Thomas Aquinas' weakest argument is, without a doubt, the argument from gradation. In Aquinas' fourth way, God is defined as the Absolute Being which, in a sense, is used as a yardstick for the measurement of all qualities.
There is a belief that some things are better than others, which can be applied to all things, but can it really be applied to everything? Is one rose better than another if equal in age and care? Who determines which one is better? If there were two identical twins, is one better than the other? Aquinas believed that things are good only in proportion to how closely they resemble that which he considers perfect. Therefore, if there is nothing that is perfect, there can be nothing that is good. But this is not necessarily true. Who defines perfection? Isn't the concept of perfection based upon the qualities and standard set by the perceiver? Is God viewed as perfect through the eyes of a Satanists? What if a Satanist's view of perfection is directly opposite? Aquinas' goes on to say that if anything is good, there must be something that is perfect, and with this in mind, Thomas Aquinas stated, "Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God."
But once again, this is not necessarily true. Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.
Aquinas believed that all things in our experience must possess some degree of perfection in order to exist, but this is not true. Simply put, if there is a God that is absolutely 100% perfect, then one must accept that there is something else that is absolutely 100% imperfect. If this is true, then it has absolutely no degree of...