Fight For A Place In The First

Descartes gives a causal argument for the existence of God in Meditation III. He deals with the effect of the idea of absolute perfection in our minds and rationalizes that the cause is God, therefore proving the existence of God.

The conclusion of Aquinas’s argument is that there must exist a necessary being that is the reason for the existence of contingent beings. Aquinas argues for this conclusion by saying that all contingent beings can be traced back to other contingent beings. He says that because the progenitors are also contingent, they do not give a complete explanation. The existence of contingent beings can only be properly explained by tracing them back to a necessary being.

Thomas Aquinas uses five proofs to argue for God’s existence. A few follow the same basic logic: without a cause, there can be no effect. He calls the cause God and believes the effect is the world’s existence. The last two discuss what necessarily exists in the world, which we do not already know. These things he also calls God.

Descartes’ argument for the existence of God relies on the untenable notion of a substance of perfection and that it can be predicated of God. In this essay Descartes’ arguments for the existence of God will be briefly expounded, and then objections against his methodology employed in order to establish the proof of God, will be discussed.

The subsequent essay will provide a brief overview on the existence of God from René Descartes through Immanuel Kant. First, section (1), examines Descartes’ proof for the existence of God. Section (2), explores G.W. Leibniz’s view on God’s existence in addition to his attempts to rectify the shortcomings of Descartes’ proofs. The remainder of the essay then examines two additional philosophers, David Hume in section (4) and Immanuel Kant in (5), who contend that God’s existence cannot be rationally proven.

The last argument is considered the teleological argument or what some modern theorist call argument of design. Which means that the thought of evolution can come into play in regards to how humans came about and how the universe could have been formed. This last argument was not necessarily Aquinas best nor strongest part of his main idea as to why God is existing and may have always been since many theorist have taken the challenge to prove his first four arguments to be false and lacking knowledge and understanding as of how the world was formed.

Aquinas starts by stating the preliminary matter that God's existence is not self-evident, and therefore we need to examine God's effects, which we are able to observe, to prove God's existence, although we are not able to understand God's nature perfectly. Aquinas provides five ways demonstrate the existence of a transcendent being through empirical evidence. The argument from motion, the argument from the nature of efficient causes, the argument from possibility and necessity and the argument ex gradibus each uses simple and observable facts to prove the existence of God as a prime mover, an ultimate cause, a necessary being and an ultimate degree; the argument from design employs the teleological approach and proves God's existence as a designer by exploring the more complicated nature of things.

The initial starting point of whether God exists depends largely upon the concept of a necessary being acting as the first cause, and grounding of all other reality. This leads to the question of whether there are respectable reasons for concluding that such a being exists, and if there are, can it be

A discussion of Descartes’ First Proof of God and the problem of the malicious demon both plagued his mind, But, that doesn’t necessarily mean Descartes is wrong. His argument is extremely well constructed and coherent, however it is slightly flawed in his logic when trying to prove that any finite cause must regress back to an eventual infinite point or cause, in this case, God being the ultimate cause. Descartes believes Unity is one of the attributes of God, and I agree with this. Although I do say it is slightly flawed, I do challenge someone to try to prove that there is some other cause other than God, not for religious faith, but in the sense that if the Universe is inclined to disorder or entropy, then there must also be some other finite cause that caused this, with the regress ultimately being an infinite cause. Why is that? The idea that if the universe did not form and continue to change through entropy, then how did it arrive? How can something with disorder stem from something more disordered, if God isn’t the perfect, unifying origin ? Something cannot arise from nothing, there must be a cause. As “thinking things”, all of our ideas are modes, and all ideas to an extent, have some level of formal reality; I have an innate idea of God, therefore the idea of God also has a formal

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) as one of medieval theology scholars and famous thinkers who didn’t accept Anselm’s way of thinking. He offered his own alternative – well-known cosmological argument – and summarized it in detail in his “Summa Theologia” or “Treatise on God”. He states that existence of God can be confirmed without doubt in five ways or by five proofs. The first proof or the theory of the “unmoved mover” seems to be the most obvious, compelling and clearly stated confirmation of God’s existence.