An Examination of the Teleological Argument Its Criticisms and Its Evolution into Modern Times Jonathan Margulis PHIL100 0204 One of the most important questions argued over the ages by philosophers is of the existence of G-d. Nothing is so critical to human history than G-d and religion. This argument has seen bloodshed and death, while man argues with each other about the existence of a superior being that controls the universe, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent G-d. There have been many proponents who argue that G-d exists. Notable philosophers include, Saint Anslem and William Paley, who both argued the existence of G-d. Saint Anslem in his Ontological Argument writes several reasons for the existence.
His First Way is based on motion, which, according to Aquinas, does not only include movement from one place to another but also the change of quantity and quality. Aquinas thought that al things within the universe are in motion and that an object only moved when an external force was applied to it, or in other words, nothing can move itself. However, he also firmly believed that this chain of movement or changes could not go back to infinity. According to him, infinite regress was an impossibility. Since nothing can move itself, he concluded that there must be a Prime Mover, a so-called first mover, which itself was unmoved.
Explain Aristotle’s concept of the Prime Mover Aristotle argued that behind every movement there must be a chain of events that brought about the movement that we see taking place. Aristotle argued that this chain of events must lead back to something which moves but is itself unmoved. This is referred to as the Prime Mover. The Prime Mover is something that causes the motion and change of the universe without being moved and it is eternal. The Prime Mover is the Final Cause of everything in the world; he was the creator of the first cause that has caused everything until today.
Thirdly, Aquinas postulates that “motion cannot go on forever”. This alludes to ‘infinite regress’; the notion that a chain of events can go back forever. However, this does not appear plausible because there would need to be a first mover to begin the chain of cause and effect in the first place, for example a chain of dominoes can only begin by the movement of an external force such as a persons hand. Thus Aquinas concludes that “there must be a Prime Mover present which begins the chain of movement in the universe and does not need an efficient cause itself”. Prior to Aquinas, Aristotle stated the existence of a Prime Mover, a being that began the series of motion: “the series must start with something, since nothing can come from nothing”.
So many questions in regards to the potential benefits of this research were left unanswered, and all I could focus on were the many, drastic and terrifying dangers that such breakthroughs in the fields could pose. By the time I had finished reading Bill Joy's article, "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" I had made up my mind. Any further research in genetic engineering, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and robotics poses too great a threat to our environment, ourselves, and our world itself to be allowed to continue. I am not the only one concerned, Stephan Herrera, who wrote the article “Preparing the World for Synthetic Biology” states that there are legitimate concerns in regards to synthetic biology. (Herrera1).
Rowe begins his argument by first stating that the cosmological argument is a posteriori argument which means the “argument depends on a principle or premise that can be known only by means of our experience of the world” (38). He then goes on to explain that the deductive validity of an argument is insufficient to prove the truth of its conclusion; there must also be rational grounds for believing that the premises are true. He further explains that the first part of the PSR is simply a restatement of premise one, therefore if PSR is true then there is a clear justification that the first premise is true. However, there are many objections about the justification of the second premise. The second premise states that “not every being that exists can be a dependent being, that is, can have the explanation of its existence in some other being or beings” (40).
And thus Aquinas took this further claiming that motion or change cannot go back to infinity because then there would be no cause to spark this chain of cause and effect or from a state of potential to a state of actual. But he argued we observe motion in this world and thus there must be a first cause, resulting in the idea of a infinite regress or infinite chain to not be a possibility. And Aquinas called this first cause the unmoved mover, or as it is more commonly referred to as God. Aquinas’s second way, the argument for Causation, is very similar to his first, and once again he rejects the idea of an infinite regress or time. Within this
Scientists have been creating numerous inventions for human in order to make our lives easier and quicker, within all the inventions, a good amount of them have actually caused millions of deaths and injuries; making people starting to rethink whether scientists are responsible for what they have/are going to invent regarding the consequences the inventions may lead to. In the book Cat’s Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut, this question has became to the most controversial topic among readers. The answer for the question should be a solid “no” due to the following reasons. Firstly, the intension of scientists while they were creating a new invention was definitely not to cause any harm but to make the world a better place for us human beings; second of
He stated that only souls could be a primary mover, therefore whatever “moved,” or “caused,” the universe must be a soul) and Aristotle (who stated that all changes must come from some ultimate source and that it is not possible for there not to be a first cause) outlined similar arguments in the past. In particular, Aquinas laid out five ways or “proofs,” in which he could use to prove the existence of a God. Three of his proofs came to be the Cosmological Argument, but specifically two of these proofs, whilst similar in layout, are best suited to analyse their effectiveness. To begin, the first way; The Unmoved Mover, is an argument based specifically from the motion of the universe. Aquinas states that; Everything in the world is moving or changing, Nothing can move or change by itself, There cannot be an infinite regress of things changing other things, Therefore there must be a first (prime) mover/changer and this mover is called God.
The argument itself is leads down an inductive route and in itself tries to prove the existence of god, being through experience and though evidence of the existence of the universe, therefore enabling the ability for the argument to be a posteriori one; a posteriori argument starts from experience of the universe and argues by the induction back to god. Thomas’s ideas were originally from the philosophers Plato and Aristotle, whom in the end concluded that the creator of humanity and the world as we know it was caused by a very intelligent being, uncaused causer or an unmoved mover. People whom of studied the cosmological argument conclude different philosophies or hypothesises depending on what their faith or religion dies down to. Thomas Aquinas was a Theist whom of which used 3 ways to reach his conclusion of this principle; his three ways were based upon Aristotle’s philosophy of their having to be an unmoved mover. The argument