0
i think that god is the cause of the universe because nothing happens by itself therefore everything needs a cause meaning that god id the cause of the universe. futhermore only god has the power/will to create the sophistacated universe .
Wiki User
∙ 10y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is Thomas Aquinas' first cause argument?
Thomas Aquinas's believed that there had to be a God because he thought that everything had a cause and the cause for the Universe is God. God had to be the first cause.
What are the Teleological and cosmological arguments?
Both are arguments for the existence of god. They are both similar. The teleological argument, or argument from design posits that there is a god or designer based on the appearance of complexity, order, and design in nature. The argument is usually structured as follows: 1) Complexity implies a designer. 2) The universe is highly complex. 3) Therefore, the universe must have a designer. The cosmological argument, or first cause argument states that god must exist as a first cause to the universe. It is usually structured as follows: 1) Whatever exists has a cause. 2) The universe exists. 3) Therefore the universe had a cause.
How does the big bang theory challenge the first cause argument?
AnswerThe First Cause Argument is a process of logic that says that everything must have a cause, and lke links in a chain, every cause must have a prior cause. The argument is that God is the first cause, although the same argument could apply equally to any other god. This argument also means that the one exception is that God does not need a prior cause.Scientific theories about the ultimate origin of the universe are collectively associated with the "big bang" event that essentially started it. The position now is that God no longer need be the first cause, because we have a natural explanation for the beginning of the universe. However, that does not eliminate a first cause - it simply means we have a natural first cause rather than a supernatural one.The big bang theory challenges the theological assumption that God was the first cause, but it does not mean there was no first cause. The first cause was a natural event.
What was the first thing appeared in universe?
Well the first thing in the universe... (before it was even a universe) was always there it didnt appear it was always there, one person that we know that was here first was God... but God didn't appear... he was always there. God was not created, for he is the a creator.
What god made first before Adam?
God made the heavens and the Universe.
Who was the first person to discover gold in the universe?
GOD
Who was the first being to set foot in the universe?
god
What is the name of the Buddhism god?
Buddha never bothered about God. In fact Buddhism is an atheistic religion like Jainism. Later the followers of Buddha made him a God. Only after Mahayana Buddhism came he was made God. In Hinayana Buddhism Buddha was not a God. There is reference, though, in Buddhist text, to the "First Cause." Since God is the Creator of the universe and all that is therein, then God is the First Cause.
Is there cause and effect outside the universe and if not does the universe require a cause?
The First Cause Argument is a process of logic that says that everything must have a cause, and like links in a chain, every cause must have a prior cause. The argument is that God is the first cause, although the same argument could apply equally to any other god. This argument also means that the one exception is that God does not need a prior cause.Charles Darwin explains that he believed in a 'first cause' at the time that he was developing his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, "... Another source of conviction in the existence [sic] of God ... follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look at a first causehaving an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker." He went on to explain that he no longer believed in this 'first cause'.Scientific theories about the ultimate origin of the universe are collectively associated with the "big bang" event that essentially started it. The position now is that God no longer need be the first cause, because we have a natural explanation for the beginning of the universe. However, that does not eliminate a first cause - it simply means we have a natural first cause rather than a supernatural one.
Did God create chaos?
God created the universe. In the initial stage of its existence the universe was chaotic (Genesis 1). See also the Related Link.Is God our creator
Does the cosmological argument prove god?
Short answer: No.It alleges that there is a problem that "anything that exists must have a cause, the universe exists, and therefore then universe must have a cause." and replaces it with a bigger problem: By saying that God is the first cause you are saying that God exists and therefore the argument applies to God and God must have a cause. This would then become infinite as whatever caused God must have a cause and whatever caused that must have a cause and so on.The other big problem is that the argument doesn't even say that the first cause had to be God, it just says there had to be a first cause... That first cause could have been natural.Answer:The above answer hints at something which atheist (and indeed theist) philosophers widely regard as false. If God is used as an explanation for the universe, then we do not need to apply arguments of cause to God. This is a mistake that many prominent atheists (notably Richard Dawkins) make when they say "God doesn't explain anything, because you can just ask who made God?"A counterexample for the idea that explanations must be explainable is subatomic particles. We said there are protons and neutrons and electrons because they explained the behaviour of atoms, even though it turned the small question "why are atoms like that?" into a much bigger question "why are electrons and protons and neutrons like that?"The reason why the cosmological argument is largely dismissed by philosophers is that it relies on a number of difficult assumptions (A-model of time, laws within the universe to apply to the universe as a whole, rigidity of logic outside of the universe, etc.) is highly speculative (we have no real evidence to push us either way) and any conclusion one way or the other would actually be meaningless. If we conclude that there does have to be a first cause, then what was it? It could be a scientific anomaly, a cosmic accident, any of the deities worshipped by the millions of religions throughout history, or one that none of them managed to find.
How did Thomas Aquinas attempt to explain the differences between Aristotle and the Church's teachings?
"One of the arguments put forth by Aquinas is called the First Cause argument: every effect has a cause, the universe is an effect, therefore the universe has a cause, and that cause is God. For Aquinas, God alone didn't have a beginning. Therefore, for Aquinas, the question what caused God was not relevant. And Aquinas' idea of cause was not complicated as it would be in the 20th century with the arrival of quantum physics."This is a quote from the website macrohistory it should answer your question (SKS)
