John Doe Research Paper

no one is really sure what causes gravity, but the effects have been studied by many

The first version of the Design argument came from Plato, a Greek philosopher, who developed it to address the universe's apparent order. Plato proposed in his book Timaeus that a “demiurge”, a divine being of supreme wisdom and intelligence, was the creator of the

Therefore, this something must have caused. It would however be insufficient to just give an explanation which contradicts itself because it then becomes falsifiable. God has been the result of many of these inquiries however the reasoning to this answer follows many various roots. One occurring principle

The outline of the design argument is that the universe has order and purpose and is regular, the complexities of the universe demonstrate some form of design, a design requires a

Naturalists hold onto the idea that there is No Prime Mover, leaving theists to beg the question, what caused the first “spark?” The theory of cause and effect is clearly definitive and thus can either be true or false. And if there is no first cause, then this theory does not hold up creating internal logical inconsistency.

There is a reason behind everything that happens in life, it may not be understandable for some people, but there is reason

There are two basic theories in this debate. The first is the historical default, the creation model of origins. This theory maintains that the intricate design infiltrates all things, which implies a designer. The second theory is the more recent, atheistic explanation, the evolution model of origins. This theory suggests that the intricate design infiltrates all things and is a product of random chance and excessive time.

Hence: it is likely that the universe is an outcome of intelligent design and has an aim.

Richard Swinburne argued that the design and precision of the universe cannot be explained by science, and can only be explained in terms of the purposes of an intelligent being: God. He argues; “Of course there is order in the world: if there were not order, humanity would not exist to discover it!”

Although it appears irrational to deny the first premise, some scholars have challenged the causal principle on philosophical grounds. Deriving arguments from David Hume, philosophers (such as J.L. Mackie) have sought to refute the first premise by contending there is no reason to believe the causal principle is a priori true. Contrary to their assertion, the principle of causation appears to be a synthetic a priori proposition, as it is a universal and necessary feature of both cognition and reality, providing the precondition of thought itself. Nonetheless, challenging the causal principle because it is not a priori true does nothing to invalidate the premise since the assertion does not indicate the premise is false, nor does it compel us to think the antithesis is plausible—that something can truly originate from uncaused. Undeterred, such opponents further maintain that an infinite chain of contingent events could provide a sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe, even if it were void a

A cause must be, at very least, as great as its effect. That is, a cause must have at least the same amount of reality (objective and formal) as the effect it produces.

The opinion that God solely causes everything is known as occasionalism. Occasionalism is a version of Cartesian metaphysics, that thrived in the last half of the 17th century, based on the belief that all communication between mind and body is arbitrated by God. Occasionalism suggests that mind and body do not interact directly, however, the impression of direct communication is sustained by God, who drives the body on the mind’s urging and who places suggestions in the mind when the body meets other material provocations (Swinburne,

In science, explanations are built of cause and effect. But if nothing is truly nothing, it lacks the power to cause. It’s not simply that we can’t find the right explanation—it’s that explanation itselffails in the face of nothing.

In Physics II, Aristotle speaks to the four causes that can explain any changes in the science of nature. First, he says there is a cause that explains what something is made of, such as the bronze of a statue (194b25). Second, there is a cause which is related to the form to which a thing is made into (194b27). Third, there is the original, primary source of change. It is what makes of what is made and what causes change of what is changed, like that of the father to a child (194b30). Lastly, there is the end cause, which is the intended purpose of the change or the reason behind why a thing is made or done (194b35). An example of this would be health, which is the cause of walking around.

The law of universal gravitation was find by Newton because of an apple. When the apple fell from the tree on to Newton’s head. Newton found it mysteriously, so he started to think about the reason and the formula out of this nature phenomenon.