What is your answer?
The premiss in Aquinas' first way of proving God's existence that "there must be a first, unchanged, changer":
{ 1 } - is based on the principle of sufficient reason.
{ 2 } - is true for accidental change.
{ 3 } - is based on the principle of non-contradiction.
{ 4 } - is true for substantial change.
{ 5 } - is false for ontological change.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 5.
1 is correct!
The premiss in Aquinas' first way of proving God's existence that "there must be a first, unchanged, changer":
{ 1 } - is based on the principle of sufficient reason.
{ 2 } - is true for accidental change.
{ 3 } - is based on the principle of non-contradiction.
{ 4 } - is true for substantial change.
{ 5 } - is false for ontological change.
The principle of sufficient reason states that there must be an adequate explanation for every being or statement requires a first explanation, for an infinite regress in explanations is not an adequate explanation.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
2 is wrong. Please try again.
The premiss in Aquinas' first way of proving God's existence that "there must be a first, unchanged, changer":
{ 1 } - is based on the principle of sufficient reason.
{ 2 } - is true for accidental change.
{ 3 } - is based on the principle of non-contradiction.
{ 4 } - is true for substantial change.
{ 5 } - is false for ontological change.
If there can be an infinite regress in accidental changers, which would be the case if the world always existed (a possibility that Aquinas does not think can be disproved by reason), then there need be no first unchanged accidental changer in the world.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is wrong. Please try again.
The premiss in Aquinas' first way of proving God's existence that "there must be a first, unchanged, changer":
{ 1 } - is based on the principle of sufficient reason.
{ 2 } - is true for accidental change.
{ 3 } - is based on the principle of non-contradiction.
{ 4 } - is true for substantial change.
{ 5 } - is false for ontological change.
<= back | menu | forward =>
4 is wrong. Please try again.
The premiss in Aquinas' first way of proving God's existence that "there must be a first, unchanged, changer":
{ 1 } - is based on the principle of sufficient reason.
{ 2 } - is true for accidental change.
{ 3 } - is based on the principle of non-contradiction.
{ 4 } - is true for substantial change.
{ 5 } - is false for ontological change.
If there can be an infinite regress in accidental changers, which would be the case if the world always existed (a possibility that Aquinas does not think can be disproved by reason), then there need be no first unchanged substantial changer in the world.
<= back | menu | forward =>
5 is wrong. Please try again.
The premiss in Aquinas' first way of proving God's existence that "there must be a first, unchanged, changer":
{ 1 } - is based on the principle of sufficient reason.
{ 2 } - is true for accidental change.
{ 3 } - is based on the principle of non-contradiction.
{ 4 } - is true for substantial change.
{ 5 } - is false for ontological change.
No, there can be no infinite regress in creators, or there would be no explanation for the existence of anything.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end