m.r wk 5 disc

Please pick one of the following questions to answer for the forum this week:

• With reference to Pike’s article, how could it be said that Divine Omniscience challenges the idea that humans have free will?
• With reference to Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the existence of God, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of his argument as well as his response to Gaunilo.
• Evaluate Aquinas’ argument(s) for God’s existence from efficient causality and/or from motion and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.

Discussion Guidelines

• Three posts minimum.
• The initial forum response is due by Thursday at 11:59 p.m. EST and should be a substantive response to the Discussion prompt.
• For peer replies, respond to at least two of your classmates by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. EST and give meaningful replies that advance the Discussion.

Before you post, please thoroughly edit your writing to ensure it is professional and academic. For more details about how the initial post and peer replies are graded, see and the linked .

This Discussion aligns with the following:

Rubrics

• RAMP LD Discussion V.4 Rubric [APR 2025]

reply to:

• Week 5 Watkins
• Contains unread posts
• David Watkins posted Feb 2, 2026 11:40 AM
• Good morning class and Dr. Cervantez,
• When I look at Thomas Aquinas and his arguments for Gods existence, especially the ones from motion and efficient casualty, I can see why they carried so much weight in his time and why theyre still discussed today.
• Aquinas argument from motion starts with the basic Idea that things in the world are clearly changing or moving. He argues that whatever is moved has to be moved by something else, and that this chain cant go back forever. Because of that, he concludes there must be a first mover, which he calls God. The argument from efficient casualty follows a similar line of thinking. Nothing causes itself, everything has a cause, and an infinite chain of causes doesnt seem workable, so there must be a first cause that started everything.
• One strength of these arguments is how grounded they are in everyday experience. You dont need scripture or religious authority to understand them, just observation and reasoning. I also think Aquinas rejection of an infinite regress feels intuitive on a practical level. In normal life, explanations usually stop somewhere instead of stretching back endlessly.
• At the same time, there are weaknesses that are hard to ignore today. A big assumption Aquinas makes is that an infinite regress is impossible, and thats something modern thinkers dont all agree on, especially with what science says about the universe. Even if someone accepts a first mover or first cause, its still a jump to say that this cause must be the God Aquinas has in mind. The arguments point toward something, but dont fully explain what that something is.
• On a personal level, I do believe in God, but I dont think that God and religion are the same thing. In fact, I sometimes think God hates religion because of how often it turns into control, division, or a replacement for personal responsibility. Even with that belief, I dont think theres any clear way to prove or disprove Gods existence. Arguments like Aquinas might nudge someone toward belief, but they dont deliver certainty. For me, faith seems to begin where proof runs out, and thats something, I think, philosophy can explore but never completely resolve.
• Im interested in how others see this. Do Aquinas arguments strengthen belief, or do they rely too much on assumptions about causality and motion? And even if there is a first cause, do you think philosophy can tell us anything meaningful about what that cause is like?
• Have a great day everyone.
• 2 Unread
• 2
• Unread
• 2 Replies
• 2
• Replies
• 3 Views
• 3
• Views
• View profile card for David Watkins
• Last post yesterday at 8:48 PM by David Watkins
• W-5 Joseph
• Contains unread posts
• Joseph Baker posted Feb 1, 2026 7:20 PM
• Evaluate Aquinas’ argument(s) for God’s existence from efficient causality and/or from motion and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.
• Aquinas arguments from motion and efficient causality are central to his attempt to show that the existence of the world requires a first, uncaused source. Based on the surrounding material in your Philosophy of Religion module, both arguments share a similar structure: they begin with observable features of the world and reason upward to a necessary first cause.
• The argument from motion starts with the fact that things change. Aquinas claims that whatever is moved is moved by something else, and this chain cannot regress infinitely. Therefore, there must be a First Mover that initiates motion without itself being moved. The strength of this argument lies in its intuitive appeal change seems to require explanation. Its weakness is that modern physics complicates the idea that every motion requires an external mover, especially with inertia and quantum events.
• The argument from efficient causality follows a similar pattern. Every effect has a cause, and nothing can cause itself. Since an infinite regress of causes would explain nothing, there must be a First Cause. This arguments strength is its attempt to explain why anything exists at all. However, critics argue that an infinite regress may not be impossible and that even if a First Cause exists, the argument does not prove it is the God of classical theism.
• Aquinas offers a powerful metaphysical framework, but each argument faces challenges when evaluated through modern scientific and philosophical lenses.