The question of God's existence involves a long and controversial history. Defining the term "God" in and of itself is not an easy task because different people have their own concept of what God means to them. In this piece, I aim to show why belief in a God is a reasonable position to hold. To accomplish this, I will make reference to Aquinas' work on "The Existence of God." Although each of Aquinas' arguments contain premises that can be questionable or flawed, however, I will show how the arguments for acknowledging God's existence are more convincing than to conclude that God does not exist. There are several ways to approach the question of God's existence. Aquinas puts forth his attempt to prove the existence of God into five significant arguments that I will evaluate in this paper.
             Aquinas' first way of proving that God exists is through the notion that since nothing can move and that if every being or object in motion requires a "mover," then the first of such thing necessarily involves a mover. Aquinas puts forth this notion of this initial mover as God, as the "Unmoved Mover" (Perry, and Braman 1999). Aquinas' first argument is convincing because they come from certain undeniable truths that are common to everyone's experience. Aquinas viewed that motion was one method of proving God's existence to explain a concept that is beyond our capacity to grasp. Aquinas' argument thus proceeds to conclude that things cannot be the source of their own works but that an initial mover of objects must be present, which can be convinced and be understood as God. God is the necessary being in which the starting point of all existence begins. However, one may argue that the problem with Aquinas' argument for God's existence is that this "necessary being" is not required when there could be an endless circular chain of things that can "equally" and mutually keep one another in existence and thus, there is no need for God. ...