The basic premise of the Kálam argument is that something must of caused the universe to begin to exist, this cause must be necessary therefore it is God. The Kálam argument agrees with the term infinite regression, in which is a chain going infinitely back in time with no beginning. St. Thomas Aquinas was a believer of the cosmological argument, Aquinas set out ex nihilo nihil fit, basically meaning nothing comes from nothing, Aquinas believed since nothing can come from nothing, the universe exists so therefore God must of made it. Aquinas’ theory is equivalent to the second way, in which is ‘causation’. The second way states that cause and effect are natural, whatever happens is caused by something, and something cannot cause itself because that would mean
Therefore, man is obligated to repent and put his faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation and bear good fruit or face the righteous judgement of God. In Romans 1:20, Paul reveals that the natural world testifies to a supernatural cause. According to the scientific evidence, nature itself had a beginning. As Dr. Frank Turek points out, the supernatural cause that created nature must be spaceless (Because it created space), timeless (Because it created time), immaterial (Because it created matter), powerful (Because it created out of nothing), intelligent (Because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed), and personal (Because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something; impersonal forces don’t make choices). This evidence is consistent with Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Paul eluded to this when he said that God’s invisible qualities, eternal power, and divine nature is clearly seen, being understood by what has been made, so that men are without excuse (Rom.1:20).
As we all know, everything has a beginning and an end, so as to the universe. That “Prime Mover” must exist to start the motion of the universe. Moreover, most supporters of the cosmological argument say that the universe could only
One of Aquinas’ ways of proving God’s existence; ‘the uncaused causer’, states that every cause in the universe has an effect, the chain of cause and effect must have a terminus to avoid infinite regress. Aquinas rejects infinite regress because it denotes that there cannot be an answer to the question “what is the explanation?” Therefore there must be a necessary being that started the chain, this for Aquinas is God but this is not a satisfactory answer for everyone. Bertrand Russell, somewhat like Aristotle, states that the universe is a “brute fact”, although unlike Aristotle did not see that there needed to be a Prime Mover or Uncaused Cause. Russell made another criticism when he suggested that one cannot go from saying that every event has a cause thus the whole universe has a cause, it is like moving from saying that every human being has a mother to the claim that the human race as a whole has a mother. One cannot move from individual causes to the totality (whole, everything) has a cause.
Aquinas generalizes everything in the universe based on the small amount of things he has actually seen or experienced. These generalizations should not be made without strong evidence. It can also be argued that not taking your surroundings into account whilst considering the universe is a huge error of over simplification, which makes the argument of induction seem week. David Hume however had a very strong empiricist view on the universe and can say that the assumptions based on what’s around us can only be applied to the present and do not provide any information on the past or future of the universe. Bertrand Russell also put forth the argument that the universe is a brute fact and it created itself.
Currently, scientists have found out that even the heliocentric model is not correct as their seems to be two centres to this solar system. From this, we can see that what was once thought to be scientific truth has now been replaced with a more accurate truth. Muslims believe that one day, we will reach the ultimate truth. In addition to that, most Muslims dot discount the theory of a ‘Big Bang’ explosion at the start. The elements and what were to become the planets and stars began to cool.
According to Aquinas, the chain of movement cannot go back to infinity. So there must have been a first, unmoved mover who began the movement of everything in the universe. Aquinas argued that this was God. Aquinas said that objects only changed because of some external force had brought about the change. He used the idea of objects having the potential to become actual but said that this could
How does God connect to the universe? He created the entire universe, does that include time and space as well? If God did create time and space, then God must have been somehow outside of both time and space. This has been the thought of philosophers from Augustine through Aquinas. So what exactly does it mean to be “timeless?” One could say that to be timeless is simply to be and exist beyond time.
Social scientist use psychology, sociology, anthropology and history to back up their beliefs. Comte, a philosopher, expressed that religion is a story of human development. Comte describes this “human development” as a mythological stage. Religion according to him is a creation of human spirit and is completely man made. Like Comte, social scientists believe that religion is not an essential quality for taking place in this world and is not
Existence is a part of perfection. While the ontological argument can be approached without the use of consciousness or awareness, cosmological and teleological arguments require a closer focus on the cause and the design of the universe. In earlier years Plato, then Aristotle stressed the cosmological argument as cause and motion, whereas Thomas Aquinas’ concept focused on life having a cause or a starting point. According to his premise the universe is a series of causes and the first cause would be what everyone understands to be God. This concept leads to other debates that mock the well-known adage “Which comes first, the chicken or the egg”.