Apologetical Causation Argument
Since the dawn of life, man has pondered the meaning of his existence. Where did he come from? How did he get here? How was the universe formed? With respect to the previous questions, there are two primary sides taken in the age-old debate. There are the creationists and the non-creationists. The creationists believe there is an omnipotent creator of the universe whereas the non-creationists believe there is no creator, but that the universe simply formed over a billion processes stemming from some cataclysmic event (i.e. the "Big Bang"). Over the years, the creationists have gained the upper hand in the debate via the Causal Argument. "The Causal Argument states that there are contingent and necessary objects, all contingent objects have a cause, and the universe is contingent meaning that it must have a cause" (Thompson 125).
"First, there are two types of existing objects: contingent and necessary" (Geisler 245). Contingent simply means that something does not have to exist. "A contingent object is an object that does not have to exist" (Geisler 242). In other words, it is possible for that object to have never been. Every identifiable object or being in the universe is contingent. Nothing that exists in this universe ever had to exist. Beyond that, it is not even known why those things exist. On the other hand, there are necessarily existing objects or beings. Unlike contingent objects, necessary objects (beings) must exist. It is impossible to conceive of a necessary object or being not in existence.
All contingent objects must have a cause. It is a scientific fact that all things in the universe have an age. Scientists are even capable of estimating those object's ages (supposedly). If something has an age, then that something must have an origin. For example, if a planet is 4 billion years old then that must mean that the planet did not exist prior to 4 billion years ago. That planet did not...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document