One of Thomas Aquinas' five ways. The argument is officially known as the cosmological argument; However in Ancient Greece both Plato and Aristotle were the first to posit them as the Uncaused Cause argument. Like its name, they determined that the universe was created by an "uncaused cause" or "immovable mover." This argument has been subject to debate for centuries by philosophers and even non-philosophers. Perhaps it is the power of this argument which attracts so much attention.
Basic premises
Premise 1 - Everything that exists has a preceding cause
Premise 2 - A chain of events can not be infinite in nature, So eventually you arrive at an original cause
Premise 3 - This cause itself is uncaused
Premise 4 - Nothing can exist without a cause but God
Conclusion - God must be the first cause
Of course every argument is subject to scrutiny. Even though the basic premises do in essence seem to be logical. They operate on several assumptions. An in depth analysis of each premise can easily reveal how these
Premise 1 - Everything that exists has a preceding cause.
If there is one thing that science, philosophy, and theology can agree upon its this. In fact it is called the Law of Causality/Causation. Everything in the natural world and material universe has a preceding cause. Not many can or even will dispute this.
Premise 2 - A chain of events can not be infinite in nature. So eventually you arrive at an original cause.
Infinity is defined as a number having no limit or end and can't be assigned a quantity. There is no actual proof that infinity exists in reality. Infinity is just a concept we use to give a quantity to something which is too large to visualize. Could you imagine the number 1 followed by 839 zero's? Since infinity does not exist in real life indeed a chain of events can't be infinite, and because it isn't infinite we arrive at the first cause.
Premise 3 - The cause itself is uncaused.
This would seem to be true but it does raise a question. Some would argue: What makes this first cause so special that it is exempt? However this question defeats itself by asking what caused an uncaused cause.
Premise 4 - Nothing can exist without a cause but God.
This is where the argument gets tricky for some critics. One would argue that why is it that a god would have no cause? The common argument in, "Who created god." Well let's look at the properties of God.
Properties
- Supernatural/Immaterial
- Self-Sustaining
- Immortal
- All Powerful
All these properties would suggest that god does not need a cause. If we were to say “who created god.” then it would be logical to assume that God’s god would be god. And his god would be god and so on and so forth. However, this is impossible. How does a being create an omnipotent, immaterial, omniscient being while still being greater than such being. Is this being super-omnipotent? or Super-omniscient? Essentially God is God simply because he has no creator.
0 comments:
Post a Comment