Anselm and Descartes do not fully provide evidence to prove that they have this clear idea of God. It is very much possible that this is completely false and then both arguments would be incorrect from the start. However, despite this I still believe Descartes argument is more persuasive, and one reason is because Anselm’s argument is very vague. For instance, Anselm never explains what it means for one thing to be ‘greater’ than something else. This definition is necessary in order to agree with Anselm’s premise that there exists things in reality which are greater than things that only reside in the understanding.
Saint Anselm and Thomas Aquinas prove about God’s existence but they both have common weakness. Anselm is missing Reason and Thomas is missing Faith. The problem of being like Anselm is that audience can get confuse and be very uncomfortable because Anselm’s writing is very spiritual but on the other hand Thomas Aquinas is too logical. Problem is that people can just accept as knowledge and will not move on the actually wanting to know God. If faith and reason works together as one, it will be so much more efficient to non believers to understand and feel God’s existence.
Aquinas goes on to answer that challenge that, if philosophy based on Christianity is a science, it is a lesser science because it is less certain of its conclusions, having accepted them on faith. Aquinas responds to this argument in two parts. First, he argues that God’s revelation is more certain then what seems self-evident to humans because God, unlike humans, is omniscient. The only reason it seems less certain is because fully comprehending God’s level of certainty is beyond human abilities. Aquinas’s second response is that Sacred Doctrine deals with more important subject matter then other sciences and is therefore more important.
When it comes to his proof for God’s existence, he begins with the idea of cause and effect. He believes that everyone in th... ... middle of paper ... ... God’s existence and removed other possible causes of existence. It is clear that this argument is not satisfying in proving God’s existence. His logic shows an abundance of flaws. His reasoning for the fact that he has always existed seems concrete at first, but it actually just gives more proof against his existence.
I believe that both reasoning, and faith are required to believe in anything and that the reasoning side of the equation needs to be diligently and mindfully considered. I also believe that to find empirical evidence of God may be impossible, so it’s important that faith and belief are based on strong reasoning even without empirical evidence. Believing in something because it’s comforting in the will only cause a great deal of people to blindly follow and never ask questions leading to a very misguided society.
Rahner states that the God is an incomprehensible mystery. He says that the truth of theology is derived from the ontology and anthropology. He also says that the people experience the mystery of God in everyday activities and this experience forms the basis of their faith. Barth rejects this because he thinks that our understanding of the truth of theology comes from the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. This idea of Barth is more persuasive because deriving the truth of theology from ontology or anthropology would mean that our knowledge of theology comes from human experience and not from the God himself.
Doubt exists in the believer and the non-believer because it is beyond our reason to determine the truth of God's existence. St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Anselm would not agree that God is the unknown. They would however agree that reason couldn't comprehend God. Both would argue that we can say some things with certainty about God, using reason. On that knowledge, they can form their arguments for God's existence.
Descartes was incorrect and made mistakes in his philosophical analysis concerning understanding the Soul and the foundation of knowledge. Yes, he coined the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am,” but the rest of his philosophical conclusions fail to be as solid (Meditation 4; 32). Descartes knew that if he has a mind and is thinking thoughts then he must be something that has the ability to think. While he did prove that he is a thinking thing that thinks (Meditation 3; 28), he was unable to formulate correct and true philosophical arguments and claims. For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument.
In answering questions regarding God, the argument from evil is a very peculiar argument. Most of the arguments we deal with will try to prove the existence of god. This argument on the other hand attempts to do the opposite and I really stress on the word attempt. Another reason why I say it is peculiar is because it is not just one argument, but rather a series of three arguments. In my opinion, this argument is quite weak and does not prove what it was intended to prove but rather it does the opposite.
This idea first came about in the early work of Ludvig Wittgenstein, who put forward a picture the... ... middle of paper ... ... take part in are mutually exclusive, and finally non-believers may have a better view of religious language because they have an objective standpoint from which to view religion. From all of this it seems to me that religious language is faced with much criticism despite the fact that it has done nothing really very wrong. We all know how difficult it is to talk about God and other supernatural metaphysical religious ideas, but just because they cannot be defined or justified in this world does not mean they have no significance. They not only putting people on the right moral track, they are and have had a long history of being guides and gurus for millions of people over the years, and to dismiss them on the grounds that they are improvable is to reject thousands of years of human moral and linguistic development.