Aquinas’ second way is cause, this argues that nothing can cause itself as it must have existed before it did, to have caused or created itself, which is impossible.
Aquinas argues that nothing in motion can cause itself and therefore there must be an uncaused cause, that didn’t cause itself and this is God.
It claims to prove conclusively that on this basis God must of necessity exist. Five objections can be made against this cosmological argument. In the first place, the senses of men and animals produce conflicting data.
First, the original premise says, “It is certain and evident to our senses that in the world some things are in motion.” Empiricism is perhaps a common sense view. Dogs, for example, are supposed to be color blind, but they have sensations o sound when men hear nothing. Esoteric artists see colors in grass that no common man finds there.
Therefore he had no time for the ontological argument, but reconstructed the cosmological argument. On this basis, Thomas gave five arguments for God’s existence; but the first four are almost identical, and the fifth is so little different, that only the first will be reproduced here: The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion.
To refer again to the question of knowledge, the difference between these two arguments is basically a difference in epistemology: For Augustine it was not necessary to start with sensory experience, for one could go directly from the soul to God; but Aquinas wrote, “The human intellect .... It is certain and evident to our senses that in the world some things are in motion.
It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move itself.
Therefore whatever is moved must be moved by another.
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other, and this everyone understands to be God.
The first thing to be noticed is that this is a formal argument.