Issues/Does God Exist term paper 5416

Issues term papers
Disclaimer: Free essays on Issues posted on this site were donated by anonymous users and are provided for informational use only. The free Issues research paper (Does God Exist essay) presented on this page should not be viewed as a sample of our on-line writing service. If you need fresh and competent research / writing on Issues, use the professional writing service offered by our company.
View / hide essay

What is God? Who is God? Why do some people conclude that a God

exists? Saint Thomas Aquinas goes from the fact that there must be a first

efficient cause to the conclusion that God is that cause. Why must Aquinas

make the extraordinary jump from there being a cause, to assuming that this

cause must be God? Would it not be just as plausible to make matter the first

cause? Matter is the substance that any physical object is composed of.

Matter is closed and finite, with no beginning or end. The best explanation to

the existence of God, is that God does not exist as a first efficient cause. The

argument for God, as presented by Aquinas, is to show that the existence of

the world and everything in it can only be explained if there is a God who is

the first cause. The argument states that it is impossible for any being to be

the efficient cause of itself because then it would have to bring itself into

being, and to bring itself into being, it would have to exist before it existed. If

a being exists, it is because some being prior to it, was it's cause. Therefore,

if no first cause exists, neither will any other being exist. Therefore, there is a

first efficient cause--God. This argument assumes that a first cause is needed

to explain the existence of anything. Aquinas also assumes this first cause to

be God. How can anyone rationally conclude that there is a God from the

simple statement that a first cause is necessary? Therefore, a first cause does

not prove God, it only assumes that there is a God, at best. Could one not

put matter in the place of God in Aquinas' argument and still assume there is

a first efficient cause? The theory that matter "is", is just as plausible as the

theory that God "is". Matter is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning

or end. Putting Matter in the place of God in the end of the argument given by

Aquinas, is just as plausible. In fact, matter is an easier concept to understand

and to believe in than God. Everyone has a different view of what God is and

even what he stands for, but many of those same people understand the

concepts of matter. Matter is all around us, and even we are matter. We

interact with matter everyday and in every situation, so the knowledge of

matter is not trivial. God does not interact with us, he is not around us, and

we do not associate with God in the same manner in which we associate with

matter. Matter is an understandable concept while God is abstract. The

properties of matter make it a suitable conclusion for Aquinas' argument in

place of God. The explanation of God is then not needed and therefore there

is no place for God in the discussion of the origin of matter. Therefore, the

best explanation is that God does not exist as a first efficient cause. Not only

is matter an easier concept to understand and relate to than God, It is also a

tremendous leap of faith to put anything as the first efficient cause. If you

were to conclude that there had to be a first efficient cause, why would one

assume that God was that cause. God, of all things, is the most abstract idea

that exists. Why does Aquinas make this huge jump to God when matter

would also fit in his explanation? Matter may even be a better concept then

that of God because we are comfortable with what matter is. Why then, do

people of so many different cultures and backgrounds, turn to the belief of a

God as the first cause. Surely if so many people believe, they must have some

clout as to what they are believing. These people are only believing in God

because it is given as a conclusion to us as a being. Matter is just as suitable

of a conclusion to us as a being and it answers the first efficient cause

argument. Matter is not nearly as abstract of an idea and in fact, we are

matter, so the notion that matter "is" is not nearly as far fetched as the idea

that God "is". The same people who say that God is the first efficient cause

also believe in matter. At the same time, more people believe in the concept

of matter and what it is than believe in God. In fact, they believe in the very

same types of matter while their beliefs of God as the first efficient cause

remain very different. These cultures must have a reason for turning to God

rather than matter as their first efficient cause. The reason is that they can give

God supernatural powers that do not exist with matter. These supernatural

powers differ greatly between cultures, so the main reason they turn to God is

very different in similar cases. The reason that cultures turn to God instead of

mater is that they can assign these supernatural powers at free will, while the

concept of matter is well defined. God is just an easy approach to the

unsolved mysteries and theories of the universe. However, matter is a better

fit. Overall, I have shown that the argument given by Aquinas only assumes

God, it does not prove it. Matter "is", just as God "is". Furthermore, I have

shown that the explanation of God is not needed and therefore there is no

place for God in the discussion of the first cause. Therefore, God does not

exist as a first efficient cause.

News

Live support is now available round-the-clock 24/7
A paper writing site You CAN trust!
  • 10+ years of experience in paper writing
  • Any assignment on any level. Any deadline!
  • Open 24/7 Your essay will be done on time!
  • 200+ essay writers. Live Chat. Great support
  • No Plagiarism. Satisfaction. Confidentiality.