God and Existence During Medieval Philosophy times, it was a common thing to label God, or at least attempt to put a definition to him. There are several arguments over God’s existence or non-existence and it continues to be debated in recent times. John Scotus Eriugena and Saint Anselm were not exceptions to the philosophies of the time. Although they had two different approaches in their definitions there is no mistaking their ultimate goal of seeking a God definition. John Scotus Eriugena was one of the first metaphysical philosopher of the middle ages and his philosophical intention was to understand and categorize all of reality. First, Eriugena divided nature into two classifications: “Things that are” and “Things that are not”. His inspiration came from non-other than the “platonic supposition that there is a hierarchy of being.” (Page 121) The “Things that …show more content…
When it came to God, he was a part of a category called “’super reality’- that which cannot be grasped by the human intellect.” (page 122) Reverting back to the categorization of “Things that are” and “Things that are not”, God can’t fit in things that are because those are things that can be understood by humans. God is considered unable to be comprehended by humans so he can be categorized under “Things that are”. God would be a “Thing that is not”; therefore, “God does not exist but that he [super] exists.” (page 122) Eriugena used a method called “vias affirmativa and negativa” in order to synthesize the super existent object- God. For example, saying that “God is wise” is via affirmativa which is truth in a metaphorical sense; God can’t be wise since that is a human description, so we “apply it to God only analogically to give us a hint of his nature.” (page 122) Saying that “God is not wise” is a literal negation, and since wisdom is a human description “it cannot literally apply to God.” (page
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.
...objects and gods differ only in degree and not in kind''. From a Logical Point of View (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953), p. 44.
In this paper I shall consider Spinoza’s argument offered in the second Scholium to Proposition 8, which argues for the impossibility of two substances sharing the same nature. I shall first begin by explaining, in detail, the two-step structure of the argument and proceed accordingly by offering a structured account of its relation to the main claim. Consequently I shall point out what I reasonably judge to be a mistake in Spinoza’s line of reasoning; that is, that the definition of a thing does not express a fixed number of individuals under that definition. By contrast, I hope to motivate the claim that a true definition of a thing does in fact express a fixed number of individuals that fall under that definition. I shall then present a difficulty against my view and concede in its insufficiency to block Spinoza’s conclusion. Finally, I shall resort to a second objection in the attempt to prove an instance by which two substances contain a similar attribute, yet differ in nature. Under these considerations, I conclude that Spinoza’s thesis is mistaken.
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...
In the Proslogion, Anselm tries to prove the existence of God and his powers through the ontological argument. This argument redirects the argument of God’s existence from science and observation to logic, where Anselm explains that there has to be a being that nothing greater can be thought of, and that is God. One of Anselm’s main topics of contention is God’s omnipotence and whether He is actually infinite. In the Proslogion, Anselm talks about God’s omnipotence and if it can be disavowed because of self-contradictory statements, how God’s non-action gives him more possibility and power, and how being all-powerful can lead to God being both merciful and yet not feel the pains of sinners.
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.
He concludes he did not create the idea of God. A finite being is incapable of creating an idea of an infinite possibility. Therefore, God must have created the idea already in him when he was created. Concluding that God exists. He also touches upon the idea in which he resolves that it cannot be a deceiver.
St. Augustine is a man with a rational mind. As a philosopher, scholar, and teacher of rhetoric, he is trained in and practices the art of logical thought and coherent reasoning. The pursuits of his life guide him to seek concrete answers to specific questions. Religion, the practice of which relies primarily on faith—occasionally blind faith—presents itself as unable to be penetrated by any sort of scientific study or inquiry. Yet, like a true scientist and philosopher, one of the first questions St. Augustine poses in his Confessions is: “What, then, is the God I worship” (23)? For a long time, Augustine searches for knowledge about God as a physical body, a particular entity—almost as if the Lord were merely a human being, given the divine right to become the active figurehead of the Christian religion.
Throughout the pages, Tillich provides an alternative ontological examination of the necessity in a belief of the Ultimate. The emblematic apologetic approach, as articulated in the works of St. Anselm, William of Ockham, and Duns Scotus, is destabilized by Tillich’s radical exposition that: If God is being – viz., the highest being-in-itself – then God cannot be the “Creator”. Consequently, God must be
The fundamental feature of substance, as expressed by Spinoza, is its independence. Spinoza defines God as a substance that is completely unbounded, or a substance "comprising of infinity of attributes", of which every one of them illustrates an in...
existence of God because, to them, logic did not allow for or explain God’s existence. His
Lucretius. On the Nature of Things. Trans. Walter Englert. Newburyport, MA: Focus Philosophical Library, 2003.
...comprehend or imagine Him. Because of this, God cannot be ‘thought’, he can merely be defined as infinite. Since we cannot comprehend God in our thought, he no longer exists in our minds as an entity, but merely as a definition. Thus, since he no longer exists in our minds, there is no obligation to understand that he must exist in reality; an implication made in Anselm’s argument.
In St. Thomas Aquinas’ On Being and Essence, he devotes an entire chapter of his book discussing how essence is found in composite substances. “Form and matter are found in composite substances, as for example soul and body in man. But it cannot be said that either one of these alone is called the essence.’ Aquinas argues that in a composite substance, not only is the form but also matter in the essence of a thing. However, in Metaphysics, Aristotle says that essence is in the form, which acts upon matter. He writes, “The form or the thing as having form should be said to be thing, but matter by itself must never be said to be so.” Yet, Aristotle’s thesis poses a philosophical problem. If one supposes that Aristotle is correct, then how can one think of something without it necessitating its physical existence? This essay will first be an exposition of the passage found in Aquinas’ On Being and Essence. The second part of this essay will be an analysis of Aquinas’ thesis in relation to Aristotle’s. It will also address Aquinas’ solution to necessitating existence.