The best explanation to the existence of God through St. Aquinas’s argument is that God does not exist as the first efficient cause. The argument for God, as presented by St. Aquinas, attempts to show that the existence of the world and everything within it can only be explained if there is a God who is the first efficient cause. The argument states that it is impossible for any being to be the efficient cause of itself because then it would have to bring itself into being, and to bring itself into being, it would have to exist before it existed. If a being exists, it is because some being before it caused it to exist. Therefore, if no first cause exists, neither will any other being exist.
Spinoza’s method of proving one substance relies upon his definitions and reason. I take further issue with this method because God cannot be proven through reason alone. Through this same reasoning Spinoza gives life too much meaning. In his argument, he claims that since God is the only substance all things flow from God. Meaning that everything in existence is a part of
For the sake of argument in a metaphysical sense, what if there were more than just one rea... ... middle of paper ... ...onditions: Since God is all-knowing, the multiverse can exist within God’s omniscience. God is not all-controlling, this allows mankind to have free will. The multiverse exist though human choices. My initial proposal to the argument of free will and omniscient was relied on necessary true, and this coincided with Nelson Pike’s explanation. This eventually leads to a fatalistic view that concludes no human actions are voluntary if one is believing in God.
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.
Throughout this proof, Descartes is trying to use God’s existence as a way of affirming that which he clearly and distinctly perceives. However, he is also trying to prove God’s existence by claiming that the idea of God is a clear and distinct perception. Without inquiring into the existence of God, “it appears I am never capable of being completely ... ... middle of paper ... ...hat God too exists" (Descartes, 34). Descartes proof of the existence of God is derived from his establishment that something cannot come from nothing. Because God is a perfect being, the idea of God can be found from exploring the different notions of ideas.
On that knowledge, they can form their arguments for God's existence. Both the Ontological argument and the cosmological argument assume Gods existence, because they both rely on the idea of God in order to base their premises. The Question of whether or not God can exist will never be answered during anyone's natural lifetime. Maybe it is a question that is not supposed to be answered.
In this paper, I will explain how Descartes uses the existence of himself to prove the existence of God. The “idea of God is in my mind” is based on “I think, therefore I am”, so there is a question arises: “do I derive my existence? Why, from myself, or from my parents, or from whatever other things there are that are less perfect than God. For nothing more perfect than God, or even as perfect as God, can be thought or imagined.” (Descartes 32, 48) Descartes investigates his reasons to show that he, his parents and other causes cannot cause the existence of himself. I do not cause the existence of myself Descartes illustrates “I am not the reason I exist” from two perspectives: (1)Direct reason: If I am the reason I exist, it has an incredible conclusion “if I got my being from myself, I would not doubt, nor would I desire, nor would I lack anything at all.
He is saying God is the supreme being and is treated as a primary idea. In addition, Anslem describes God as " truthful, happy and whatever it is better to be than not to be-for it is better to be just rather than unjust, and happy rather that unhappy"(861). This means that God represents everything that is good and real. However, we cant subject God to our thinking because he is greater than our thinking and stands apart from it. Anselm's ontological argument is how he explains God as a necessary cause.
Furthermore, proposition 16 demonstrates that God’s essence contains infinite things and infinite modes. By containing infinite things and infinite modes, by definition, there is nothing that could exist outside of Go... ... middle of paper ... ...rtes. By rejecting Descartes objection of the possibility of more than one substance, Spinoza’s is able to preserve his argument for substance monism, and thus, the impossibility of things being other than the way they are. In conclusion, in 1p33s2 of the Ethics, Spinoza argues against the traditional view that things could have been created by God in some other way or order when he states “All things depend on God’s power. So in order for things to be able to be different, God’s will would necessarily also have to be different.
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. In the words of Anselm, "Therefore, Lord, not only are You that than which nothing greater can be conceived but you are also something greater than can be conceived.