The problem with arguments such as Aquinas' Five Ways is that they aren't compelling arguments for God, given what we've settled on as scientifically true regarding the structure of this world and how it works. Maybe the arguments were very compelling in the past, but times have drastically changed since the days of Aquinas. We know a lot of things scientifically that Aquinas himself, for all his intelligence, could not have known.
Looking at the first three arguments for God from Aquinas, the premises seem reasonable, but the conclusion doesn't really follow from the premises unless we are defining God in a very minimalistic kind of way to the point that we could call a naturalistic first cause "God". In such a case, however, the arguments aren't pointing to the kind of being believed in by Aquinas and Catholics (and other Christians) in general.
When it comes to the last two arguments, there is much to doubt about some of the premises. The fourth argument relies on the necessity of the existence of the "maximum", something which has not been successfully established from what I've read. The last argument appears to be "out-of-date", given what we do know thanks to such sciences as evolutionary science.
Looking at the first three arguments for God from Aquinas, the premises seem reasonable, but the conclusion doesn't really follow from the premises unless we are defining God in a very minimalistic kind of way to the point that we could call a naturalistic first cause "God". In such a case, however, the arguments aren't pointing to the kind of being believed in by Aquinas and Catholics (and other Christians) in general.
When it comes to the last two arguments, there is much to doubt about some of the premises. The fourth argument relies on the necessity of the existence of the "maximum", something which has not been successfully established from what I've read. The last argument appears to be "out-of-date", given what we do know thanks to such sciences as evolutionary science.
