Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
theology and spirituality
existance of GOD
god's existence philosophy essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: theology and spirituality
Does God exist? That question has been asked by people for centuries. Christians, Jews, and Muslims would all say that God exists. They would claim that He is the creator of all things and is of a higher being than man is. Others would claim either that God does not exist or that God is not what the Christians, Jews, and Muslims say He is. Both Anselm and Aquinas address this question: Anselm in his "Proslogion" and Aquinas in his "Summa Theologica." The opinions of Anselm and Aquinas as to the nature of God are the same, although Anselm lacks the proof to back up his claims.
In the "Proslogion," Anselm states that God is "something greater that which we can conceive of nothing." This very confusing statement, which is likely illogical in itself, is the center of Anselm's illogical argument, and something that I will try to explain. First, we must define "that which we can conceive of nothing." What can this possibly mean? It seems that this is the limit of what we can conceive. What this is, I cannot say because it is inconceivable. Anselm claims that what is beyond this is God. He is telling us that God is the highest possible being. This is the sum of his argument. What I want to know is how we can conceive the existence of something that is beyond all that is conceivable. While there are obvious problems with his logic, Anselm firmly believes that God is the greatest of all beings.
This is exactly what Aquinas believes, only his argument is much clearer. First, he asks "whether it can be demonstrated that God exists." This is an important question because if it cannot be demonstrated that God exists, then there is no point in trying to.
The first argument is against this notion. He claims that t...
... middle of paper ...
...t is directed toward this end by something with intelligence. An example is where a rock goes when someone throws it. The destination of the rock is the end, and the person is the thing direction it toward that end. But we do not direct the wind, gravity, earthquakes, or any number of other natural things. But because these thing lack intelligence, there must be an intelligent being that directs it all. This director of nature is God.
Though these arguments Aquinas states his belief that God is the greatest of all things. While this is the same notion that Anselm has, Anselm does not hat the wit to back it up logically. In fact, the deeper you dig into Anselm, the more confusing and illogical it gets. Aquinas makes a great logical argument that is not terrible confusing. So, while they both had the same idea of God, only Aquinas was able to back it up.
St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas were considered as some of the best in their period to represent philosophy. St. Anselm’s argument is known as the ontological argument; it revolves entirely around his statement, “God is that, than which no greater can be conceived” (The Great Conversation, Norman Melchert 260). St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument is known as the cosmological argument; it connects the effects of events to the cause for why they happened. Anselm’s ontological proof and Aquinas’ cosmological proof both argued for God’s existence, differed in the way they argued God’s existence, and had varying degrees of success using these proofs.
To begin with, in order to find Aquinas’ second proof to be a sound argument one must explain the chain of cause and effects that help explain the efficient cause, which is God. There are always things that cause other things. Every effect has a cause, if an effect did not have a cause it would not have been able to exist. Everything could not have come to exist from nothing there has to be a first maker that makes the first being to come to be. God becomes the first efficient cause which starts the chain of cause and effect in which every other thing that is not God depends on Him. Everything that exists from this chain of cause and effect come to be because t...
Aquinas says there are five ways to prove that God exists and one of them is through efficient causation. He starts with the premise that every effect we observe must have been caused by something else. This can be compared to the effect of a particular tree being caused by the planting of a particular seed that grew into that tree. Second, nothing that we observe could have caused itself. A particular tree could not have produced the particular seed that later grew into that tree. The existence of something before itself is contradictory and impossible. He then goes on to explain that if nothing caused itself then it must have been caused by something else that was also caused by something else and so on. If we continue to go up the chain of causes, however, it would seem that the chain of causes goes back to infinity.
Aquinas’ third way argument states that there has to be something that must exist, which is most likely God. He starts his argument by saying not everything must exist, because things are born and die every single day. By stating this we can jump to the conclusion that if everything need not exist then there would have been a time where there was nothing. But, he goes on, if there was a time when there was nothing, then nothing would exist even today, because something cannot come from nothing. However, our observations tell us that something does exist, therefore there is something that must exist, and Aquinas says that something is God.
It is my view that God exists, and I think that Aquinas’ first two ways presents a
Aquinas has several premises that all his arguments rely on. The starting point is that dependent beings exist. Since they exist, they (including their essence or characteristics) must have a cause. It
Does God exist? Since the appearance of mankind on the earth and up until today--would probably continue in the future--this question brought people to think, reason, and come up with the evidence, to present the best satisfactory answer.
Anselm was a stable believer in God, so he wanted to use logic and reason to confirm his forceful faith and clarify God’s existence. Anselm’s argument was given in chapter two of Proslogion. Its main focus was the meaning of God. Furthermore he claims that everyone, whether they trust in God or not agrees alongside this definition. Anselm approves there is a difference amid understanding that God exists and understanding him to be a concept. To clarify this extra, he gives the analogy of a painter. He states that, in advance a gifted painter makes a masterpiece; he can discern it visibly in his mind even nevertheless he knows it doesn’t exist. He comprehends it as an idea. Though, after the painting has been finished and can be perceived by the man in reality, the painter comprehends the believed of the painting and its existence. The upcoming period is the locale that an advocate of God who approves alongside Anselm’s argument will be at.
In the explanation of this argument for the existence of God, Anselm states that God is the greatest being that can be thought and nothing else can be conceived as a greater being than God. For example, when one grasp the idea of God, one thinks of that being as one who has the best properties that could exist in the world such as wisdom, power, knowledge and even the unique essence of existence, and we amplify each attribute to its limits, and as a result we have God. If we can still think of something greater than that, then we have failed to really think of something that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought. This brief explanation of the argument is explained in detail in the following paragraphs.
In the article, This is why we are here” the author, John Piper, states, “ …whats true for you is your God, and whats true for me is my God –whatever works is fine”. Basically what Piper is saying, whatever religion you are it does not matter as longest you believe there is a God. According to this statement, I can truly agree there is a God, and regardless of my own opinion, others in society today can also agree it does not matter how you chose to see God, as longest you know God Does Exist. With this being said in the article, “Does God Exist” the author Aquinas begins with two people explaining why they believe God Does not exist. In response to the question Aquinas begins to prove them wrong by giving us five ways in which God Does Exist Such as: God is the cause of change, God is the cause and effect in change, exist to nonexistence, ultimate good, and finally intelligence designs. However the main ones that stands out is the third reason the existence to the nonexistence, and fourth the ultimate good, without these two main points no one would believe God did not exist today...
Being a devout Christian, Thomas Aquinas naturally believed in God, but he wanted to prove God's existence to those who could not accept things on faith alone. As a result he made five proofs, which he claims, prove the existence of God. With each proof there is always a beginning, a starting point, Aquinas claims it must be God that is the beginning of each. The first proof does not do complete justice to Aquinas’s claim that God exist, while the fifth proof could be used alone to prove Gods existence.
Anselm’s Ontological argument is insufficient in proving that God exists. For the reasons above and further objections from various philosophers, I do not believe that Anselm can argue the existence of God with his current premises as they stand. I must say that despite my objections to Anselm’s Ontological argument, I respect his work done, and the tremendous thought process that must have occurred to conjure up such a case as was presented. It is definitely much easier to prove a mortal wrong than it is to prove the existence of something so great and so unknown. Anselm’s Ontological argument while intriguing does have some problems in my opinion that take away from its validity; but needless to say it is in and of itself quite astounding.
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.
Anselm’s argument deals with his definition of what God is while Descartes uses the idea that every idea has a cause. This is an important difference because Anselm is able to jump directly to his conclusion, and Descartes still has more work to do to prove his argument. Descartes is then faced with a predicament of establishing who or what created this idea of God. Lastly, another difference is that Descartes discusses finite and infinite substances. According to Descartes, infinite substances are more real than finite substances, and with this fact along with his causality assertion, he is then able to reach the conclusion that God exists. Both arguments start from the same foundation and then branch out from each other until the same conclusion is
Before St. Thomas Aquinas gave an answer to the question whether God exists in things, he, in I.7, answered that God is limitless. The characteristic of limitless things is to exist with an unending amount everywhere in everything . Then he asks about God’s existence in things, I.8.1-4. He is trying to answer the questions: Is God in all things, Is God everywhere, Is God everywhere by essence, power, and presence, and Does it belong to God alone to be everywhere? These questions and their answers are a significant component of Aquinas’s understanding of the natural world. Aquinas is building of his understanding that God is self-subsistent existence and supplying being to all of His created things.