insist that there must be a God without really giving any evidence. They “work” like this: a) Something exists/is caused/is moved b) Nothing just exists/happens/moves c) Something must make it exist/happen/move d) That thing is God. They fall flat when you realise that d) is a direct violation of b). If everything has a cause, what caused God? God is used to stop the infinite regress of causes/happenings/movements but in fact does nothing as it contradicts the assumption that everything needs a cause etc. The postulation of such a being that could cause the universe is an unnecessary step as we could just as well say “everything needs a cause except the first one” and not bother with the extra step of inventing Gods. The implication of this argument is that something supernatural is needed to start off natural things however it is merely an insistence of something supernatural r
