3. Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument argues for the existence of God. Thomas brings up cause and effect as reason the universe had to be created. Everything that is moved is moved by another; basicly saying the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts. Everything in the world is made up of two types of characteristics , accidental and essential. Acidental are characteristics that is not necessary for a being or object to be itself; an example of which is the type of clothes they wear. Essential characteristics are characteristics that are essential to the being or object; an example of which would be that a bicycle needs two wheels to be a bicycle. Thomas use these characteristics to say God is an essential characteristic of the …show more content…
Mackie’s critiques are made up of these two arguments. He says that for these two arguments to be true the fact that there is always a cause and effect need to be true. He believes that it is impossible to prove that cause causes and effect because you do not know why something happened, if it is cause and effect or just correlation. An example is someone is touched and flinches; was the flinch caused by being touched or is it correlated to being touched. The second part of the critique is, is it so crazy to believe that there is a possibility of permanent matter out there instead of God. Cause can only regress so far in an explanation. It is plausible that something existed before is just as implausible as God being uncaused or the origin of the universe being …show more content…
His view of cause and effect makes a lot of sense. How can there be a beginning cause without a beginning effect and vise versa. It just one big circle of logic. Something that correlates to something else makes more sense. Like for example, getting a cold correlates with the winter but the winter season does not and cannot cause a cold. Cold may be more common during the winter but that is because of other factors; the thought that the winter would be directly responsible for the cold would be ridiculous and something more inline with an ancient view of the world. The idea. also; that something is empirical is wrong. Science is always open to for change and debate and Mackie seems to say that with why can’t the idea of permanent matter be possible. Maybe that's is what dark matter(scientist don't know what dark matter is yet, only that it exists) is.
1. Blaise Pascal’s Wager is a wager that God as real and that you want to be a good person. If God is real and you believe then you will go to Heaven, If God is real and you don’t believe you then you go to Hell. If God doesn't exist than you will go to neither Heaven nor Hell. Therefore it is in your best interests to believe and be a good person so you will go to Heaven because if you do you stand to win everything were if you don’t you stand to lose it
I personally think the essay "the Case against Air Conditioning" was less effective in explaining cause and effect writing. From my viewpoint, the cause and affect examples in Stan Cox's essay sounded more like opinions. For example, he
Philosopher David Hume’s argument against William Paley’s addresses the most common criticism in why Paley is wrong. Hume’s points out two major flaws in Paley’s argument that there is a creator of the universe. The first argument is the lack of evidence, in which he states that the existence of such a creator can only be proved through the a pattern of observation, which there is no pattern for. This addresses how without any form of pattern through observation that it is difficult to make a correlation between the universe and its designer (Speaks). Secondly he argumes that there are limitations to the design argument that Paley does not address.
The objection addressed the validity of the argument which had the premise 1, nothing is the efficient cause of itself except God and premise 2, a chain of causes cannot be infinite. The argument thus concludes there must be a first cause. This conclusion agrees with my thesis that Saint Thomas Aquinas’s argument formulated in the second way leads to a valid argument, which concludes that there must be a first cause and that God
Aquinas has a cosmological argument with 5 different ways of proving the existence of God, the prime mover, uncaused causer, the need of contingency and necessity, excellence and purpose. All 5 of the proofs are created in an attempt to support the existence of God which Thomas Aquinas very much so agreed with, as a catholic monk he felt in was his duty to reinforce the belief of God to many which is what he did in his book Summa Theologica which is what will be explained in depth. The first way of Aquinas’ theory is the unmoved mover, this means we can see that anything that moves must be set in motion by something else which was moving to begin with, and that thing intern was set in motion by something else. Aquinas argued that there must have been a first mover that which not itself was moved otherwise nothing would have ever begun moving to begin with. The fact that something has to move something and that something had to be moved by something can go on and on forever so in the eyes of Aquinas the only way to have an end to the limitless idea is that there is something that hasn’t been moved by something else but started the first movement itself.
This is its biggest weakness, in order for it to succeed someone has to presuppose that God exists. Another weakness is based on whether or not existence is an actual property of something like its size, weight, or color. If existence isn’t considered a property then it fails, but if it is then it succeeds. Then there is the cosmological argument.
Alisa Perez Perez 1 PHI 233 25 October, 2015 Cosmological Argument The Cosmological argument states that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. Such that the universe began to exist therefore the universe has a cause of its existence. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from certain alleged facts about the world (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being.
When thinking about the origin of an object that we use on a day to day basis, we can trace that object all the way back to the very first hands that created the pieces to make the object. For example, when thinking about a car, we can think back to the mechanics who got it to start, the machines that pieced it together, and the pieces that are made to bring the car to life. This idea is elaborated in Thomas Aquinas’ first and second proofs for the existence of God, however, his third reason looks into the fact that there is a process required to make the car and there are required pieces and labor needed to build the car. This concept is what Thomas Aquinas calls the argument from a necessary being or the argument of contingency. I think that this particular argument, although a little bit harder to understand, is far stronger than the other four arguments through its reasoning about
The cosmological argument says that everything has a cause. The chain of causes cannot reach back indefinitely and at some point there must be a first cause. The First Cause we may call God. This is not a strong argument because this says that God was the first cause in a long chain of causes, but what caused God? This argument says that everything must have a cause, but in the end says that God has no cause.
Since premise two has been rebuffed by me, it renders premise 3 unsound which in turn renders premise four unsound thereby proving that God does not exist and proving that the first cause argument does not validate or prove the existence of God. The first cause argument while it is a very important argument still lacks credibility and is self-defeating as it is riddled with a lot of problems that makes it hard to reach a true and sound
The Cosmological Argument or First Cause Argument is a philosophical contention for the presence of God which clarifies that everything has a cause, that there more likely than not been a first cause and that this first cause was itself not caused. The history first cause contentions' were put forward by Plato and Aristotle in the fourth and third hundreds of years BC. These contentions keep up that everything that exists or happens probably had a cause. So on the off chance that one would backpedaled in time, one would find a first cause. Aristotle, a deist, set that this first cause was the maker of the universe.
This theory goes towards the idea that with the intricacies of the human body, nature, and the universe, there has to be an intelligence outside of our own. This stands out to me because, while subscribing to the theory of evolution I believe that with the evidence we have today it is clear how we came to be where we are today. As aforementioned with the limited thinking and understanding of science in the thirteenth century, it can be seen why the complexity of human anatomy remained a mystery to a majority of the population. Likewise with this the complexity and mysteries of the universe that that we are still attempting to solve, the idea of an initial creator being responsible for its creation in a way takes away from the wonderfulness of mystery. Without finding a supreme being that we can call God, that would give some people meaning.
Therefore if there must be a cause for at least some things, not to assert their must be a necessary cause, leads to an infinite series of causes, and this fails to provide an definitive explanation for the existence of any contingent thing or being . The atheist, H.J. McCloskey does not claim, in his article, that such a necessary cause does not exist, for the universe as a whole or a collection of its parts, the objection is in this necessary cause as a necessary being, a creator. McCloskey states that using the causal argument the most which can be claimed is for an imperfect cause capable of causing the world we know, not a necessary being whom is a perfect omnipotent being
Saint Thomas Aquinas’ following cosmological argument states the notion that there is a divine being that is the uncaused first cause. Cosmological arguments follow the belief that a divine being that acts independently of all rules therefore is the exception to all rules and is responsible for the creation of the time. The following argument has to have both true premises and a true conclusion to be considered sound and the first step to figure that out is to write a