The Best Logique Evidence of God Existence

[Bucky Ball]

Did you see two paragraphs after that quote? 

"For effects proceed from the agent that causes them, in so far as they pre-exist in the agent; since every agent produces its like. Now effects pre-exist in their cause after the mode of the cause. Wherefore since the Divine Being is His own intellect, effects pre-exist in Him after the mode of intellect, and therefore proceed from Him after the same mode. Consequently, they proceed from Him after the mode of will, for His inclination to put in act what His intellect has conceived appertains to the will. Therefore the will of God is the cause of things."

Here, Thomas explains that effects proceed from God only if they pre-exist in him. And it's true that will is the thing that follows from intellect, but these don't operate in God as they do in people, who are full of motion and emotion. God is unchanging, so all of this is simultaneous and eternal. This is all argued in more detail later on, but the point is that everything already exists in God, since he is existence, and he doesn't change in order to bring things about, as people do. 

It's actually self-contradictory. (First, it's all nothing but speculation, coming from a Medieval mind, and he's basically making it all up).
"Consequently, they proceed from Him after the mode of will, for His inclination to put in act what His intellect has conceived appertains to the will"
"Put in act" is a temporal process, which FOLLOWS something. A sentient being has thoughts. They are a PROCESS. Did he "put in act" EVERYTHING His intellect conceived. Obviously not.

Things happen. They were not always happening. They stopped happening. "Creation" is an act, that started and then stopped.
"For effects proceed from the agent that causes them, in so far as they pre-exist in the agent" is a false statement, obviously.

Are you arguing that he's unmoved because he did things? That's not what "unmoved" means. Here, "unmoved" means that nothing causes God to move -- not that he takes no actions. 

No. Precisely the opposite.

The simplest explanation is the Neoplatonic one: God takes no action (he is unmoving) but he causes movement in other things (he is a mover), because they desire by their nature to be like him. Usually when people say "unmoved mover" this is what they mean -- he himself cannot be made to move, but all things move because of him.

It's meaningless. "Causing movement" is an act. That is "movement" (if only mental) no matter how they define it.

The laws of nature, of logic, and the principles by which the world works (Logos) are "somethings" that exist. Since the First Cause is existence itself, and causality exists, then it is dependent on the First Cause. As I've been saying in this thread all along. 

No. First *cause* requires an underlying principle, which with ONLY "existence" is not present. You can't say *cause* unless it has a meaning that exists. The Principle of Causality cannot be "caused" if Causality is not in place, (and neither can First Cause). The Principle remains unexplained. *First* implies others in a chain, (and time and chains do not exist ... yet, therefore it's all meaningless drivel).

As for whether we should call him Thomas or Aquinas, there's no rule about that. People in those days generally used their first names. Nobody called Leonardo "hey, da Vinci," for example. "Da Vinci" and "Aquinas" both come from the names of their home towns. But modern people do both.

False analogy. We're not talking about what people of the time called Father Aquinas. Maybe it's a local custom, ... not one of my theology or philosophy professors, (although they were not Catholics in general), ever called him "Thomas".

Hence, since God is first in the order of agents, He must act by intellect and will.

That's a BIG problem. There is also (besides "existence") an order of agents, IN WHICH this deity (eternally, timelessly) of his, (must) participate.
He should have thought about that a bit more.