Despite the logic that creates these proofs, there are still some individuals who refuse to concede that there is a God. These individuals believe that modern science can disprove the five proofs. They hide behind their meager facts, stating that these proofs no longer hold true since they were not created with present technology and advances in mind. What they fail to understand though, is that the facts do not rely on science as much as they rely on logic and observations of the world.
Three of St. Thomas’s arguments - one, two, and five - are established on the observation of the natural world. Arguments three and four are established on rational speculation. All of the arguments, except for the third, theorize that only the existence of God can provide a sufficient explanation for the refutes presented. In argument three, he concludes that God must necessarily exist for his own sake. Thus, arguments one, two, four and five conclude that God exists because the world requires him as an explanation. Meanwhile, argument three concludes that God could not not exist. Yet, still some individuals insist that the proofs are wrong.
The first proof, The Way of Motion, is about how things change in the world and how things are put into motion. Since you cannot infinitely regress backwards, there must be a first unmoved mover. This is understood to be God.
One of the arguments against this is: why does God have to be the first mover? The reason is that God is just the first being – logically there has to be a first. If there were no first mover then it would have been impossible to start motion. God is not a ‘specific’ mover, the title of God simple belongs to the being that is the first mover. Going off this argument, another questi...
... middle of paper ...
...than it is about God. It ruins the flow that St. Thomas previously establishes. The proof talks about goodness, truth, and nobility, which on there own are not proofs that God exists; they are morals. It forms a type of standard for morality, or for individuals to be aware of it, should they ever want to speak meaningfully about weather or not things or beings are good, bad, truthful, noble, or not.
Modern science can explain many things. However, one of the things is yet to prove and will most likely never prove, is: why was everything was created? This is where God steps in. He is the only one who could have created the universe. Thus it can be concluded that the world could not have been created by chance. It is extremely complex and ordered, so much so, that it but must be the product of intelligent design. This is God.
Works Cited
St Thomas Summa Theologica
Thomas Aquinas, a leading scholar of the Middle Ages, argued that “Everything in the universe has a cause. Trace those causes back and there must have been a First Cause that triggered everything else. God is that First Cause.” This was known as his “First Cause” argument.
...nd since from what we know we can imagine things, the fact that we can imagine an infinite, transcendent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God is proof that He exists, since what can me thought of is real and can be known.” (ch. 2) Saint Thomas Aquinas' rebutting reply would be that it is simply not so, not everything can be known to mortal man and not all that is real is directly evident to us as mankind.
begin with. This we call God, so we call God the prime mover i.e. the
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.
In conclusion I am left pretty much in the same place as I have started. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God philosophically. For every philosopher who publishes his or her opinions on the subject, three more are there to tear it down. In the end I think it is best that man does not figure out the answer to this lifelong question. Some things are better left unanswered.
... uses the lack of proof of Gods existence for God’s existence. This then essentially leads to a battle between science and religion on the idea of whether or not God can be proven to exist and whether that proof is essential to determine if science or religion has the right answer.
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.
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).
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.
... it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? Moreover, the cause must transcend both matter and time to create matter and time. Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists.
This theory is Aristotle’s belief that something can not come out of nothing. Aristotle says, “How will there be movement, if there is no actually existing cause?…The seeds must act on the earth and the semen on the menstrual blood”. What he is saying is that something must be set into motion by something else. There is always a cause to an effect. One relies on the other. Therefore, before origin there must have been an “immovable mover”, that being God.
St. Thomas’s five proofs rely on the causality of God. Causality, in simple terms, is the fact that you cannot make something greater from lesser parts; the more perfect does not come from the less perfect. In order for something to exist, there must be something greater to have caused it to exist. This means that you cannot trace back causes infinitely - there must be a first, uncaused cause. Therefore, there must be something that caused everything. This we call God.
from Motion, tries to prove the existence of God as the first mover which is unmoved.
necessarily exist, then there must be a time where all things go out. of the existence of the. The basic idea is that everything has a prior cause, but the chain of causes can't go back infinitely far, so there must be a first cause. The "first way" (Unmoved mover) argument might be summarized as follows. this: 1.
In this essay I discuss why there is proof that there is a supernatural being known as God, who has created everything we know and experience. The mere claim, that there could be a "Proof for the Existence of God," seems to invite ridicule. But not always are those who laugh first and think later. Remember how all-knowing doctors/scientists laughed at every new discovery?