Aquinas' Five Proofs

Looking at Aquinas' Five Proofs, i would have to say his best is the Third Way: Contingent and Necessary Objects, and his worst would be the First Way: The Argument from Motion .

The Third Way in Aquinas' Proofs talks about how there must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings, which would be God. The existence of contingent beings ultimately concludes that there was a necessary being that made these dependent beings. In a world of corruption and sin, i would have to agree that we are just contingent beings that depend upon the existence of necessary beings in order to look up to something morally higher. We need someone to blame, someone to go to in need, and someone to debate upon which would mean that God was a necessary being for us contingent beings.

The First Way in Aquinas' Proofs is about how objects put into the motions were first put there by the UNMOVED MOVER (GOD). I think just by reading that sentence, it's ridiculous. That the motion of things implies that there is a Godly being that is unmoving, that causes us to move. But how is it that we do not know that God doesn't move either? I mean how does he move other things without physically moving the first moving obejct? "If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover." I don't understand this because one moving thing doesn't cause a chain of other moving things througout the world. I can understand if it suggests an underlying meaning like we can move to the next stage in our lives without God, but here Aquinas is seriously talking about moving like the planets or a rolling stone.