Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
More about evolution vs creationism
More about evolution vs creationism
David Hume on the existence of God
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: More about evolution vs creationism
The presence of a Supreme Being is an idea that is as old as mankind. We see the argument for an omnipotent being replicated throughout time by philosophers, leaders, and moral educators. They each have unique ideals and testimonies that provide evidence of a being with moral perfection. Proof there is belief that there is a Supreme Being or God can be exemplified by looking at the ideals of three past philosophers: St. Anselm and Thomas Aquinas
St. Anselm, also known as Anselm of Canterbury, was born on 1033 and lived to 1109. He was a very earlier author of many philosophical works. St. Anselm provided proof that there was existence of a Supreme Being or God a lot earlier than many other philosophers even existed. St. Anselm was the creator of the argument called the ‘ontological argument’. This happened to be the shortest and cut to the chase argument based on the proof of God and his existence ever created. This ontological argument is based off of the idea of being, not directly on observation. Trying to proof the existence of a Supreme Being using this argument can be a little risky because Anselm never really mentions evidence that a Supreme Being is in existence. He implies that a Supreme Being is in your mind therefore then it is real. If you think the idea of God in your head then he is real no matter what. This is where a lot of philosophers would try to argue against Anselm to try and prove him wrong, but there is evidence he shares that has people to believe that there is a so-called Supreme Being. Anselm argues that if God exists in your thought then he will exist in reality. He shows how he is a firm believer in the “thought” of God. Anselm has the power to make us think logically about the existence ...
... middle of paper ...
...o argue against David Hume’s statements and judgments against God.
Throughout all these arguments by these philosophers for and against the Proof of God, I still firmly believe that there is Proof of a Supreme Being. I say this because there is way more evidence as to why there is Proof of God. Just look outside. By doing this you see the grass outside and the trees. That right there should tell you that there is Proof of God. Today in modern technology you can just buy seeds for trees and grass, but how did that happen in the first place? How were you able to even know that grass and trees existed? That is because of God. He is the creator of all of that. He created the earth and us. People who believe that there is no Proof of God are not looking at all the details in life. You cannot see God right now, but he is the one who was the cause of everything.
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.
The question of God’s existence has been debated through the history of man, with every philosopher from Socrates to Immanuel Kant weighing in on the debate. So great has this topic become that numerous proofs have been invented and utilized to prove or disprove God’s existence. Yet no answer still has been reached, leaving me to wonder if any answer at all is possible. So I will try in this paper to see if it is possible to philosophically prove God’s existence.
The existence of God is quite controversial issue. God has different names in the world, and a lot of people, strongly believe in his existence. While, on the other hand, there are also people who don’t believe in his existence. In their discussion entitled “Does God Exist?” William Lane Craig, who is the supporter of the idea of existence of God, debates with Austin Dacey, who is an atheist, on the idea of existence of God. They provide the strong arguments and their debates are quite interesting, and innovative (not similar to those arguments, we usually read about in book). These are the fresh views on the question of existence and non-existence of God.
It is my view that God exists, and I think that Aquinas’ first two ways presents a
In order to prove an argument or premise Descartes states, “we must be able to conceive clearly and distinctly of the cause in order to truly believe the argument.” Descartes clearly and distinctly believes the existence of God stating that, “all things are dependent on God’s existence, and God is not a deceiver.” Due to this premise we must than conclude that without a Supreme Being to incite knowledge than it is not possible to ever know anything perfectly.
If God did not exist, he would not be the greatest being imaginable. He is the greatest thing imaginable. Therefore, he does exist. From this argument, God’s existence is viewed. as necessary (Ayer. A. J. 1973).
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...
Have you ever walked 9000 miles? Well Thomas Aquinas did on his travels across Europe. Thomas had a complex childhood and a complex career. Thomas Aquinas has many achievements/accomplishments. History would be totally different without St.Thomas Aquinas. There would be no common law and the United States Government would not be the same without the common law.
Aquinas' Arguments for the Existence of God In Summa Theologica, Question 2, Article 3, Aquinas attempts to prove the existence of God. He begins with two objections, which will not be addressed here, and continues on to state five arguments for the existence of God. I intend to show that Aquinas' first three arguments are unsound from a scientific standpoint, through support of the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe. In the first and second arguments Aquinas begins by stating that some things change and that the changes to these things are caused by things other than themselves. He says that a thing can change only if it has a potentiality for being that into what it changes.
The existence of god has been relentlessly debated with many strong arguments. This essay will primarily discuss the most prevalent arguments for and against the existence of a higher being. Although there are many strong arguments for both atheism and theism, ultimately the theist point of view is greater justified morally and logically.
Proving the existence of God is a worthwhile task. If someone did come up with a complete, foolproof argument for the existence of God, the people of the world would have no choice but to believe in His existence. However, even though St. Thomas Aquinas makes a worthy effort, I believe that such a task is not possible through logic and reasoning alone. There is an element of faith that must be present for people to believe, and if that element is not there, no matter how foolproof an argument seems to be, there will always be those who do not believe. In his fifth argument, St. Thomas Aquinas makes as close to foolproof argument that I believe anyone could make, and, for me, it does prove God's existence. However, if that element of faith is not there, I do not think you can completely prove God's existence to everyone.
Aquinas developed a proof that I can, in some ways, agree with. He basically argues that, although there doesn’t necessarily have to be an end to something, there has to be a beginning. He argues that all things are in a state of both the potential to be changed as well as the state of action, but the one understood to be God is only in the state of action.
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.
Instinctually, humans know that there is a greater power in the universe. However, there are a few who doubt such instinct, citing that logically we cannot prove such an existence. St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, wrote of five proofs for the existence of God. The Summa Theologica deals with pure concepts; these proofs rely on the world of experience - what one can see around themselves. In these proofs, God will logically be proven to exist through reason, despite the refutes against them.