St. Thomas Aquinas states that the existence of God can be proved in five ways:

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1.Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

2.Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

3.Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

4.Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

5.Therefore nothing can move itself.

6.Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

7.The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

8.Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.


The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1.We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

2.Nothing exists prior to itself.

3.Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

4.If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

5.Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

6.The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

7.Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.


The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

1.We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

2.Assume that every being is a contingent being.

3.For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

4.Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

5.Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

6.Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

7.Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

8.We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

9.Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

10.Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.


The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

1.There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

2.Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).

3.The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.

4.Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.


The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

1.We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

2.Most natural things lack knowledge.  

3.But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.

4.Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
 

John J Bannan, 'the multiverse' is the invention of fantasy novel writers.

Here's an audio sermon entitled 'Big Bang Fizzles'.

And another, 'Science Cannot Explain the Errors in Big Bang Theory'.

@Shin.

The multiverse is highly likely.  Now, why would you expect that a multiverse is not possible in light of the arbitrary values of the initial starting conditions of the Big Bang and the cosmological constants, as well as the infinite variety of the laws of physics and forms?  

@Jehanne

I am not debating whether God is real or not.  I believe in God.

What I am saying is that Aquinas' Five Ways are obsolete in light of the multiverse.

First, there is no first mover in a multiverse.  There is simply an eternal redistribution of movement.

Second, a multiverse sets up an unending series of contingent universes.

Third, in a multiverse where there perhaps is the creation of all possible forms, there is no such thing as goals or goods.

@Jehane

Craig is not a physicist and does not mention string theory or branes.

Moreover, why would an omnipotent God be unable to create a multiverse?

Please stop feeding this troll.

This is the third or fourth thread he has started on the same subject - namely self-promotion for his "new proof" of God Almighty's existence, which this absurd person outrageously believes is superior to St. Thomas Aquinas' Quinque Viae.

He disappears for a while and then pops back up with a new (but identical) thread to sucker in posters who aren't wise to his game. He has contributed nothing to any other thread or subject, and has demonstrated he has no interest in being a regular contributor to the forum, but rather that he wants to use the forum as his personal soapbox from which he can loudly dogmatize his own navel-gazing intellectual wankery, upon which he has the blasphemous temerity to suggest that true knowledge of God must necessarily hinge.

Almighty God does not need his sophistry, St. Thomas does not need it, and we do not need it. I'm reporting him to Matthew.

@BTNYC


Can an omnipotent God create a multiverse?

And I am not a troll just because I don't agree with you. :jumping2: