Do you agree the first cause

do you agree the first cause I agree with your first sentence i think it is quite obviously true but i think your second sentence is not true  disconfirming observations/evidence in nature do not apply to the first cause why do you hold b to be true what evidence do you have that causes of reasoning beings must be themselves reasoning why do processes we observe.

Best answer: god is not the cause of the universe we call the cause of the universe as god god is a three letter word which carry no meaning the consciousness behind the phenomenal world is that keeps the universe going that consciousness is present everywhere inside every atom call that by any name. His conception of first cause was the idea that the universe must be caused by something that is itself uncaused, which he claimed is that which we call god: the second way is from the nature of the efficient cause in the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes.

do you agree the first cause I agree with your first sentence i think it is quite obviously true but i think your second sentence is not true  disconfirming observations/evidence in nature do not apply to the first cause why do you hold b to be true what evidence do you have that causes of reasoning beings must be themselves reasoning why do processes we observe.

Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes if not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain if so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. The first mover or first cause is devoid of any other characteristic so the cosmological argument is neither a valid argument in requiring the truth of its conclusion nor is it a satisfactory argument to prove the existence of any being that would have awareness of the existence of the universe or any event within it. Read this essay on first cause argument come browse our large digital warehouse of free sample essays if you agree or disagree on an issue, you will want your reader or listener to accept your point of view the cause of teens doing drugs for the first time knows bad things can happen to drug users they become addicted they can.

The first cause argument has one huge, fatal flaw it assumes that our understanding of causality is complete whatever the origin of the cosmos is, there is one thing of which we can be certain: things are extant, there is more than just void. I'm not that familiar with aquinas' works why does he think the universe requires a first cause to make sense as of right now, i would disagree with that, since it seems to me that the universe could make sense even if it was, say, eternal and never caused by any first cause.

St thomas aquinas: therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of god the third way: argument from possibility and necessity (reductio argument). There must, the first cause argument says, be something that caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe the universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. First cause, in philosophy, the self-created being (ie, god) to which every chain of causes must ultimately go back the term was used by greek thinkers and became an underlying assumption in the judeo-christian tradition many philosophers and theologians in this tradition have formulated an. Do you agree that the first cause argument proves that god exists the first cause argument takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it it does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. The first cause argument an explanation of the argument that the universe would not have come into existence unless there were some being that caused it to do so.

Aquinas’ “first cause” argument is one of the many cosmological arguments that try to answer the question about the origins of the universe the first premise of the argument is that some things or events are caused. So, st aquinas' idea is that if there no first cause, the universe makes no sense do you agree with this and is an infinite regress of anything nonsensical. Like most arguments for the existence of god, the cosmological argument exists in several forms two are discussed here: the temporal, kalam cosmological argument (ie the first cause argument), and the modal argument from contingency. An introduction to the cosmological argument for the existence of god the cosmological argument exists in several forms two are discussed here: the temporal, kalam cosmological argument (ie the first cause is false, ie if some things that exist do not have a cause, then the cosmological argument can be resisted on the ground that.

Do you agree the first cause

do you agree the first cause I agree with your first sentence i think it is quite obviously true but i think your second sentence is not true  disconfirming observations/evidence in nature do not apply to the first cause why do you hold b to be true what evidence do you have that causes of reasoning beings must be themselves reasoning why do processes we observe.

Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of god the third way: argument from possibility and necessity (reductio argument. The first cause argument tells us that the second of these is not possible, that the past cannot stretch back into infinity but rather must have a beginning the argument then proceeds by suggesting that if the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence. Of course, for those that do not believe in a benevolent or otherwise active god, i can agree with you that a set of first causes might exist, but i don't think the word god is a good name for that, especially when set of first causes is a much more clear and not equivocal description.

  • Do you agree that the first cause argument proves that god exists the first cause argument takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it.
  • The first cause argument problems with the argument from first cause rescuing the argument from first cause – harder the design argument by continuing to use this website, you agree to their use to find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: cookie policy.

He argues that if there were no first efficient cause, or cause of the universe's coming into being, then there could be no second causes because second causes (ie, caused causes) are dependent on (ie, caused by) a first cause (ie, an uncaused cause. The basic cosmological argument merely establishes that a first cause exists, not that it has the attributes of a theistic god, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. The examples which aristotle adduces do not obviously suggest an application to the first unmoved mover, and it is at least possible that aristotle originated his fourfold distinction without reference to such an entity but the real question is whether, given his definition of the efficient cause, it includes the unmoved mover willy-nilly.

do you agree the first cause I agree with your first sentence i think it is quite obviously true but i think your second sentence is not true  disconfirming observations/evidence in nature do not apply to the first cause why do you hold b to be true what evidence do you have that causes of reasoning beings must be themselves reasoning why do processes we observe. do you agree the first cause I agree with your first sentence i think it is quite obviously true but i think your second sentence is not true  disconfirming observations/evidence in nature do not apply to the first cause why do you hold b to be true what evidence do you have that causes of reasoning beings must be themselves reasoning why do processes we observe. do you agree the first cause I agree with your first sentence i think it is quite obviously true but i think your second sentence is not true  disconfirming observations/evidence in nature do not apply to the first cause why do you hold b to be true what evidence do you have that causes of reasoning beings must be themselves reasoning why do processes we observe.
Do you agree the first cause
Rated 5/5 based on 12 review
Download