Among the proofs he gives for the existence of God Scotus makes no mention of the proof from motion. In this he differs from St Thomas, for whom the proof from motion is, apparently, the proof for the existence of God. Why does Scotus omit the proof from motion? Is it, as has been held, because he regarded this proof as simply a special form of the proof from efficient causality? Or is it because he held the proof from motion (...) to be essentially defective? (shrink)