The most famous arguments for God's existence are the ''five ways” of Thomas Aquinas. One of them is the argument from design. The other four are versions of the ''first cause” argument, which we explore here.
The argument is really very simple: Everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is. Everything has some “sufficient reason” why it is.
Example: My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, etc. But it's not that simple. I wouldn't be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my ancestors. So the universe is a vast and complex chain of causes.
But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a First Cause, an uncaused Cause, of the whole process?
2007-08-23 16:47:20 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
If not, then there's an “infinite regress” of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is a First Cause, an eternal, independent, self-explanatory Being with nothing above it, before it or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else — for if it needed something else as its explanation, then it wouldn't be the First Cause.
Such a Being would have to be God. If we can prove there is such a First Cause, we'll have proved there is a God.
If there is no First Cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained, proximately, by the motion of the car in front of it: The caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it: the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it: etc. But there's no engine to pull the first car, and thus the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that's what the universe is like if there is no First Cause.
2007-08-23 16:48:52 · update #1
Full text article if you would like to read it:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0002.htm
2007-08-23 16:49:11 · update #2
Sorry, correct link:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0002.html
2007-08-23 16:49:49 · update #3
Actually you should read the whole article if you can. Secondly we know that matter has not always existed. Hence the Big Bang. This universe did have a beginning. That is a scientific FACT. Matter cannot cause itself. Moreover, matter by itself cannot be the source of any kind of design because it depends upon laws. Where did the laws come from? Serious thoughts only...
2007-08-23 16:56:28 · update #4
Well...I'm not an astro-physics man...but I do believe I can pull up a lot on "Big Bang" Theory. Everything bursting out of nothing in 10(-43) of a second.
Wow...if there ever was a first cause event..taht would be a great example!
2007-08-24 03:45:07 · answer #1 · answered by Last Stand 2010 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Leonard Susskind has suggested that there may have been more than one Big Bang, more than one universe even; that the 'verse as we know it is like a Rube Goldberg machine that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't and sometimes works for a little while then collapses in upon itself thus causing another Big Bang. I'm sure my crude explanation is... well, crude. The point is that because so much of this process depends on occurrences outside of "time", to try and demand a tidy, comforting, linear explanation of causes is just plain naive. Part of being a responsible secularist is accepting the fact that not everything has an explanation-- currently. Carl Sagan once said, when pressed to give an answer concerning the possibility of extraterrestrial life, "But I try not to think with my gut. Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in." Currently, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a definitive cause for the "universe" much less a "superior intelligence". As secularists, we do ourselves no favours by presenting incomplete and indefensible arguments against theological strongholds. I hate to sound like an episode of C.S.I., but... follow the evidence, make no assumptions, always question what you think is truth. For a far more eloquent and substantial look into the falsities of creation theory, I recommend Leonard Susskind's The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design.
2007-08-24 14:47:20 · answer #2 · answered by monkeymama57 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To say that the first cause must be God is a non-sequitor. That just leaves God left to explain. Which is easier to conceive of as always existing: very simple subatomic particles or an infinitely powerful and all knowing God?
Update: The Big bang is thought to be the origin of spacetime in our universe, not the start of all of existence. Science has yet to advance enough to say with any sort of certainty whether or not the Big bang is the first cause.
Matter can come from "nothing." Read up on virtual particles and quantum mechanics.
Update 2: To ask "where did those laws come from?" is to assume that the laws could have been different. That is an unwarranted assumption.
2007-08-23 23:53:46 · answer #3 · answered by Justin D 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
As a philosopher with a PhD myself, on this point I even go against my own faith because LOGIC steps in. IF God had been the FIRST "cause" WHERE did this God ACQUIRE it's INTELLIGENCE to do the domino effect upon creation unto all the REST of the causes ? I am of faith but I too am one of a logical mind. By assuming the "theory" that "any" supreme entity was not the FIRST "part" of matter anywhere does not demean it's existance. "God" "Lord" "Allah" "Jehovah" "Jesus" WHATEVER you presume the supreme entity to be HAD TO itself EVOLVE "somewhere." And whose to SAY "or" DENY that the "God" who created us is not of a long line of it's own kind in a succession of beings BILLIONS or even TRILLIONS of years old ? We as mankind in knowledge are like a grain of sand upon the beaches of this planet in INTELLIGENCE and for anyone to make ANY presumptions upon that which has NO human answer, lives in "delusion" religious or otherwise....
2007-08-24 00:20:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
My comment is this... First Cause could be God. But it could also be a pink elephant or a ham sandwich.
We sometimes give too much credit to our ability to reason. Without hard science, it's mere a passing whim.
2007-08-24 00:05:42 · answer #5 · answered by oskeewow13 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We've been over this.
Why is the first cause "god", and why is "god" exempt from needing a first cause himself?
If everything needs a first cause, why couldn't it have been the Big Bang? Why is that not good enough?
2007-08-23 23:56:16 · answer #6 · answered by Sapere Aude 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Why exactly do universes need gods to create them?
Occam's razor says it's better to say the universe created itself.
2007-08-24 00:07:29 · answer #7 · answered by Sparkiplasma 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Heard this before, it's pretty poor logic. The ASSUMPTION that his first cause" is an incredibly complex being that came from nowhere, without even the process of evolution to help it along, is absurd.
2007-08-23 23:57:31 · answer #8 · answered by Brent Y 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Why would the first cause have to be God? Why couldn't the first cause be matter? I mean, if we're talking about something just starting from nothing, why can't it be anything?
2007-08-23 23:52:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
"Such a Being would have to be God. If we can prove there is such a First Cause, we'll have proved there is a God."
Non-sequitor
2007-08-23 23:53:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋