It is one thing to talk about causes that operate within the system of the universe, but it is an entirely different matter to theorise about whether the universe as a whole is caused. Hume argued that it was illegitimate to move from saying that every event in the universe has a cause to the claim that the universe has a cause. Hume gives the example of a collection of twenty particles – if an explanation is found for each particle individually he suggests it would be wrong to then seek an explanation for the whole collection, because you have already explained it by explaining each
God 's existence has been a continuous debate certainly for centuries. The issue of God 's existence is debatable because of the different kind of controversies that can be raised from an "Atheist as being the non-believer of God" and a "Theist who is the believer of God". An atheist can raise different objections on the order of the universe by claiming that the science is a reason behind the perfection of the universe. In Aquinas 's fifth argument, he claims that the order of the universe cannot be explained by chance, but only by design and purpose. To explain this order of the universe he concludes that, there is an intelligent being whom we call "God".
The basic assumption, on which the entire argument stands, that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined can seem doubtful to a person who doubts the existence of God, for if one doubts that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived, then he may also be skeptical if any person has thoughts about the same being, whose existence itself is doubtful. The argument seems to “beg the question”. Moreover, St. Anselm’s idea of existence is not very clear. It is not very clear what a physical object is, what it means to say that a physical object exists and what it means to say that a non-physical object exists. St. Anselm’s argument is based on the superiority of an existent God over a non-existent God.
However, Naturalists, for example would object to this argument. Naturalists believe that there is no reason that an object exists and are unable to provide explanations in support of why these objects are in existence. However, the cause of the universe is necessary because the answer behind it all is God’s
If so, to whom should we ascribe existence to? It would seem that ascribing existence to the computer engineer is seemingly logical but wrong, since he did not put thought into creating the computer code. However, it would be ridiculous to ascribe existence to the computer since we understand the computer to be a non-thinking thing. In this case, Descartes has to be forced to conclude that the cogito: I think, therefore I am, does not apply in this case, but he is also mistaken. The case applies aptly.
Therefore, a self-existing being is the only reasonable explanation for the situation, and so premise (b) is true. Since premise (a) shows that only two kinds of existence (dependent or self-existent) occur, and since the previous comparison made proves that everything in that situation can’t be a dependent existence, then that means a self-existing being must be the only viable explanation
In our world, cause and effect are perfectly natural and have always been as it is an everlasting cycle. Whatever happens will always be caused by something else. If one was to say that that something was able to cause itself as it would mean that it was already there before it had begun. The reason this would be a logical impossibility is because in order for something to cause there must be a necessary being beforehand, meaning that there needs to be a first cause. In this case, it is called God.
Then we look at the second argument of Aquinas, The Argument of Causation- everything that is caused has to be caused by something else, there cannot be an infinite number of causes, and same as argument number one that must mean there is a God since all effects have causes. The Argument from Contingency asks if everything already exists contingently has a reason to do so, does the universe exists for a reason and if the universe has a reason for its existence that that reason must be God. Aquinas’ fourth argument is the Argument from Degrees Aquinas says in order to compare two things in terms of good or bad, we must have something to compare it to, this would have to be an absolutely perfect thing aka God. Aquinas’ fifth and final argument is The Teleological Argument- According to Aristotle, everything has a purpose or Telos. If everything in the natural world has purpose, there must be someone who created that
Weaver 1 Michelle Weaver Faith & Philosophical Enquiry PHI-110RS-ATWE Co_PHI-110-ATWE-2018SP1 Dr. DonatienCicura 25 February 2018 Saint Thomas Aquinas: Proof of the Existence of God Saint Thomas Aquinas was a theologian who wrote about proving the existence of God. There are five ways that Aquinas argues to show that God exists and I chose to write about two of those ways. The second way: “Argument from Efficient Causes” meaning that nothing in this world could have been created from itself. I interpret this as such, life wouldn’t exist if there wasn’t someone who existed before it. All beings were created from a higher power prior to having existence in the world.
Evans and Manis argue that the creation of contingent beings is dependent on a necessary being, and as a result, there must be an existent necessary being to create them. Yes, a necessary being may be uncaused since its existence does not require an explanation, but that does not mean that the cosmological argument does not entitle it. Despite this argument’s importance, Evans and Manis do mention that the cosmological argument is only a small piece of the puzzle when establishing the existence of God. The authors contend that the cosmological argument “hardly constitutes more than entering a wedge into the knowledge of God” (Evans and Manis 77). If someone accepts the conclusion of this argument, then they should search for more ways to learn about God and obtain further knowledge of