[jon462]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, as far as I am aware, no one has ever been able to disprove or even discredit Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God's existence, which are scientific in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously?

[ QUOTE ]
1. <snip> Therefore it is impossible that a thing could move itself, for that would involve simultaneously moving and being moved in the same respect. Thus whatever is moved must be moved by something, else, etc. This cannot go on to infinity, however, for if it did there would be no first mover and consequently no other movers, because these other movers are such only insofar as they are moved by a first mover. For example, a stick moves only because it is moved by the hand. Thus it is necessary to proceed back to some prime mover which is moved by nothing else, and this is what everyone means by "God."

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's not at all what everyone means by "God." The "first mover" could be just some physical force such as gravity, but that doesn't mean we whould worship it.

Also, Aquinas provides no evidence that "This cannot go on to infinity." Maybe the past is infinite, maybe it isn't. But there's no logical reason that it can't be.

Also: Who moved God?

[ QUOTE ]
2. The second way is based on the existence of efficient causality. We see in the world around us that there is an order of efficient causes. Nor is it ever found (in fact it is impossible) that something is its own efficient cause. If it were, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Nevertheless, the order of efficient causes cannot proceed to infinity, for in any such order the first is cause of the middle (whether one or many) and the middle of the last. <snip> Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls "God."

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the exact same argument so the same objections apply. The first cause could be an abstract physical law, but that doesn't mean we should worship it. There may not be a first cause. And, who caused God?

[ QUOTE ]
3. The third way is based on possibility and necessity. <snip> If, therefore, there had been a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever have begun to exist, and thus there would be nothing now, which is clearly false. Therefore all beings cannot be merely possible. There must be one being which is necessary. <snip> Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself. That is what everyone calls "God."

[/ QUOTE ]
It's the same mistake again. Maybe the universe always existed, as an infinite chain of events (even if they occurred over a finite period -- think of an infinite series of numbers with a finite sum). That doesn't mean that the universe is what everyone calls "God." There's still no reason to worship it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you hung up on whether we should worship The First mover or not? That is a matter of faith, not of logic. Indeed you could say Aquinas is not proving "God," so to speak, but that there is a prime mover, prime causer, who always existed. Since there can be only one, and the "prime mover" has the same characteristics as that thing which we call God, he labels it God. Perhaps so his audience will know what he is talking about? But as I said, you can call it "prime mover" or "Ginju" or whatever you want to call it.
Whether you worship it or not depends on whether you believe it to be benevolent, to love you and care for you well-being, to be worthy of your obedience, etc., and is entirely beyond the scope of this discussion.

As for Aquinas proving that we cannot regress through an infinity of causes.. surely you cannot be serious? You are going to have to explain to me how it could be possible, because it seems like common sense to me.