Proof of God

I have read my first philosophical proof of god and I have found it very compelling. Several times in this proof, the arguments of a man named St. Thomas Aquinas was referenced. His writings are vital to this proof. Fortunately I have a copy of his book that feature the referenced arguments. So please read this post carefully as it is a complex argument. The entire post/proof is not posted here. Although I will post a link to the rest of it. I cut it short at the point where I feel there is a questionable argument. The rest of the proof is dependent on this particular point. So I will interject some my own questions and thoughts in regard to this point. Hopefully you will have some thoughts to share as well!


Here is the post copied fromwww.Catholic.com

The First Vatican Council taught that the existence of God can be proven by our reason alone:

God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason, through the things that he created. (Dei Filius 2)

But the Church has never offered an actual proof of God; it has left that to the philosophers. Although many have attempted to prove God’s existence, what they end up with is mere arguments. They may be quite persuasive, but they lack the metaphysical certitude of a mathematical proof. They may presuppose some bit of knowledge, or they may leave room for possible doubt.But the medieval understanding of God, which St. Thomas Aquinas espoused, does not allow for doubting his existence. The proof that follows is a paraphrasing of the Angelic Doctor’s many writings that dealt with this subject. It proves the existence of a being that is one, immutable, eternal, infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent.

In fact, you can be more certain that God exists than that you are reading this article right now.

A Brain in a Vat
Let’s start by taking a position of radical doubt. Suppose for a moment that you are not really a human being with an actual body. In reality, you are nothing more than a brain floating in a vat of fluids, with electrodes attached to various parts of your exterior that allow evil scientists to manipulate you into thinking that what you perceive is actually there, when in fact it is nothing more than an imaginary world constructed by the scientists. Right now, they are making you think that you are reading this article when in fact you are not.From this point of extreme skepticism, we will prove beyond all possible doubt that God exists.

1. One cannot deny one’s own existence. Cogito, ergo sum. Even if you’re just a brain in a vat, your own existence can be verified simply by the fact that you perceive—that is, you see, hear, smell, taste and touch things. Whether or not your perceptions are accurate is another question, but even if you doubt your own existence, you must exist, for it is impossible for a non-existent thing to doubt. In fact, the very act of doubting proves that you exist. Therefore, denying your own existence is a contradiction in terms. I can deny yours and you can deny mine, but I can’t doubt mine, nor can you doubt yours.

2. There is at least one thing that exists. It is possible for you to be deceived in your perception. In fact, it’s conceivable that every one of your perceptions is a delusion. But even if that is the case—even if nothing you think exists actually exists—you still must exist.Entity is the word we have for anything that exists. You exist, so you are an entity.

3. There is such a thing as existence. You can know with certainty that there is at least one entity, at least one thing of which the term existence can be predicated. If there were no such thing as existence, nothing would exist, not even you. But, as we have seen already, that is impossible.
As Aquinas would say, there must be an "act of being" in which all entities participate. This act of being must itself exist; it must be an entity. Thomas calls this entity esse, which is Latin for "to be" or "to exist."

4. The nature of esse is actuality. Now that we have established that esse is an entity, we must ask: What is the nature of this entity? What is its definition?To answer these questions, we must consider existence by itself, apart from everything else.What do we mean when we say that something exists? We mean that it is actual. For example, an acorn is actually an acorn and potentially a tree. A tree is actually a tree and potentially lumber. Lumber is actually lumber and potentially a desk. A desk is actually a desk and potentially firewood. Firewood is actually firewood and potentially ashes..........

The rest of the proof is located here:http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605uan.asp

O.k, so here is the summary of this argument so far, as i understand.
1. You must exist, you can doubt every other aspect of reality, but you must admit that you exist.
2. The second part of this argument is divided into three sections by the author, There is at least one thing that exist, There is such a thing as existence, The nature of esse is actuality.

All of these topics are derived from St Aquinas's writing. Here is the quote on this subject taken from the Third Article in The Existence of God.

God’s existence can be proved in five ways. The first and clearest proof is the argument from motion. It is certain, and in accordance with sense experience, that some things in this world are moved. Now everything that is moved is moved by something else, since nothing is moved unless it is potentially that to which it is moved, whereas that which moves is actual. To move is nothing other than to bring something from potentiality to actuality, and a thing can be brought from potentiality to actuality only by something which is actual. Thus a fire, which is actually hot, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, so moving and altering it. Now it is impossible for the same thing to be both actual and potential in the same respect, although it may be so in different respects. What is actually hot cannot at the same time be potentially hot, although it is potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that, in the same respect and in the same way, anything should be both mover and moved, or that it should move itself. Whatever is moved must therefore be moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved is itself moved, this also must be moved by something else, and this in turn by something else again. But this cannot go on for ever, since there would then be no first mover, and consequently no other mover, because secondary movers cannot move unless moved by a first mover, as a staff cannot move unless it is moved by the hand. We are therefore bound to arrive at a first mover which is not moved by anything, and all men understand that this is God.

The second way is from the nature of an efficient cause. We find that there is a sequence of efficient causes in sensible things. But we do not find that anything is the efficient cause of itself. Nor is this possible, for the thing would then be prior to itself, which is impossible. But neither can the sequence of efficient causes be infinite, for in every sequence the first efficient cause is the cause of an intermediate cause, and an intermediate cause is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate causes be many, or only one. Now if a cause is removed, its effect is removed. Hence if there were no first efficient cause, there would be no ultimate cause, and no intermediate cause. But if the regress of efficient causes were infinite, there would be no first efficient cause. There would consequently be no ultimate effect, and no intermediate causes. But this is plainly false. We are therefore bound to suppose that there is a first efficient cause. And all men call this God.

These two proofs have been selected for examination here because they are the most accurate proofs I have read. They are also the foundation of the argument referenced in first quote from http://www.catholic.com/

IF you wish to read the 3 additional proofs visit http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/nature_grace.vi.ii.iii.html

In both arguments, there is a key point made. One statement that is the philosophical glue that holds it together. It is this "glue" that I have been struggling to grasp and understand.
I accept that nothing can be the cause of itself. That makes perfect sense to me. This brings us to the "glue", an infinite string of causes.

"Whatever is moved must therefore be moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved is itself moved, this also must be moved by something else, and this in turn by something else again. But this cannot go on for ever, since there would then be no first mover, and consequently no other mover, because secondary movers cannot move unless moved by a first mover....."

According to Thomas Aquinas, an infinite string of causes is impossible, I fail to understand why. A friend of mind once illustrated this concept. He asked me to count numbers, he said "Start at infinity and count down to one." This is of course impossible. I feel that this is a similar to what Aquinas is referencing. If you did not have a starting point for your journey you could never arrive at an ending point. That makes sense to me as well.

However if you could count numbers infinitely in both directions, (positive and negative) you could still have a middle, as well as other points that are defined along the way. (This could be and analogy for time: having to beginning and no end) Although you could not locate these points by referencing the end, or the beginning. For example you could not say this number is located ten numbers after the beginning. You could say this number is located ten numbers before the middle.

The question is this: IF there was never an initial cause of events, does that mean that a middle effect could never occur along the way. This implies some very heavy things that I'm not sure are comprehensible by me. I know that time is relative, according to Einsteins Special Relativity Theory Which means the past for me can be the present for you. So i wonder, is it possible that time is traveling backwards and forwards?

Some claim that a thing just is. This is also a hard concept to grasp, for example subatomic particles were supposed to be the smallest building blocks of matter. Now we theorize that Subatomic particles are made of superstrings, which now are the smallest. If anyone asked "What are superstings made of?" We would say, nothing, they just are. The superstring just Is. And so we arrive at the original cause of matter.

Again, before the argument can continue we must answer: Is it possible to have an infinite line of causes?

I understand that there are a lot of questions as well as a lot of opinion on this subject, but for the sake of this argument, lets limit the discussion to the possibility of an infinite string of causes. IF your comment is not in that context please refrain.