Example research essay topic: First Cause Point B - 1,530 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

... annot cause its own existence- this would only be comparable to saying God created himself - this is not what was said) (3) The casual order cannot be infinite (i) because casual orders are such that the first causes the second, the second causes the third, etc. (ii) to take away a cause is to take away an effect (iii) in an infinite casual order there is no first member (iv) if there is no first member, then there is no second, if there is no second, then there is no third, etc. (v) since there is a casual order then there must be a first member or cause (4) Therefore, there is a first cause, God. This argument has many strengths which bring me to my comfort level with this argument. For example, I feel that the conditions set under Aquinas Second Argument are all sufficient. It begins with the statement that there is a casual order, which is an observable, empirical truth. The next point is a necessary truth, and the rest all derive from those two truths.

For example, one can easily understand how point 3 can be formulated as a truth itself. I, myself, must prefer this idea of casual order not being infinite because one can not grasp the infinite without beginning. Also, some may say that there have always been casual orders and effects; that they dont necessarily have a beginning; they just are. Yet, I feel that when we see these parallel casual orders, we can not see them as multiples, but as a tree that if followed all the way back goes to the same first cause, God. Lastly, I feel that we can see this infinite casual order idea as a false one because if the series of events of this world was infinite, we could never get, here, to this point.

I feel that this idea of infinite duration can be disproved by Xenos Paradox. This paradox states that if you are traveling from point A to point B, you necessarily must travel half of the distance to point B before traveling all of the distance. Now from that point you must again travel half of the remaining distance. If you continue to do so (travel half of the distance) you will never reach point B. Therefore, with this paradox we can prove that if the universe is an infinite casual order, then motion (in time) is impossible. Yet, we know motion to be possible, because we are here now.

So, the casual order is not infinite. It does have a beginning, or first cause, God. There are some weaknesses, though, to this argument. For example, the first is that, plainly, this argument may be considered invalid. In a valid argument you can not have premises that are true and a conclusion that follows to be false. And, in this argument this may very well be accurate.

For example, the argument does not show that the first cause that it has deducted must be God. Why not an event? Secondly, it does not show that there is only one casual order, and therefore first cause. Lastly, it doesnt show that the first cause continues to exist.

Yet, I feel that maybe only the first of these objections is really a problem, for it is the only one that we were truly trying to ultimately accomplish with this particular argument. Another problem that we have with this argument, though, is that it may not be a sound argument. This is said because the argument states that if there is not a first cause, then there could not now be anything. Since this is an absurd claim, it is said that it is automatically false. Yet, is it? Could it just be unusual or beyond us (too complicated for the human mind to grasp)?

Also, there is the argument that there simply could be an infinite casual order, which Aquinas has overruled. It can be said, that a believer in this infinite series does not deny the existence of a first cause, A, (which means that there would not be anything now), but he / she does deny that A has the special feature of being the first member of the series. For example, this can be more clearly seen by saying, Elizabeth is the smartest student ever at Miami. Here we are not denying the fact that Elizabeth is a student at Miami and she exists, we are only denying that Elizabeth has the property smartest student ever.

This is the same as saying that A may exist, but it does not have the property of being the first member. Omniscience as a Problem for Theism: As I started this paper, one of the first things that I discussed was the multiple attributes that can be, and must be applied to God in order for him to be a being than which none greater can be conceived. As could be seen, there were conflicts throughout that could be raised. These conflicts may or may not disprove the existence of God as this type of being, yet there are two conflicts that definitely pose a threat to Theism itself. These two conflicts are between omniscience and being separate / distinct , and between omniscience and immutability.

The first conflict is between omniscience and the idea of God being separate and distinct from all things of this world. This argument begins with the fact that Theism holds God to be a separate being, and to be omniscient. Yet, the problem arises when we see that there are some propositions that only the knower can know. For example, I am typing this paper right now can only be known by Elizabeth. Yet, Elizabeth is writing this paper right now can be known by almost anyone, including Elizabeth. But, the two of these are different knowings.

This causes a big problem. For if God is separate and distinct, then He is separate from Elizabeth, and if God is omniscient then He must know both knowings. Therefore, if there is an omniscient being then Theism is false since an omniscient being cannot be separate from a knower of certain propositions. Or, if there is an omniscient being then Theism is false for the reverse reason. So, this argument proves that Theism is false.

Or does it? Is there a way that Theists can respond to these problems? I believe so. Theists may respond by pointing out that just as it can be argued that God is outside time, He is outside human thought. We can see this as God looking down on us.

He can see every action that is taking place and He can receive our thoughts as if they are being sent to Him. So, if we observe this relationship in this way, we can see that God receives the thought of I am typing this paper right now, yet is able to know it and still separate it from His own actions and being. I feel that this is one way in which Theists could respond to this problem. As to whether or not this response is adequate can also be argued. To me, as a believer of God, the response makes complete sense, while remaining with this specific attribute, yet an atheist might not transfer my idea in the same way. Another way in which the attribution of omniscience to God is a problem for Theism is that it can be seen as incompatible with immutability.

This argument unfolds in this way: (1) Theism holds that God is immutable (2) Theism holds that God is omniscient (3) A being who always knows all that can be known always knows what time it is (4) A being that knows what time it is is a being that is always changing (5) Therefore, there cannot be a being that is both omniscient and immutable (6) God does not exist. There are a few different ways in which a Theist can respond to this problem, according to Norman Kretzmann. The one that I think holds best is that if God always knows what time it is, then He undeniably always knows something that is always changing. Yet, change in the object of ones knowledge is not change in the knower. I feel that this is a very adequate response.

It is one with little availability for rebuttal and I feel it is one than can easily be analogized to our own experiences. As one can see, the knowledge of God is a never-ending argument between all believers, and non-believers. The multiple arguments seem unsolvable at times, and what is thought to be a conclusion to one problem is really the rise of several more unanswerable problems. As a Theist, though, I think maybe there is no rhyme or reason to God. He instilled this notion of God within us so that we may strive to be better people, yet He is only to understand Himself. Through analyzing the above arguments though, I have only shown myself that there of course will always be differing views and what I have believed may not be right.

Research essay sample on First Cause Point B