The Kalam cosmological argument and The five arguments of Aquinas both are based on the belief that everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; this can applied to God if he exists? How does Thomas Aquinas or ant other theological argument disprove the existence of a creator for God?
You don’t understand the arguments. First, they are not " beliefs, " they are convictions based on necessary conclusions based on deductive or inferrential logic, deductions based on the observation of nature. I have included Thomas’ First Way which concludes to the necessitiy of an Unmoved Mover. The Unmoved Mover by definition is Pure Act or Pure Existence, that is, It has no potentiality to be more or less than it is. Since it simply Is, it cannot have had a beginning or a cause, It simply Is and always Was. Only such a being can account for the existence and movement/change we observe in the universe.
" I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. 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 in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. "
It should be obvious that the attributes of such a God can be inferred from what the proof demonstrates as true and necessary. Such a being would of necessity have to be All Mighty, All Intelligent, Greater than anything else that could be conceived, etc. Thomas demonstrates all this in his Summa Theologica, Part 1, beginning with Question 2. But of course it is too complex to explain in the few bytes we have available here. But if you would read through Question 2, beginning with Article 3, and at least through Ques 26, I think you will see that what I say is so.
Your question is typical of those who misunderstand the arguments. What it ( and others show ) is that if there is to be an explanation of things, then there must be a cause of eveything else which not only happens to exist but which could not even in principle have failed to exist. And that whichcannot have failed to exist cannot in principle have had a cause. ( Edward Feser, in " So You Think You Understand the Cosmological Argument? ", in his blog spot
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html .
Linus2nd
