The Law of Causation: Justification for the Beginning of the Universe?

There have been various studies, predictions, and theories related to the evolution of the universe. It is an important topic that makes everyone wonder how it all started. It took centuries to finally come to a conclusion that the big bang was the start of the universe. The big bang theory took ages to become a valid model that was accepted by scientists. This model is so far, the most accepted model that validates all the discoveries of major cosmologists and astronomers such as Tycho Brahe, Nicholas Copernicus, Albert Einstein, and many more. The big bang was essentially the beginning of our galaxy including the sun, our eight planets and moons. The start of the big bang is unimaginable. It all started off as an extremely hot element that

Have you ever wondered about the world beyond its original state? How we know that electricity produces a light bulb to light up or causes the sort of energy necessary to produce heat? But in the first place, what is electricity? Nor have we seen it and not we encountered it; however, we know what it can do, hence its effects. To help us better understand the notion of cause and effect, David Hume, an empiricist and skepticist philosopher, proposed the that there is no such thing as causation. In his theory, he explained the deliberate relationship between the cause and effect, and how the two factors are not interrelated. Think of it this way: sometimes we end up failing to light a match even though it was struck. The previous day, it lit up, but today it did not. Why? Hume’s theory regarding causation helps us comprehend matters of cause and effect, and how we encounter the effects in our daily lives, without the cause being necessary. According to Hume, since we never experience the cause of something, we cannot use inductive reasoning to conclude that one event causes another. In other words, causal necessity (the cause and effect being related in some way or another) seems to be subjective, as if it solely exists in our minds and not in the object itself.

There is issues with causation though and is questioned whether it is in need of reform.

Causation needs to be established. With causation the defendant (university) needs to have caused harm because of their lack of action. Was the plaintiff just careless in their action causing the slip and fall? Did the university not cleaning the parking lot cause the fall of the student? For the claimant to recover damages this is where they would need to prove that the university was at least partially at fault in causing them harm (Owen, 2007). The school not cleaning the parking lot shows that their actions was the majority at fault of injury.

First and foremost the law of nature is “a theory that has roots in Judeo-Christian conception of social life. The theory holds the law and morality must be ssynonymous” (Boyd, 2015). And the

Throughout Collins’s book he goes through many topics that have been a barrier between science and religion for a long time. I agree with many of Collins’s viewpoints when stuck in-between science and religion. This includes his view on the origins of the universe.

The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God The cosmological argument seeks to prove the existence of God by looking at the universe. It is an A posteriori proof based on experience and the observation of the world not logic so the outcome is probable or possible not definite. The argument is in three forms; motion, causation and being. These are also the first three ways in the five ways presented by Aquinas through which he believed the existence of God could be shown.

The strategy used by Cosmological arguments for God based on contingency begins with things exist because they are necessary and or they are contingent. Something that is necessary is something that cannot have failed to exist. Math can be used as an example as a necessary thing. For example, 2+2=4 in our world right now. If the world was different 2+2 would still equal 4. Something that is contingent is not necessary. Things that are not necessary is something that could have failed to exist. My life is contingent because if my parents had never met they would have never fell in love and created me. They could have met other people and fell in love with them. They then would have created something that was not me. We must now bring up explanations

Rule: For this to be consider a “Causation in fact”, someone is injured by another breaching a duty of care. This produces a cause and effect situation, to where someone’s act caused harm to another even if it was accidental. If this particular harm could occur without the defendant’s act causation in fact would be out the question, but for harm to come with the defendant’s act and it has no way of occurring without it means it is indeed “causation in fact.” This cause is usually determined by the “but for test”.

The first rule states that one must not ask why nature acts in certain ways; that people should accept it and move on. This is because nature's simplicity does not exceed to a higher demand. Therefore, you should not question why things are happening.

Causation: An essential element of an injury claim that connects the defendant’s conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury.

This law follows the idea of cause and effect. In this sense, one’s act will have a consequence, good or bad, depending on his or her act. This consequence will follow this person from this life to the next. Dean Halverson states that:

“Reason prevailed over necessity by persuading it to steer the majority of created things towards perfection, and this was how the universe was originally created, as a result of the defeat of necessity by the persuasive power of intelligence.” (Timaeus,

The physics, metaphysics, and every rule set in place comes from God’s understanding of each rule. Leibniz says, “nor can I approve of the opinion of some moderns who maintain boldly that what God has made is not of the highest perfection and that he could have done much better,” meaning all the

We cannot logically know or prove causation and "matters of fact," as we can know and prove the "relations of ideas" such as mathematics and logic. But we have a natural belief in causation and in many matters of fact.