We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i. Assume that every being is a contingent being. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must needs to be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover: as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand.
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. Whenever something undergoes change, it is caused to do so by something. There are inherent problems with the concepts of actuality and potentiality. Why must we presuppose natural processes have a beginning, middle, and end? Is such a scheme a natual one, or is this paradigm imposed by the nature of our thought? Why must there be a beginning to the universe?
By the principle of simplicity , isn't more reasonable to suppose that the universe of objects in motion has always existed than to suppose that we have to account for how things came from nothing? Such a supposition would be in accordance with Newton's first law of motion, the so-called law of inertia: An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an outside force.
Therefore, neither movement nor rest is necessarily the default state of the universe. Natural processes might be best explained without recourse to the dependence of one part to others. Can the notion of the independent interdependence of parts of the universe be just as plausible a notion as some sort of sequence of relations whereby we have to account for the sudden existence of the beginning? For example, if Einstein's Theory of Relativity is correct, absolute motion with reference to three-dimensional space would be replaced with the idea that there is no absolute frame of reference since the motion of anything can only be measured by comparing it relatively with the motion of something else—gravity, acceleration, and motion affect the measurment of time and space.
A non-technical introduction to the Big Bang theory of the universe with explanation of related observations and implications of this view from NASA. Thomas Aquinas, "The Cosmological Argument. Since not every being can be contingent, it follow that there must be a necessary being upon which all things depend.
This being is God. Problem of evil. The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God see theism. Or as the first known presentation by the Greek philosopher Epicurus puts it: "Is God willing to prevent evil , but not able? Anselm defined God as "a being than which no greater can be conceived", and argued that this being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God.
The first cause argument is an argument for the existence of God associated with St Thomas Aquinas Aquinas was a monk who used reason and logic to point to the existence of God.
The Global Argument. If Hartshorne is correct, the ontological argument reveals the logical status of the theistic question as metaphysical rather than empirical. The argument falls short of a proof of theism , in large measure, because it depends on the premise that the existence of God is logically possible. Teleological argument. The teleological or physico-theological argument , also known as the argument from design , or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world.
In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the supreme being, creator deity, and principal object of faith. God is usually conceived as being omniscient all-knowing , omnipotent all-powerful , omnipresent all-present and as having an eternal and necessary existence.
0コメント