English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

An irrationalist denies causation at some point in the world process. The non christian rationalist is in a quandary. On the one hand, he wants to affirm that there are complete explanations of events; therefore, he wants to honor a first cause. On the other hand, if the rationalists honors the first cause, he will have to cease his rational quest and submit his mind to the conclusion implicit in the first cause. He wants to always to have the privilege of asking why. But if he does the possibility of a first cause, he becomes indistinguishable from the irrationalists.

2007-03-17 15:43:03 · 14 answers · asked by Joey 2 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

14 answers

It is important when presenting the Cosmological Argument that the distinction between "first cause" and "complete explanation" be maintained and not conflated. Second, it is important to conclude "...and this is what I mean by 'God.'"

It helps, too, to provide some motivation for the argument, since reading through the responses, it is clear that most folk have never come up against it. The cosmological argument can only speculate about the existence of God from claims about the entire universe, unless the "first cause" is taken to mean the same thing as "God," and that is not always done. Thus, the argument is based on the claim that God must exist due to the fact that the universe needs a cause. Put another way, the existence of the universe requires an explanation, and an active creation of the universe by a being outside of the universe is that explanation. This makes clear why if you want to announce that you are presenting an argument for the existence of God you have to explicitly draw the conclusion I mentioned above.

Nor is this the only argument of its type. The scholastics did not know that the universe had a beginning even though they asserted such. To account for both possibilities, that it was both eternal or finite in time, Thomas Aquinas formulated the "argument from contingency". Aquinas follows Aristotle in claiming that there must be something which explains why the universe exists. Since the universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist--that is to say, since it is contingent--its existence must have a cause. And that cause cannot simply be another contingent thing, it must be something which exists by necessity, that is, it must be something which must exist in order for anything else to exist. In other words, even if the universe has always existed, it still owes that existence to Aristotle's Uncaused Cause, though Aquinas used the words "...and this we understand to be God".

Note that Aquinas explicitly draws the conclusion. He is also making a claim about reference as well. His point, which is not so obvious, is that anyone who makes claims about "first causes" and the like is making a claim about the divine whether he or she knows it or not. Aquinas is a philosophical "realist" in that what we refer to is in some sense both in the mind that makes the reference and in the thing referred to. But this carries us away from your argument.

HTH

Charles

2007-03-17 16:30:06 · answer #1 · answered by Charles 6 · 0 0

Did you mean circular argument. By tweaking some of what you said I could turn it the other way around. Here's the thing. Everyone one know's nothing can be uncaused. Yet many people say that there had to be an initial cause. If nothing can be uncaused then how can you accept an uncaused cause.

2007-03-17 22:47:52 · answer #2 · answered by Armund Steel 3 · 0 0

Who says there has to be a first cause? Why can't things just have been that way forever, infinite universes springing up all over the place?

Sorry, you've still failed to provide evidence for a god.

2007-03-17 22:46:13 · answer #3 · answered by eri 7 · 1 0

And your question is......

By the way, you haven't put anything in about God, even if there were a first cause (which there is no evidence there was since we have no discernible history that can be traced all the way to the big bang).

2007-03-17 22:47:27 · answer #4 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 1 0

I'm perfectly fine with a God as in the laws of the universe. (e.g., Law of Gravity, Relativity) But I don't believe in a personal God.

P.S. It doesn't seem that your question fits with your details.

2007-03-17 22:47:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If there is a first cause, it doesn't have to be a god - in fact it can't be a god, it can only be a natural, unthinking event.

2007-03-17 22:46:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

You are not going to get an answer to this one either. They are just gonna make fun and start all that infinite regression drivel.

2007-03-17 22:51:06 · answer #7 · answered by HAND 5 · 0 0

Wow, do you work for a law firm?
Neither can prove or disprove.
That is why it is a belief, or disbelief, depending on your point of view.

2007-03-17 22:51:24 · answer #8 · answered by tattie_herbert 6 · 1 0

Put down the thesaurus and pick up a textbook.

2007-03-17 22:46:21 · answer #9 · answered by Huggles-the-wise 5 · 1 0

nobody can question the existence of God in this life maybe you can if you reach eternal life.

2007-03-17 22:49:04 · answer #10 · answered by ysabelle 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers