Abstract

Subsequent to the presentation and comparison of the views of Aquinas and Scotus, we conclude that their positions are quite similar. Each proof seems to be internally consistent and where they do differ, it seems to be on account of some fundamental metaphysical commitment. ;Since it is not clear to what extent these differences in commitment entail differences in proof, the only ground of comparison open to us is that of the sophistication and extensiveness of the proof. On the basis of this, then, we state a qualified preference for the argument of Scotus. ;It has been alleged that Scotus' argument for the existence of a first efficient cause constitutes the most rigorous proof for the existence of God within Aristotle's norms for demonstration. In order to assess this view, I undertake to compare Scotus' proof with that of his most important predecessor, Thomas Aquinas