HigherRMPS -Origins of the Universe- The Cosmological (First cause) Argument

Learning Intention: To demonstrate an understanding of a complex argument.To demonstrate an understanding of a complex argument. Learning context: The ‘First cause/Cosmological argument’ and the origin of the universe.The ‘First cause/Cosmological argument’ and the origin of the universe. Success criteria: I can demonstrate an understanding of the religious and non-religious arguments about a ‘First cause’.I can demonstrate an understanding of the religious and non-religious arguments about a ‘First cause’. Through reflection and discussion, I will have begun to make my own judgement of origin of the universe.Through reflection and discussion, I will have begun to make my own judgement of origin of the universe.

The Cosmological Argument Thomas Aquinas Roman Catholic theologian and philosopher. Lived in the 13 th century. He identified 5 ‘proofs’ for the existence of God.

The Cosmological Argument: “There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God”.

The unmoved mover: “ Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God.” The Uncaused Cause: “ Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, and this we call God.”

The Cosmological (First Cause) Argument OBJECTIONS

Ethologist, evolutionary biologist and author. Describes the main objections he raised to the cosmological argument in…

1.What caused God? You cannot assume that God requires no cause. 2.Even if God was the First Uncaused Cause, this does not mean he is all-powerful, all- knowing, good, loving, listens to prayers, forgives sins etc.

 Christopher Hitchens – Author, journalist and antitheist com/watch?v=AXIlA Qoe5gw com/watch?v=AXIlA Qoe5gw

1.The burden of proof – atheists do not claim to know what was there, believers in God do… therefore they need to prove it, so where is the proof?! 2.Why make an assumption of a being (i.e. God)? 3.Why is there so much nothing from something? Is this really a good design?

A-B-C Put these statements in the order that will describe the Cosmological argument. A.There must have been first cause, uncaused by everything else. B.Therefore, God must exist. C.There is a long process of cause and effect. D.Only God is powerful enough to be this. E.All things require a cause. F.This cannot have gone on forever

A-B-C Put these statements in the order that will describe the Cosmological argument. E. All things require a cause. C. There is a long process of cause and effect. F. This cannot have gone on forever A. There must have been first cause, uncaused by everything else. D. Only God is powerful enough to be this. B. Therefore, God must exist.

Summarise the main objections to the Cosmological (First Cause) Argument made by Dawkins, and Hitchens. In your jotters...

To what extent are these objections effective?

Learning Intention: To demonstrate an understanding of a complex argument.To demonstrate an understanding of a complex argument. Learning context: The ‘First cause/Cosmological argument’ and the origin of the universe.The ‘First cause/Cosmological argument’ and the origin of the universe. Success criteria: I can demonstrate an understanding of the religious and non-religious arguments about a ‘First cause’.I can demonstrate an understanding of the religious and non-religious arguments about a ‘First cause’. Through reflection and discussion, I will have begun to make my own judgement of the origin of the universe.Through reflection and discussion, I will have begun to make my own judgement of the origin of the universe.