Aquinas's Fifth Way

[Neo-Scholastic]

It’s fairly common to assert that the regularities of nature are brute facts that requires no further explanation. That said, can you think of a reason why it must be a brute fact other than you cannot give an account for the natural order. In other words, why is your assertion that the regularity of nature not an argument from ignorance.

...a lot of cogency because it is lacking the backdrop of Aristotle and Plato and the theory of forms and causes. Stated bluntly in modern terms without those nuances, some of the premises seem pure non sequiturs.

Hence my trepidation. You are correct that Aquinas's philosophy builds on the foundation of the other two. I see a lot of value in both the neo-Scholastic and analytic approaches to philosophy and cannot help trying to reconcile the two. The language is very different and yet some of the concepts seem closely related.