Fight For A Place In The First

That question is the one raised by absurdism. Being, how can we derive meaning when nothing that exists has meaning, nothing exists on purpose, and therefore human life is absurd. Spinoza’s substance monism directly confronts this question by asserting the claim that there is essentially meaning in life because we are all a part of one substance which is God. However, while this may seem like it directly refutes the absurdist’s claim that nothing in existence has meaning it does not. The issue with the solving of this problem is in Spinoza’s definition of God.

Ontological arguments are a priori, which show that God exists without appealing to a sense experience. These ontological arguments argue about what God is to where he is from. St. Anselm, the creator of the ontological argument, based his theory on that we cannot think of anything greater than God. Therefor God must exist, why you might ask? If the greatest thing that we can conceive does not exist than we can still conceive the greatest thing that does exist, and that would be God.

This paper will attempt to state and explain the Cartesian Ontological Argument, its most promising lines of objection and some of the replies to these objections. Before studying the argument, it is important to notice that this type argument, unlike causal or teleological arguments, tries to be based on reason alone, not observation. Descartes considers that his a priori claims can derive the existence of God from the very concept of God. The Cartesian Ontological Argument can be formulated as follows: (1) God is that being than which nothing more perfect can be conceived upon. (2) Existence is a perfection.

Since the universe exists, it must have a cause, therefore there must be an uncaused cause of all things. This uncaused cause must be God. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion. He stated that things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers.

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.

To make such an affirmation about a being absolutely infinite and supremely perfect, is absurd; therefore, neither in the nature of God, nor externally to his nature, can a cause or reason be assigned which would annul his existence. Therefore, God necessarily exists. --The potentiality of non-existence is a negation of power, and contrariwise the potentiality of existence is a power, as is obvious. --In this last proof, I have purposely shown God's existence a posteriori, so that the proof might be more easily followed, not because, from the same premises, God's existence does not follow a priori. Imperfection, on the other hand, does annul it; therefore we cannot be more certain of the existence of anything, than of the existence of a being absolutely infinite or perfect --that is, of God.

Nothing is the source of its own existences, nothing is self-creating []. The cosmological argument states at some point, the cause and effect sequence must have a beginning. This unexpected phenomenal being is god. According to the argument, god is the initial start of the universe as we know it. Though nothing is self-creating cosmological believers say god is the only being the is self –created.

It is also referred to as the first cause argument. The argument is based upon the fact that there was a first cause behind the existence of the universe. In my opinion, this argument doesn’t prove anything because it contradicts itself by rejecting the infinite but it says God is infinite. Also the suggestion that infinity is impossible and that the universe had a beginning but it says God is infinite. It could be argued that the first cause was physical, material rather than God and as a human has a mother, doesn’t mean the Universe does.

That God is “that then which nothing greater can be conceived” (Id quo nihil mauis potest), meaning that it is impossible for there to be a more perfect being. This leads to the first two premises. Firstly, “God is that then which nothing greater can be conceived” and secondly, “Something that exists in reality (in re) is bound to be greater than something that exists in the imagination (in intellectu). This leads to the conclusion, that as God is “the greatest conceivable thing”…it is only logical that God exists “both in reality and thought”. Anselm’s essential claim was that existence was a “predicate of God” which means a quality of God’s nature.

Anselm says of God: “We believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be thought.” (Cottingham, 1996: 246) We can put this in shorthand by saying that Anselm understands God to be the greatest conceivable being -- the GCB, for short Now you might protest that you do not use the word "God" in this way. Nevertheless, that does not really matter. If Anselm can show that such a being exists, then he has shown something remarkable whatever you call the being. Furthermore, it is not clear why anyone should resist calling such a being God. Now another worry may occur to you: conceivable by whom?