Existence of God revised

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Subject
Date
Existence of God
The First Cause
I believe that the First-Cause Argument or the Cosmological argument is the most plausible argument for the existence of God. St. Thomas Aquinas was the major philosopher behind this argument and other philosophers in support of this line of reasoning as far as the existence of God are Plato and Aristotle. The First Cause Argument posits that any event must have a cause and that the cause of itself must also be caused by another cause. These causes will create a succession of causes that will become infinite. An infinite chain of causes does not make sense. On the other hand, a causal loop is practically impossible. This begs the question, which is the first cause? There has to be the first cause that causes all the other causes. According to Thomas Aquinas, the first cause is ‘unconditioned’ and ‘supreme.’ The first cause is God.
The best objection to the First Cause Argument is that is self-refuting. Thomas Aquinas argues that all events in the universe are caused by something else and that an event cannot cause itself. According to this argument, God is part of the universe and is the first cause. A conflict in the argument arises whereby if it is understood that God is the first cause and that every cause must be caused in the universe, then who caused God? This will leave people to believe that God might not have been the first cause and perhaps there might have been another cause or a series of events before God that influenced the existence of God.

To proof that events are caused by other events or people, history narrates events in chronological order from the past to the present. These events can be used to predict future happenings or events since what caused the present events can still transform them into other predictable events. For the First Cause argument to stand, the theist must remain steady and consistent in the presented argument that God lacks a creator. God is what is referred to as an uncaused cause.
I agree with the objection that the First Cause Argument is self-refuting. The best response to this objection is that there is an opportunity to amend St. Thomas Aquinas argument and make it coherent. The First Cause argument will still make sense to most people if properly corrected or viewed from another perspective. The argument can be amended to state that apart from God, all causes have other causes except themselves. It can be argued that the first cause caused itself and caused others who have no capacity or capability to cause themselves. It can also be satisfactorily argued that in the universe, there are some things that are uncaused and that they have some unique capabilities. It can also be safely argued that God is separate from the universe which has a beginning. God, unlike other elements, is eternal and has the capability to exist out of time with neither beginning nor the end. Uncaused existence is something which is totally unique to God, unlike the universe. An example of these things or beings is God who is uncaused but can cause other things. Raising this response does not distort other facts as presented by Thomas Aquinas in the First Cause argument. This response can fail because Thomas Aquinas had explained that the first cause is either ‘unconditioned’ or ‘supreme.’ These terminologies are broad and can cover several definitions including the fact that an ‘unconditioned’ being has the potential to cause others including itself. What is supreme can cause several other causes or trigger huge or monumental causes. These terms are not specific, and a person can still argue that the objection did not explore deeply to ascertain whether there are any weaknesses as far as the First Cause argument is concerned.
B.C Johnson Scenario
From the scenario presented by Johnson, it is clear that the free will which is given to man is an avenue for a man to choose whether to discourage or perpetuate evil. Johnson explains that it is difficult to believe that God permits evil to promote the moral urgency by human beings to behave well and respect God (B.C, Johnson 98). It is as if God permits evil and suffering of a man so that he could exert his authority or supremacy over man. It is clear that free will of another person to act in whatever way he or she deems fit can cause another person to be either considered good or evil depending on the choice taken or decision made. In the scenario given, if the person starting the fire could have known that there is no action to prevent the fire from achieving the intended goal of killing the children, the bystander could not be blamed. But on the other hand, the bystander could judge the possible consequences of the fire and the appropriate steps to be taken. If the bystander fails to save the children from the fire, he will be considered bad, and this is true for God who has potential to prevent the death of innocent children. The main issue is the innocence of children. They might neither be aware of the moral urgency that God is trying to promote nor the need to recognize the supremacy of God (B.C, Johnson 99). From the scenario given by Johnson, it is also clear that the free will of another person can affect the free will and choice of another person. The free will of the person starting the fire affects the free will of the bystander.
Peter Van Inwagen’sThe article by Peter Van Inwagen is usefully used as a response towards the challenge posed by Johnson B.C. He poses this challenge to the theist concerning the goodness of the all-powerful God. He claims that free will was given to human beings to create faults for themselves. For example, when human beings purposefully or accidentally do something wrong, they blame themselves and are left without any excuse why God could not intervene. Johnson’s challenge to theist relates to when a man starts fire purposefully to kill small children. A bystander’s free will is to remain and watch, rather than save the children. Both people’s actions are against God’s will. However, this environment does not create a continuing proclaim to prove the goodness of the all-powerful God who is expected to intervene. Johnson argues that the baby’s pain would be enough for God to prevent the incident (B.C, Johnson 98). Johnson D.C. challenges the theist by proving their assumption of “God is good” to be right at times when issues happening to them are beyond their control. Johnson criticizes the actions of firefighters and physicians as cases of men trying to help themselves.
Van Inwagen responds to this challenge through “Question 2” and “Question 4”. “Question 2” answers why God do not protect man from experiencing the worst and horrible sufferings whereas “Question 4” explains why the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer. In “Question 2”, Van explains the parable of the Prodigal Son (van Inwagen 202). He explains that God would have enlightened his father on the issue and ensure that he protects him from the miseries. In the end, the son would still squander their substance with impunity. Sometimes, the experience is the best teacher. This is the same case with God. Inwagen argues that if God intervened in all mans’ actions, he would be satisfied with life. Eventually, man would not turn to God for help. Van Inwagen responds to Johnson’s claims by explaining that God planned to leave the man in a dissatisfied state after His separation (van Inwagen 195). Additionally, the sufferings and problems experienced by man are not miraculously altering their lives as they are natural and represents God’s separation. However, Van suggests that God plans to enable man to realize the condition of the hideous world that they live on their own. The actions of man have their outcome and consequence on themselves as it is the natural result of them tempting to do things on their own. “Question 4” explains that God is the creator of all things (van Inwagen 206). He also sustains all existence every moment and continuously supports them through their experiences. Van argues that there is no reason why the wicked prospers and the innocent suffer. However, all is connected to evil. A man who uses his free will to harm others causes suffering and pain to the innocent. Van argues that it is not possible for a man to live apart with God and not fall victims and subjects of destruction by evil. However, Van connects all issues to God’s plan of Atonement.
I agree with Van Inwagen’s objection to the argument by B.C. Johnson. I believe that it is terrible to do something wrong to innocent persons “x” without their permission, to gain personal benefit from them (van Inwagen 207). Additionally, I agree with Van’s argument that man experiences the pain and suffering to have moral urgency and act according to God’s will.
The best response to this objection would be similar to that of D.C. Johnson who argues that God permits the bad to happen through allowing human beings to use their free will wrongly. However, this response fails as God is omnipresent. After his separation with a man, God allowed evil to give man knowledge of what is right and evil. Eventually, man can learn from these experiences.
Works Cited
B.C, Johnson. “Intro To Philosophy: The Problem Of Evil And B.C.
Johnson.” Utintrotophilosophy.Blogspot.Co.Ke, 2006, http://utintrotophilosophy.blogspot.co.ke/2006/02/problem-from-evil-and-bc-johnson.html.
van Inwagen, Peter. “8. The Magnitude, Duration, And Distribution Of Evil.” Philosophical
Topics, vol 16, no. 2, 1988, pp. 161-187. Philosophy Documentation Center, doi:10.5840/philtopics198816218.