This paper is going to be about the two philosophers Thomas Aquinas and Bertrand Russell. Each of them argues about the existence of God, and both have different opinions on it. Aquinas’ argument is about efficient causation, whereas Russell’s is the first-cause argument. I believe that Thomas Aquinas’s argument was validly challenged by by Bertrand Russell’s argument. I believe that Russell’s argument and Aquinas’ argument were both very well put together but I do believe that Russell’s argument is more valid than Aquinas’ because there is more hard evidence and facts that prove he is right, compared to Aquinas’ argument, which is more mind based and harder to grasp. There are less reasons proven to believe Aquinas’ argument over Russell’s argument. Aquinas’s argument is based on efficient causation. Efficient causation is easily understood by saying that for x to be the cause of y is for x to bring about y, or to explain y.
Aquinas says that efficient cause comes in series, or causal chains. We basically cannot prove or see that something has its own efficient cause. If something happens, then something before it caused it to happen, and so on. Aquinas says “Therefore, if there were no first efficient cause, then there would be no last or intermediary efficient causes.” (Aquinas, 45). Aquinas argues that without this or any chain of events, then things would not happen. But he says that there has to be a first efficient cause. “We must therefore posit a first efficient cause, which everyone understands to be God.” (Aquinas, 45). Aquinas says that God is the very first efficient cause, which ultimately caused everything else in the world to happen. There is evidence that it is possible that there could be multiple chains of causality with multiple first causes that are independent from one another. If X caused Y, then X would also technically cause Z, and so