Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Indicate the differences between Aquinas and David Hume
Theories on god
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Throughout our course we have read and considered many ideas, however for the duration of this paper I will focus on two core ideas. These are the ideas that God is the first efficient cause and whether God is good. For the duration of this paper I will look at Aquinas’s five ways, Hume’s refutation of God being the efficient cause. Also Dostoevsky’s and Hume’s explanation that God is not good because of the abundance of pain. Throughout the class what I have come to learn and was most impacted by is that God is not what we prescribe him to be in our different religions. Also the arguments that always stood out for me were the arguments of Hume and his skepticism. It is my goal through this paper to explain that God is not the entity …show more content…
This law in that manner could actually be the God that we all think of. Both of these arguments are very convincing in their own way. On the one hand Aquinas logically proves the existence of the efficient cause however this efficient cause is not the God of our religions today. Hume also is very convincing in providing an explanation for the efficient cause however; Hume’s efficient cause is not God and is actually more of a law or a force. Therefore I believe that God is a combination of what Aquinas and Hume determine it to be. This God is indeed an unmoved mover and the first efficient cause, however this God is not the God that is worshipped in religions, it is a force that governs the universe through a mathematical law. This force that determines the natural law through physics and mathematics is the God that I now understand it to be. Now however we must determine whether it is true that God is this force that I have come to the conclusion that it is. If God is the God that is worshipped throughout religions and is a being unlike a force that simply governs …show more content…
For if a God could not grant justice to those in the life that it happens then that is not a God he wishes to worship. Ivan’s argument is incredibly compelling; Hume further elaborates on this and explains why this abundance of pain and suffering is detrimental to a benevolent God. Hume argues that pain is more abundant in this world than that of pleasure. Hume argues that through our experience we recognize that there is more pain in this world then there is pleasure. For this to be the case he argues that God cannot be determined to be benevolent. Once Hume’s Philo determines that pain is more abundant than pleasure in the world he ultimately says that even if pain wasn’t more abundant than pleasure, to claim that God is entirely benevolent it must be proven that there is absolutely no pain or suffering in this world. As long as there is any pain in this world then God cannot be absolutely benevolent. Hume then determines that this does not mean that there is not something that is still considered to be God. By this he determines that there is still something that is known to be God however it is entirely contrary to beliefs religions hold. Once this claim is proven it thus follows that God is
It is no coincidence that Aquinas is so widely regarded at one of the most brilliant christian theologians. I would agree that it makes much more sense that God can not be imagined or thought of. There in lies the mystery of God, and what he is transcends a mind and intellect that he created. It is only with a combination of this logic rooted in faith that we can truly know that God exists through the effects of his omniscience, and all that he has created.
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
The problem of evil is a difficult objection to contend with for theists. Indeed, major crises of faith can occur after observing or experiencing the wide variety and depths of suffering in the world. It also stands that these “evils” of suffering call into question the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The “greater good defense” tries to account for some of the issues presented, but still has flaws of its own.
After reviewing the work of David Hume, the idea of a God existing in a world filled with so much pain and suffering is not so hard to understand. Humes’ work highlights some interesting points which allowed me to reach the conclusion that suffering is perhaps a part of God’s divine plan for humans. Our morals and values allow us to operate and live our daily lives in conjunction with a set of standards that help us to better understand our world around us and essentially allows us to better prepare for the potential life after life. For each and every day we get closer to our impending deaths and possibly closer to meeting the grand orchestrator of our universe.
Throughout the world, most people believe in some type of god or gods, and the majority of them understand God as all-good, all-knowing (omniscient), and all-powerful (omnipotent). However, there is a major objection to the latter belief: the “problem of evil” (P.O.E.) argument. According to this theory, God’s existence is unlikely, if not illogical, because a good, omniscient, and omnipotent being would not allow unnecessary suffering, of which there are enormous amounts.
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. Due to the fact that the world relies on sense, Aquinas believed that there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case that is possible where a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself, so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. As for efficient causes, it is not possible to go on to infinity because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate cause is the cause of the ultimate case. This is whether the intermediate cause is several or only one, it does not change. If you were to take away the cause it is the same as taking away the effect. If there was no first cause among the efficient causes, there will be no ultimate nor any intermediate cause. Although if it were the case that if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes. Thus, recognizing that all of which is false. Therefore it is in fact necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which Aquinas believes that everyone gives the name of God.
Since the beginning of time, society has been plagued by questions stemming past the grasp of human understanding. In attempt to explain such bewilderment, mankind formed a principle belief regarding their presence as the workings of a more capable being, God. As time has progressed, distinguished and scholarly members of society have come forward with ideas regarding some distinct understanding into the complex subject that is god. To this day, students are taught theories that have managed to stand the test of time and interpretation, theories that are highly respected by the top scholars of this century. Throughout this paper, I will thoroughly outline, discuss, and analyze Paley’s argument on the existence of God. Paley’s use of earthly inferences to explain the existence of a higher being has been challenged by many, but his emphasis on purpose and goal-orientation is both well-conceived and logical.
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).
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 author argumentatively explains his opinion as to why the concept of god and religion is erroneous, why religion contradicts every fundamental aspect of...
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.
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.
1) Oxford Readings in Philosophy. The Concept of God. New York: Oxford University press 1987
This essay is a conclusive look at the problems and contradictions underlying a belief in God and the observable traits of the world. This problem is traditionally labelled The Problem of Evil. This essay will be an analysis into the Problem of Evil and a counter rebuttal to objections levied against the Problem of Evil. This analysis will be on the nature of god and the world of evil, the world as a mixed creation, ‘sorting’ into heaven and hell objection, God’s ‘mysterious ways’ objection, the inscrutability of god objection, values presupposing pain objection, inherent contradictions in ‘God’s freewill’ and finally non-human
One of Aquinas’s proofs is based on the idea of a first mover and another is based on the idea that intelligence is necessary to direct non-intelligent objects. St. Thomas Aquinas' first argument tries to prove that there must be a first mover. He calls this first mover God. He proves this by saying that whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by something else. He then defines one type of motion as the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality, and says that nothing can make this movement except by something that is already in actuality in the same respect as the first object is in potentiality. He goes on to say that no thing can be both actual and potential in respect to the same aspect and, thus, that nothing can be both moved and mover. In this, he means that nothing can move itself. Therefore, if something is in motion, it must have been put in motion by something else, which must have been put in motion by yet another thing, and so on. However, this cannot go on to infinity, as St. Thomas Aquinas explains, because there would never have been a fist mover and, thus, no subsequent movers. This leads to the conclusion that there is a first mover, and this first mover is what is called God.