One objection questions whether or not we know what causes what in the universe. In other words, we may think A causes B, but in reality the events are completely unrelated; making life difficult for those trying to prove a first cause.
This premise seems alright at first, but on closer examination it is faulty. The main reason that Aquinas says that there must be a something that causes everything else to exist is that there is no creation from nothing. But isn't that exactly what this thing that caused everything else is doing? Seems a tad bit defective.
This premise states the necessity of a perfect score on the perfection and goodness meter. But why does there have to be a 100%? No baseball player in history has ever gotten a career batting average of 1.000. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Mother Teresa and Ghandi were extemporary human beings, but by no means perfect.
On the whole I think this argument does rather well. It’s certainly not terrible and a definite improvement from the Teleological Argument. The idea of a first cause is very interesting and is personally compelling. But I do think that many of the objections are particularly compelling. This makes this argument more of a toss up in my mind than the Teleological argument.
Ontological