I got through the relevant passages of Summa Theologica

Here is Thomas's argument on proof that god exists.(he gives 5,)
1) Things can not go into motion without something else promting them. Since something had to START the first motion, that something was God.

My reply:
He is basically stating a true law of physics.
But instead of searching for what began it all, he gives up and says "therefor GOD"
I think the "correct" answer is: I don't know what started the big bang, I will do more research until I do. It is not therefore God.

2) Because there is no effect without cause, if you follow all the effects and their causes back and back and back, There had to be a first cause. This cause = god.

Same argument as above.

I can't explain big bang therefore God, when simply stating "I do not yet know" is more efficient and logical.

3) If at one point nothing existed, it would be impossible to start existing. So whatever started existance = god.

Same argument as previous two.

4) There are various degrees of objects/genus. One person is level X good, and someone else is X + 1 good, and further still someone is X + 2 good, etc etc. When you get to the last person, the MOST good person.... That is God. God is the MOST god, MOST powerful, Most everthing positive.

Then he argues that paraphrasing closesly "The maximum of a thing "genus" IS the cause of all in that "genus"

He uses fire as his example.
Because, according to thomas, Fire is the maximum of heat, Fire is the creator of all heat.
So for him, because God is the maximum of Good, then God created all things that are Good.

If your knowledge were limited this would be true.

What he didn't know and what we do know today are other forms of heat. Radiation, rapid movement of atoms, convection, nuclear, etc.

5) Things that lack in intelligence are acting for an end. AND, things that lack intelligence can NOT move towards an end without intelligence.

He uses the example of an arrow. An arrow can not "act for an end" being shot into a target, without an intelligent being making it so.

He concludes, therefore that Some intelligent being must direct nature to an end.

This is the worst of the arguments IMHO.
Does a volcano act intelligently when it spues rock that later comes to rest on the surface?

You can probably think of many things happening through the result of physics alone.

There is no reason to skip over quantom mechanics which explain the exact same phenom, and go right to God. You can just stop at Quantom mechanics.


Which portions for the existance of god, or does God have a physical body, did you find compelling Herk?

I found none of the "proofs" to the existance of God compelling at all. I don't believe I am being hard headed.

Is it hard headed to say, further reserach is needed to explain the Big Bang and what started it?
It seems to me the irrational, and stubborn approach is "I can't explain Big Bang, therefore God exists and made it happen"

Ixtellor

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.