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.
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.
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.
For Descartes there can exist only one such being and that is God, and this is what he stands to prove. Descartes points out that in order for any effect to occur, its cause must own the effect itself, and this he calls “causality” (Tutorial for PLS3702, 2014:17) In order to prove the existence of God, Descartes employs two arguments, the cosmological and ontological. The cosmological argument makes inference from certain alleged facts about the world, (cosmos) about the existence of a unique and perfect being, God (Reichenbach, 2014:1). Descartes is aware of such a unique and perfect being, and this awar... ... middle of paper ... ...nal faith. 5.
Human beliefs are contingent true, because it could happen to be true and it could also have been false. Divine beliefs are necessary truth, by denying it, it will create a contradiction. Therefore, as logic dictates, my first proposition is if one believes in God, then no human action will be voluntary. However, noted that God is all-knowing, but it doesn’t mean God is all-controlling. 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.
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.
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
#4. There must be an external, necessary being. (God.) The obvious problem with the Contingency Argument is that we do not know whether or not PSR is true. It has been suggested by some philosophers that the existence of the universe is merely a “brute fact,” or that it is possible for the existence of something to be explained by nothing.
Thus, Anselm tends to base his argument on the definitions and terminology used. Anselm’s first form of the argument is that God is "that than which none greater can be conceived". Firstly, it must be emphasised that Anselm’s definition does not limit God to being the "greatest" but makes it known that nothing greater can be thought than God himself. Therefore, God should not in any way be linked to terms such as ‘omnipotent’ as terminology such as this limit him to what he really is. With this definition, he attempts to prove that not only does God exist in the mind but also in reality.
Their arguments can be summarized into one argument as follows: (1) Either the world is made up of things that depend on others for their existence (dependent beings), or things that are self-existent (independent beings). (2) Not everything can depend on another for its existence. (3) Therefore, there is some self-existing being, and that being is God... ... middle of paper ... ...e. "Even if PSR is a presupposition we all share, the premises of the Cosmological Argument could still be false. For PSR itself could be false" (Rowe 29). Ultimately, if we want to use the Cosmological Argument to prove the existence of God, then we need more evidence to prove that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is true.