What is your answer?
Why did Aquinas think that there must be a "first cause" (something that causes other things to exist but that isn't itself caused to exist by anything else) -- which he identified with God?
{ 1 } - There is a second cause, and so there must be a first cause.
{ 2 } - "X causes Y" only means that things like X are followed in our experience by things like Y.
{ 3 } - Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause.
{ 4 } - Causality is only a category that the mind uses to put together the raw data of sensation.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 4.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
Why did Aquinas think that there must be a "first cause" (something that causes other things to exist but that isn't itself caused to exist by anything else) -- which he identified with God?
{ 1 } - There is a second cause, and so there must be a first cause.
{ 2 } - "X causes Y" only means that things like X are followed in our experience by things like Y.
{ 3 } - Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause.
{ 4 } - Causality is only a category that the mind uses to put together the raw data of sensation.
This isn't his argument.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
Why did Aquinas think that there must be a "first cause" (something that causes other things to exist but that isn't itself caused to exist by anything else) -- which he identified with God?
{ 1 } - There is a second cause, and so there must be a first cause.
{ 2 } - "X causes Y" only means that things like X are followed in our experience by things like Y.
{ 3 } - Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause.
{ 4 } - Causality is only a category that the mind uses to put together the raw data of sensation.
This is Hume -- and would lead him to doubt Aquinas's conclusion.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is correct!
Why did Aquinas think that there must be a "first cause" (something that causes other things to exist but that isn't itself caused to exist by anything else) -- which he identified with God?
{ 1 } - There is a second cause, and so there must be a first cause.
{ 2 } - "X causes Y" only means that things like X are followed in our experience by things like Y.
{ 3 } - Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause.
{ 4 } - Causality is only a category that the mind uses to put together the raw data of sensation.
This was his "argument #2" for the existence of God.
One might question some of these premises. Why can't there be an infinite series of causes? Why does the first cause have to be God? Why couldn't it be the "big bang" explosion instead?
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
4 is wrong. Please try again.
Why did Aquinas think that there must be a "first cause" (something that causes other things to exist but that isn't itself caused to exist by anything else) -- which he identified with God?
{ 1 } - There is a second cause, and so there must be a first cause.
{ 2 } - "X causes Y" only means that things like X are followed in our experience by things like Y.
{ 3 } - Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause.
{ 4 } - Causality is only a category that the mind uses to put together the raw data of sensation.
This is Kant -- and would lead him to doubt Aquinas's conclusion.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end