Furthering this line of inquiry into god(s) existence as it has been discussed within my section of Problem of God, the question which all other discourse relies upon is whether or not god(s) exist at all. To tackle this, my class has had readings from two saints, the Proslogion of St. Anselm and St.Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. From the Proslogion, I gleamed circular reasoning. St.Anselm’s argument to prove his God’s existence begins with the caveat that a person must believe in a god figure(s) to even comprehend his argument. Therefore, he is only affirming his God’s existence to those who already believe and reducing his argument to a simple exercise in attempting logic. St. Anselm explains the existence of God as obvious because of the characteristic so tightly bound to being godly, perfection. St. Anselm reasons that perfection is absolutely indicative of true existence. The argument falls apart given a person who does not believe or, if a person does decide to agree with St. Anselm that God exists, the argument can be challenged because of what my …show more content…
Thomas Aquinas takes up the argument for God’s existence by providing the concept that what belongs to a being is either from its nature or extrinsic factors. By this principle, people must have an origin. Just as I am a product of the extrinsic factors known as my parents, my parents are of their parents, so on and so forth. Aquinas believes there must exist a beginning to this chain and there is nothing else conceivable to be responsible for the origin of humans besides his God. Aquinas also uses the same logic with causes of motion as another reason for God’s existence. The essence of Aquinas’ logic is that God exists because he (or she or it) exists and is the only entity for which this is so. This rationale is also circular in nature. Both these arguments prove God’s existence only for those who are already believers, making them fall short of their true
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.
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.
In the first part, Aquinas states that the existence of god is not self-evident, meaning that reason alone without appealing to faith can give a good set of reasons to believe. To support this claim, Aquinas refers to “The Argument of Motion”, proposing that:
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...
Aquinas’ third way argument states that there has to be something that must exist, which is most likely God. He starts his argument by saying not everything must exist, because things are born and die every single day. By stating this we can jump to the conclusion that if everything need not exist then there would have been a time where there was nothing. But, he goes on, if there was a time when there was nothing, then nothing would exist even today, because something cannot come from nothing. However, our observations tell us that something does exist, therefore there is something that must exist, and Aquinas says that something is God.
In the “Mediations of First Philosophy” Descartes tries to prove the existence of God in the third meditation. He does this by coming up with several premises that eventually add up to a solid argument. First, I will explain why Descartes ask the question, does god exist? And why does Descartes think he needs such and argument at this point in the text. Secondly, I will explain, in detail, the arguments that Descartes makes and how he comes to the conclusion that God does exist. Next, I will debate some of Descartes premises that make his argument an unsound one, including circular reasoning. Finally, I will see if his unsound argument has diminished and undermined his principal goals and the incorrigible foundation of knowledge.
Another way that St. Anselm's argument differs from other arguments is that it requires that you look at a definition of the concept of God. As Sober says, the definition of an object does not, in itself, prove its existence. Some examples he gives are unicorns and golden...
Anselm’s ontological argument was presented in chapter two of Anselm’s Proslogion. The actual argument is as follow: (1) If God exists only in understanding, then we can think of a being greater than God. (2) We can’t think of a being greater than God. (3) Therefore not the case that God only exists in the understanding. (4) Either God exists in reality or God exists in the understanding. (5) Therefore God exist in reality (conclusion). To put this argument in conclusion argument form it would look like this:
Truth, what is truth? This question itself has a thousand answers, no person can ever be sure of what truth is rather, truth can be justified, it can checked for reliability with strong evidences and logic. If the evidence proves to be accurate then it can be established that a certain answer is the truth. However, have we ever tried to think about what intrigues us to seek the truth? To think about a question and set foot firmly on the path of knowledge. Definitely it has! That was the very cause itself which is why this world has witnessed some of the greatest philosophers like Aristotle, Plato and Socrates etc. along with the school of thought. The ability to think and reason is one of the greatest ability humans have, it is what distinguishes us from the animals. It is what gives us free will, the ability to control our own outcomes. However, it is that ability to ‘think’ itself which has caused men to rebel with the myths and statements established about the unseen and natural forces since the beginning of time. It gave rise to questions such as: Do aliens exist? Is there a world of the unseen? Life after Death and the most popular question since the beginning of times, Does God exists? And the answer is ‘yes’. Here is how I will justify my stance.
While I do agree with some of Aquinas’ claims. Such as the idea that nothing comes from nothing. I believe something has to happen to become. It could be the efficient cause, causing the world to start. Although still having the question what made such a cause to effect everything in the
He continues by saying that for any change to occur there must have been a previous cause that existed in reality and if one was to trace this line of causes and effects all the way back there must be a first cause that began the chain. But there cannot be anything worldly like that because anything natural must have an impetus already in reality to transform it from potentiality to reality. The only explanation, in Aquinas' e... ... middle of paper ... ... s a cause except God.
Aquinas believed that in the natural world everything has an efficient cause and no efficient cause could be the cause of itself. Again, he believed the idea of an infinite chain of causes without a first cause is impossible. He thought the chain must be in order, the first cause, the intermediate cause, and the ultimate cause. Without a first cause, there is no intermediate cause, and with no intermediate cause there is no ultimate cause thus God must be the first cause since in his first argument God is the unmoved mover. Some people may argue against this idea, they may say his logic is destroying his own argument by saying if everything that moves must be put into motion by something else why is God the only exception. Aquinas’s idea of an unmoved mover is a good argument for Gods existence. We as humans have very limited understanding about the universe and I think that God being an unmoved mover is very much possible even though we may not understand it. Just like Neil deGrasse Tyson’s story with the blind man and the elephant, we may feel and understand some of it, however, we can’t fully grasp or understand all of
The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God The ontological argument is an a priori argument. The arguments attempt to prove God's existence from the meaning of the word God. The ontological argument was introduced by Anselm of Canterbury in his book Proslogion. Anselm's classical argument was based on two principals and the two most involved in this is St Anselm of Canterbury as previously mentioned and Rene Descartes.
The most compelling or interesting notions in the Proslogion, to me, are that Anselm presumes we can all imagine God; and that imagining God makes God real. What if we can't imagine God? What if such a thing is singularly impossible? How does imagining a thing make it real, and isn't this a reification fallacy?
It is my view that God exists, and I think that Aquinas’ first two ways presents a