The purpose of this paper is to examine St. Thomas Aquinas second argument for the existence of God. First we will discuss why this argue doesn’t hold. Then provide an alternative argument for the first uncaused caused. Finally, I will point out some problems and complications that exist proving the existence of the unknown – God. I will then consider one objection to my argument and then provide a response to that objection, thus confirming the truth of my position. How can one prove the unknown? How is the unknown evident to us if proven? In Thomas Aquinas’s second way for proving the existence of God, he simply concludes that common sense observation will tell us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. He believes that ultimately there must “have” been an uncaused first caused who began the chain of existence for all things. The keyword word here is “there must have been” which is nothing more than bare assumption from reasoning. First of all, let us ask some specific question to this subject matter. What is God? Who is God? Is God the cause of His own being? Why do some people conclude that a God exists? God is an illusion created by man, for man to help give meaning and answer to the many mysteries in the universe. He is believed to be a being of many supernatural powers and attributes and worshipped by many. He is believed to the first uncaused cause, creating his own being and other wonderful things in the universe. And we conclude that he exists simply because we’re afraid of the unknown. Saint Thomas Aquinas in his second argument goes from the fact that there must be a first efficient cause to the conclusion that God is that cause. Why must Aquinas make the extraordinary jump from there being a cause, to assuming that this cause must be God? Would it not be just as plausible to make matter the first cause? ...
