Sir Thomas Aquinas argues that “Everything in nature
is directed to its goal by someone with understanding, and this we call
god”. He supported his argument
with five premises. His argument is mostly valid and sound, however his second
premise, the nature of causation does not give way to the possibility of two
mutual causes to one event.
As
we discussed the existence of God in class I couldn’t help but question how we
could assume such singularity. In
nature we can notice that a hurricane is caused by more than one factor. The water temperature, wind patterns
and many other things must provide an ideal environment for the hurricanes
formation.
We
as human beings cannot reproduce (the very base to our existence on earth)
without two parts… a sperm and an egg.
So is it a jump in logic to assume that there is a single “First
Cause”.
Considering
the vague objection I am making would quickly be argued through the very
definition of God, as an all knowing, “first cause” accredits him as a single
creator.
As
many ideas that arise have already been thought of, I am sure that this one is
not special but I can’t help but wonder…
If our
scientific method is leading us to truths and the many theories concerning the
origin of the earth have merit, and yet a significant percentage of the human
populations believes in a higher power, God, Creator. Can both these viewpoints not coincide to explain “the
Beginning”?
Some
specific primary texts may be considered falsified in this attempt… raising
hairs… but could god have cofounded our world while still maintain the reputation
as all knowing, all good, and all powerful? I believe he can.
No comments:
Post a Comment