Does the First Cause Argument Prove That God Exists?
‘The First Cause Argument Proves that God Exists.’
Do You Agree?
The First cause, or cosmological, argument suggested by Thomas Aquinas is that everything that comes into being must have a cause. They can’t cause themselves, so they must be caused by something outside themselves. This chain can’t regress forever, so there must be a transcendent power that began the chain. That is god.
Another argument, the Kalam Cosmological argument, states that everything that comes into being must have a cause. The universe came into being; therefore it must have a cause. That cause is God.
I believe that the statement ‘The First Cause argument proves that God exists,’ is false. There are many reasons why this is the case. For example:
The leap between ‘a transcendent power’ and God is a big one. There is no reason to believe that God was the one to begin this chain. The philosopher, Immanuel Kant, said that it is arguable that there is a first cause. But, we cannot know, what that first cause is. Kant said this is because if God is outside of this causal chain, or transcendent, we cannot know God or his qualities. This means we cannot know if he was the first cause.
This is further backed up by the ‘Big Bang’ theory. The Big Bang theory is the idea that at one point, our universe was a small bubble, thousands of times hotter, than it is today. Then it exploded and all time space and matter began. The Universe that we know was born.
Since we know the qualities of the Big Bang, as it is not transcendent to the chain, it seems a more likely candidate for the ‘First Cause.’
Also, the second reason I believe this statement is false is that the argument follows illogically. First, Aquinas says that God is outside the chain, or a transcendent being. If God is outside the chain, how can he have started the chain?
Perhaps, when Aquinas described God as transcendent, he meant God was not bound by the limitations of the universe. This though, would
Do You Agree?
The First cause, or cosmological, argument suggested by Thomas Aquinas is that everything that comes into being must have a cause. They can’t cause themselves, so they must be caused by something outside themselves. This chain can’t regress forever, so there must be a transcendent power that began the chain. That is god.
Another argument, the Kalam Cosmological argument, states that everything that comes into being must have a cause. The universe came into being; therefore it must have a cause. That cause is God.
I believe that the statement ‘The First Cause argument proves that God exists,’ is false. There are many reasons why this is the case. For example:
The leap between ‘a transcendent power’ and God is a big one. There is no reason to believe that God was the one to begin this chain. The philosopher, Immanuel Kant, said that it is arguable that there is a first cause. But, we cannot know, what that first cause is. Kant said this is because if God is outside of this causal chain, or transcendent, we cannot know God or his qualities. This means we cannot know if he was the first cause.
This is further backed up by the ‘Big Bang’ theory. The Big Bang theory is the idea that at one point, our universe was a small bubble, thousands of times hotter, than it is today. Then it exploded and all time space and matter began. The Universe that we know was born.
Since we know the qualities of the Big Bang, as it is not transcendent to the chain, it seems a more likely candidate for the ‘First Cause.’
Also, the second reason I believe this statement is false is that the argument follows illogically. First, Aquinas says that God is outside the chain, or a transcendent being. If God is outside the chain, how can he have started the chain?
Perhaps, when Aquinas described God as transcendent, he meant God was not bound by the limitations of the universe. This though, would