4 added 1149 characters in body
source | link

Rachel does not assert the 'uncaused cause' as "asserted" by the answer marked as correct. You need to be ignorant of the existence of Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways to reach that conclusion.

To summarize the Five ways in a paragraph, they are

1) The First Way: Argument from Motion 2) The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes 3) The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument) 4) The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being 5) The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

You'll find a succinct explanation of these Five ways here

It is expounding on these five ways that Aquinas is able to demonstrate that all reality - that involves change or possibility, design or degrees of being - when traced back to their causes needs to stop at a first cause that is uncaused, otherwise it would fall into infinite regress. It is simply not true that the uncaused First cause is merely asserted. Rather Aquinas reaches this conclusion precisely because of the empirical observations in the Five Ways. Later Thomists have tried to defend the view to an array of disagreements from Hume to modern day opponents. But just to comment on the infinite regress problem.

The problem with infinite regress is itself debated on this stackexchange thread. But I'd like to quote the answer currently on top provided by Niel de Beaudrap:

We must first distinguish between what is physically possible — what it is possible to actually occur — and what is imaginable, or logically possible under certain premissespremises.

So the problem with Infinite Regress is that in regard to the universe, we are not talking of some prime number problem but a real workworld of physical entities called the universe. As we don't doubt that we all truly exist, we can't go intoto then make do with the idea that there's no uncaused first cause and an infinite regress as thatis an "ok" kind of a solution would be to move from the real (us, our society, family and the world) to the abstract (like a series of numbers). The Uncaused First cause is not religion or some hypothesis, it simply tries to understand reality as we know it. Which is why when talking of who or what truly created this world, it doesn't help to suddenly take a leap from the real world of causation to the abstract world of logic/imagination

It'sUncaused First Cause is not - as @StoicFury (answer marked correct) says - just an assertion but( without an explanation). It is rather due the demonstration of the Five Ways of Aquinas that we are lead to understand that there must be an uncausedUncaused Cause. To refute the uncaused causedFirst cause, you would have to take on the Five Ways and not merely state the assertion of an uncaused Cause as incorrect or lacking evidence.

You'll find Edward Fesser's book on the Five Proofs that explain some of Ways of Thomas Aquinas as a well received book very coherently elaborated to get to the Uncaused First Cause.

Rachel does not assert the 'uncaused cause' as "asserted" by the answer marked as correct. You need to be ignorant of the existence of Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways to reach that conclusion.

To summarize the Five ways in a paragraph, they are

1) The First Way: Argument from Motion 2) The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes 3) The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument) 4) The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being 5) The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

You'll find a succinct explanation of these Five ways here

It is expounding on these five ways that Aquinas is able to demonstrate that all reality - that involves change or possibility, design or degrees of being - when traced back to their causes needs to stop at a first cause that is uncaused, otherwise it would fall into infinite regress.

The problem with infinite regress is itself debated on this stackexchange thread. But I'd like to quote the answer currently on top provided by Niel de Beaudrap:

We must first distinguish between what is physically possible — what it is possible to actually occur — and what is imaginable, or logically possible under certain premisses.

So the problem with Infinite Regress is that in regard to the universe, we are not talking of some prime number problem but a real work of physical entities called the universe. As we all truly exist, we can't go into an infinite regress as that would be to move from the real (us, our society, family and the world) to the abstract (like a series of numbers).

It's not as @StoicFury (answer marked correct) says just an assertion but an explanation of the Five Ways we are lead to understand that there must be an uncaused Cause. To refute the uncaused caused you would have to take on the Five Ways not the assertion of an uncaused Cause.

Rachel does not assert the 'uncaused cause' as "asserted" by the answer marked as correct. You need to be ignorant of the existence of Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways to reach that conclusion.

To summarize the Five ways in a paragraph, they are

1) The First Way: Argument from Motion 2) The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes 3) The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument) 4) The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being 5) The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

You'll find a succinct explanation of these Five ways here

It is expounding on these five ways that Aquinas is able to demonstrate that all reality - that involves change or possibility, design or degrees of being - when traced back to their causes needs to stop at a first cause that is uncaused, otherwise it would fall into infinite regress. It is simply not true that the uncaused First cause is merely asserted. Rather Aquinas reaches this conclusion precisely because of the empirical observations in the Five Ways. Later Thomists have tried to defend the view to an array of disagreements from Hume to modern day opponents. But just to comment on the infinite regress problem.

The problem with infinite regress is itself debated on this stackexchange thread. But I'd like to quote the answer currently on top provided by Niel de Beaudrap:

We must first distinguish between what is physically possible — what it is possible to actually occur — and what is imaginable, or logically possible under certain premises.

So the problem with Infinite Regress is that in regard to the universe, we are not talking of some prime number problem but a real world of physical entities called the universe. As we don't doubt that we all truly exist, to then make do with the idea that there's no uncaused first cause and an infinite regress is an "ok" kind of a solution would be to move from the real (us, our society, family and the world) to the abstract (like a series of numbers). The Uncaused First cause is not religion or some hypothesis, it simply tries to understand reality as we know it. Which is why when talking of who or what truly created this world, it doesn't help to suddenly take a leap from the real world of causation to the abstract world of logic/imagination

Uncaused First Cause is not - as @StoicFury (answer marked correct) says - just an assertion( without an explanation). It is rather due the demonstration of the Five Ways of Aquinas that we are lead to understand that there must be an Uncaused Cause. To refute the uncaused First cause, you would have to take on the Five Ways and not merely state the assertion of an uncaused Cause as incorrect or lacking evidence.

You'll find Edward Fesser's book on the Five Proofs that explain some of Ways of Thomas Aquinas as a well received book very coherently elaborated to get to the Uncaused First Cause.

3 spelling
source | link

Rachel does not assert the 'uncaused cause' as "asserted" by the answer marked as correct. You need to be ignorant of the existence of Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways to reach that conclusion.

To summarize the Five ways in a paragraph, they are

1) The First Way: Argument from Motion 2) The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes 3) The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument) 4) The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being 5) The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

You'll find a succintsuccinct explanation of these Five ways here

It is expoudingexpounding on these five ways that Aquinas is able to demonstrate that all reality - that involves change or possibility, design or degrees of being - when traced back to their causes needs to stop at a first cause that is uncaused, otherwise it would fall into infinite regress.

The problem with infinite regress is itself debated on this stackexchange thread. But I'd like to quoutequote the answer currently on top provided by Niel de Beaudrap:

We must first distinguish between what is physically possible — what it is possible to actually occur — and what is imaginable, or logically possible under certain premisses.

So the problem with Infinite Regress is that in regard to the universe, we are not talking of some prime number problem but a real work of physical entities called the universe. As we all truly exist, we can't go into an infinite regress as that would be to move from the real  (us, our society, family and the world) to the abstract (like a series of numbers).

It's not as @StoicFury (answer marked correct) says just an assertion but an explanation of the Five Ways we are lead to understand that there must be an uncaused Cause. To refute the uncaused caused you would have to take on the Five Ways not the assertion of an uncaused Cause.

Rachel does not assert the 'uncaused cause' as "asserted" by the answer marked as correct. You need to be ignorant of the existence of Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways to reach that conclusion.

To summarize the Five ways in a paragraph, they are

1) The First Way: Argument from Motion 2) The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes 3) The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument) 4) The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being 5) The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

You'll find a succint explanation of these Five ways here

It is expouding on these five ways that Aquinas is able to demonstrate that all reality - that involves change or possibility, design or degrees of being - when traced back to their causes needs to stop at a first cause that is uncaused, otherwise it would fall into infinite regress.

The problem with infinite regress is itself debated on this stackexchange thread. But I'd like to quoute the answer currently on top provided by Niel de Beaudrap:

We must first distinguish between what is physically possible — what it is possible to actually occur — and what is imaginable, or logically possible under certain premisses.

So the problem with Infinite Regress is that in regard to the universe, we are not talking of some prime number problem but a real work of physical entities called the universe. As we all truly exist, we can't go into an infinite regress as that would be to move from the real(us, our society, family and the world) to the abstract (like a series of numbers)

It's not as @StoicFury (answer marked correct) says just an assertion but an explanation of the Five Ways we are lead to understand that there must be an uncaused Cause. To refute the uncaused caused you would have to take on the Five Ways not the assertion of an uncaused Cause.

Rachel does not assert the 'uncaused cause' as "asserted" by the answer marked as correct. You need to be ignorant of the existence of Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways to reach that conclusion.

To summarize the Five ways in a paragraph, they are

1) The First Way: Argument from Motion 2) The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes 3) The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument) 4) The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being 5) The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

You'll find a succinct explanation of these Five ways here

It is expounding on these five ways that Aquinas is able to demonstrate that all reality - that involves change or possibility, design or degrees of being - when traced back to their causes needs to stop at a first cause that is uncaused, otherwise it would fall into infinite regress.

The problem with infinite regress is itself debated on this stackexchange thread. But I'd like to quote the answer currently on top provided by Niel de Beaudrap:

We must first distinguish between what is physically possible — what it is possible to actually occur — and what is imaginable, or logically possible under certain premisses.

So the problem with Infinite Regress is that in regard to the universe, we are not talking of some prime number problem but a real work of physical entities called the universe. As we all truly exist, we can't go into an infinite regress as that would be to move from the real  (us, our society, family and the world) to the abstract (like a series of numbers).

It's not as @StoicFury (answer marked correct) says just an assertion but an explanation of the Five Ways we are lead to understand that there must be an uncaused Cause. To refute the uncaused caused you would have to take on the Five Ways not the assertion of an uncaused Cause.

2 added 744 characters in body
source | link

Rachel does not assert the 'uncaused cause' as "asserted" by the answer marked as correct. You need to be ignorant of the existence of Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways to reach that conclusion.

To summarize the Five ways in a paragraph, they are

1) The First Way: Argument from Motion 2) The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes 3) The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument) 4) The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being 5) The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

You'll find a succint explanation of these Five ways here

It is expouding on these five ways they he demonstratesthat Aquinas is able to demonstrate that all reality - that involves change or possibility or, design or degrees of being cannot- when traced back to their causes needs to stop at a first cause that is uncaused, otherwise it would fall into infinite regress.

The problem with infinite regress is itself debated on this stackexchange thread. But I'd like to quoute the answer currently on top provided by Niel de Beaudrap:

We must first distinguish between what is physically possible — what it is possible to actually occur — and what is imaginable, or logically possible under certain premisses.

So the problem with Infinite Regress is that in regard to the universe, we are not talking of some prime number problem but a real work of physical entities called the universe. As we all truly exist, we can't go into an infinite regress have a causeas that itself has motion or degree or possibility because they would mean that it itself has a cause be to move from the real(because possibility would mean it came into existenceus, our society, family and degree would mean it can change etcthe world). to the abstract (like a series of numbers)

It's not as @StoicFury (answer marked correct) says just an assertion but an explanation of the Five Ways we are lead to understand that there must be an uncaused Cause. To refute the uncaused caused you would have to take on the Five Ways not the assertion of an uncaused Cause.

Rachel does not assert the 'uncaused cause' as "asserted" by the answer marked as correct. You need to be ignorant of the existence of Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways to reach that conclusion.

To summarize the Five ways in a paragraph, they are

1) The First Way: Argument from Motion 2) The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes 3) The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument) 4) The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being 5) The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

You'll find a succint explanation of these Five ways here

It is expouding on these five ways they he demonstrates that all reality that involves change or possibility or design or degrees of being cannot when traced back to their cause in an infinite regress have a cause that itself has motion or degree or possibility because they would mean that it itself has a cause (because possibility would mean it came into existence and degree would mean it can change etc).

It's not as @StoicFury (answer marked correct) says just an assertion but an explanation of the Five Ways we are lead to understand that there must be an uncaused Cause. To refute the uncaused caused you would have to take on the Five Ways not the assertion of an uncaused Cause.

Rachel does not assert the 'uncaused cause' as "asserted" by the answer marked as correct. You need to be ignorant of the existence of Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways to reach that conclusion.

To summarize the Five ways in a paragraph, they are

1) The First Way: Argument from Motion 2) The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes 3) The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument) 4) The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being 5) The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

You'll find a succint explanation of these Five ways here

It is expouding on these five ways that Aquinas is able to demonstrate that all reality - that involves change or possibility, design or degrees of being - when traced back to their causes needs to stop at a first cause that is uncaused, otherwise it would fall into infinite regress.

The problem with infinite regress is itself debated on this stackexchange thread. But I'd like to quoute the answer currently on top provided by Niel de Beaudrap:

We must first distinguish between what is physically possible — what it is possible to actually occur — and what is imaginable, or logically possible under certain premisses.

So the problem with Infinite Regress is that in regard to the universe, we are not talking of some prime number problem but a real work of physical entities called the universe. As we all truly exist, we can't go into an infinite regress as that would be to move from the real(us, our society, family and the world) to the abstract (like a series of numbers)

It's not as @StoicFury (answer marked correct) says just an assertion but an explanation of the Five Ways we are lead to understand that there must be an uncaused Cause. To refute the uncaused caused you would have to take on the Five Ways not the assertion of an uncaused Cause.

1
source | link