Philosophers, whether they are atheists, or believers have always been eager to discuss the existence of God. Some philosophers, such as St Thomas Aquinas, and St Anselm, believe that we have proven that God exists through our senses, logic, and experience. Others such as Soren Kierkegaard, and Holbach, feel that we will never have the answer to this question due to our human limitations, and reason. The believer tends to rely on faith for his belief, and claim they do not need proof in order to believe in the God's existence. The atheist however, tends to lean more towards common sense and reason, such as science, or the theory of evolution for an answer. The determinalist for example believes that all actions are caused by nature, and we are nothing more then a causal effect. We cannot have faith or beliefs because we are nothing more then puppets of nature.
Two arguments that best attempt to prove God's existence, are the ontological argument by St. Anselm, and the cosmological argument by St. Thomas Aquinas. The second out of the five arguments provided in the cosmological argument is based on experience and efficient cause. The efficient cause makes something happen, i.e.. Cause and effect, and this is the premises for his argument. Aquinas argues that nothing in this world can originate on it's own, and must have a first cause (God) to create an intermediate cause, to create an ultimate cause and effect. Infinity makes it impossible to have a first efficient cause, but if there is no first cause, there would be no intermediate cause (universe), and we (nature) would not exist.
In the ontological argument, St Anselm provides an argument that is based on logic. In order to understand his argument you must first ...
... middle of paper ...
... should be like (beliefs) in order to fill the Gap of the unknown with ideas about God. Having Faith would make reason understand God. Doubt exists in the believer and the non-believer because it is beyond our reason to determine the truth of God's existence.
St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Anselm would not agree that God is the unknown. They would however agree that reason couldn't comprehend God. Both would argue that we can say some things with certainty about God, using reason. On that knowledge, they can form their arguments for God's existence. Both the Ontological argument and the cosmological argument assume Gods existence, because they both rely on the idea of God in order to base their premises.
The Question of whether or not God can exist will never be answered during anyone's natural lifetime. Maybe it is a question that is not supposed to be answered.
Saint Thomas of Aquainas may have been one of the greatest thinkers who attempted to bridge the proverbial gap between faith and reason. His Sacred Doctrine which was the initial part of his Summa Theologica was the basis for his conclusion about the existence of God. Aquinas tended to align his beliefs close with Aristotle's supposition that there must be an eternal and imputrescible creator. In comparison, Anselm's impressions were influenced largely by Plato. In his text Proslogion he outlined his Ontological argument that regarding the existence of God. It was simply that God was the ultimate and most perfect being conceivable, and that his state of existing is greater than not existing therefore god, being perfect in every way, must exist. This is where their paths divide, and although they essentially reach the same determination they paint the picture quite differently.
The book A Prayer for Owen Meany brings forth various themes and questions that can't be answered easily. One of these questions is "Can religious faith exist alongside doubt, or are the two mutually exclusive?" There are several different possible takes on this question may be answered. How a person answers this question is related to their belief in faith.
St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas were considered as some of the best in their period to represent philosophy. St. Anselm’s argument is known as the ontological argument; it revolves entirely around his statement, “God is that, than which no greater can be conceived” (The Great Conversation, Norman Melchert 260). St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument is known as the cosmological argument; it connects the effects of events to the cause for why they happened. Anselm’s ontological proof and Aquinas’ cosmological proof both argued for God’s existence, differed in the way they argued God’s existence, and had varying degrees of success using these proofs.
The Ontological Argument, which argues from a definition of God’s being to his existence, is the first type of argument we are going to examine. Since this argument was founded by Saint Anslem, we will be examining his writings. Saint Anslem starts by defining God as an all-perfect being, or rather as a being containing all conceivable perfections. Now if in addition of possessing all conceivable perfections t...
Anselm’s classical ontological argument is criticized precisely for its attempt to define God into existence. The argument is deductive and its form known as reduction ad absurdum. “That is, it begins with a supposition S (suppose that the greatest conceivable being exist in the mind alone) that is contradictory to what one desires to prove” (Pojman 41). In other words, the argument attempts to show a contradiction or absurdity in the opposite view in order to claim his own view is correct.
Anselm was a stable believer in God, so he wanted to use logic and reason to confirm his faith and clarify God’s existence. Anselm’s argument was given in chapter two of Proslogion. Its main focus is the meaning of God. Furthermore, he claims that everyone, whether they trust in God or not, agrees with this definition. Anselm says there is a difference between understanding that God exists and understanding him to be a concept.
without the proof of the fact. But on the other hand, God’s existence can not be. proved in terms of objective arguments and scientific facts. In answer to the question, God’s existence cannot be proved, but neither can his.
There are often many mixed views when discussing God’s existence. In Anselm’s works “The Proslogion” and “Anselm’s Reply to Gaunilo” and Gaunilo’s work the “Reply on Behalf of the Fool”, both of their philosophies on the matter are imparted. Anselm’s logic regarding God is correct as he sustains his argument even when it confronted with criticisms and it is comprehensible.
The ontological argument argues that if you understand what it means to talk about God, you will see His existence is necessarily true. Anselm defined God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived', hence God must exist. Anselm also believed that even atheist had a definition for God even just to disregard his existence; hence God exists in the mind. Anselm said this is so because that which exists in reality is greater than that which exists purely in the mind.
The God of the philosophers is described as a being who is omnipotent (perfectly powerful), omniscient (perfectly wise and all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (perfectly good and perfectly knowing). Since the beginning of religion, there have been countless arguments regarding the existence of a being who lives up to these standards. Philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas who presents to us five arguments for the existence of God, and William Rowe who reconstructed the argument of “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism” try and make sense of the age old question: Does God exist?
The Medieval philosopher, St. Thomas Aquinas, argued against non-specific atheists that the existence of God, or a god, could be proven with natural reason. The most important arguments of Aquinas which supported the concept of a higher power are in his first three proofs: the arguments of motion, efficient cause, and necessary being. These proofs were based on the premise that God acted on potential objects and actual objects, and that to understand the existence of God, one would need to examine the effects that God had on the world. Aquinas’ belief that God can be indirectly observed is important in how he uses the human senses as the means for understanding the effects of God, which had previously been doubted for viability in searching for a universal truth.
Firstly, the contents of the arguments must be identified. The first argument for God’s existence to evaluate is the Ontological argument. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
The concept of God can be a difficult one to grasp especially in today's world - a world in which anyone that believes in God is trying to define exactly what God is. To even attempt to grasp such a concept, one must first recognize his own beliefs in respect to the following questions: Is God our creator? Is God omnipotent (all-powerful) or omniscient (all-knowing) or both? Does God care? Is God with us? Does God interfere with life on earth? These questions should be asked and carefully answered if one should truly wish to identify his specific beliefs in God's existence and persistence.
Thomas Aquinas uses five proofs to argue for God’s existence. A few follow the same basic logic: without a cause, there can be no effect. He calls the cause God and believes the effect is the world’s existence. The last two discuss what necessarily exists in the world, which we do not already know. These things he also calls God.
However, if we picture God as something that could be everywhere, surrounding us like air or awareness, then, understanding if and what God is - all of a sudden - becomes a possibility. I am sure you can agree: if there is a God, then God has to exist and has to be aware of His Existence (can you even picture an unconscious God). Also, He must exist on his own, which means: God must be self-energetic. That is the safest thing we can say without too much speculation.