God 's existence has been a continuous debate certainly for centuries. The issue of God 's
existence is debatable because of the different kind of controversies that can be raised from
an "Atheist as being the non-believer of God" and a "Theist who is the believer of God". An
atheist can raise different objections on the order of the universe by claiming that the science is a
reason behind the perfection of the universe. In Aquinas 's fifth argument, he claims that the order
of the universe cannot be explained by chance, but only by design and purpose. To explain this
order of the universe he concludes that, there is an intelligent being whom we call "God". As
being a theist, I find Aquinas 's fifth argument significant because the universe is in a perfect
order: the cycles of life and death, the seasons of the year, and the mysteries of the human body
can 't be just simply explained by science. This order and balance is not unplanned or random.
The world and everything in it has been created with a perfect plan by all knowing and all
powerful "God".
Despite of Aquinas 's fifth argument being one of the most prominent argument for the
existence of God, there are some limitations to the fifth argument. The expected limitations
especially from the atheists can be applied to this argument due to its nature in the fact that it’s
inductive, meaning we can never be 100% certain of its correctness. One example that can be
used by an
Descartes gave a few arguments that God exists and is real. Desocrates believed our idea of God is that God is a perfect being, he believed he is more perfect to exist than not to exist. Desocrates also believed that God is a infinite being. Descartes idea would be that God gave us this idea to type this paragraph about him so he must be real. When he thinks negative of an idea or thought he wonders if an evil demon plotted those thoughts.
Atheists and thesis have always butted heads with each other on believing if there truly is a God and if so, should you believe in Him? Atheists are people who do not believe in a God or all powerful and all knowing creature, whereas Theists are ones who chose to believe in a God. Choosing to believe in God, being the creator and someone who is all knowing and powerful being, comes with some benefits according to Pascal’s wager. The fundamental idea behind Pascal's Wager is a Pros and con's list as to why one should believe in God and it shows positives and the negatives of believing and not believing. Pascal's Wager by Blaise Pascal is a persuasive argument for whether God exists, but there are many faults with the argument because viewing
Aquinas made a valid point out demonstrating how God can make things happen or he can just let them play out. God doesn’t always want to know everything and sometimes he just goes with the flow. Another great point is that God gives us free will so that we can make our own decisions. Free will makes it so we can make good or bad choices but the important thing is that we’re the ones making our own decisions. I believe that one of the most important points that the article makes is that God is above time and exists infinitely and will never die.
In Saint Thomas Aquinas argument the second way, Aquinas argues for the existence of God, making use of efficient causes and premises to help us conclude that God exists. In the following words I would argue that Saint Thomas Aquinas’s argument formulated in the second way leads to a valid argument, which concludes that there must be a first cause and that God exists. Aquinas second way is an argument that God is the first cause and he is essential to everything on earth because nothing would have the power to fuel its self without the intermediate cause which is God. An example is a painter using a paintbrush to paint as he moves his hand, paint is applied on the wall but if he stops, the paint would not fly from the brush to the wall, stopping
The cosmological argument looks to the world to prove God’s existence rather than pure definitions. The proponent of the cosmological argument was St. Thomas Aquinas, a theologian in the eleventh century CE (Solomon). He proposed that everything that exists must have a cause, and that the cause was God (Aquinas). Aquinas’ first point was based off of motion, that nothing can be both the mover and moved. An item sitting in place has the potential to be moving, but cannot move unless something that is already moving imparts motion to it
Saint Thomas Aquinas’ following cosmological argument states the notion that there is a divine being that is the uncaused first cause. Cosmological arguments follow the belief that a divine being that acts independently of all rules therefore is the exception to all rules and is responsible for the creation of the time. The following argument has to have both true premises and a true conclusion to be considered sound and the first step to figure that out is to write a
Thomas Aquinas was a famous medieval theologist and saint. He believed that there was no conflict between faith and reason and that they were both gifts. Reason helped, he believed, people discover important truths about God’s creation. Faith, meanwhile, uncovered facts about God. Aquinas wrote logical arguments in support of his faith to show how reason and religious belief helped each other.
The objection against premise three states: “There can be an infinite series of numbers; why can’t there be an infinite series of past causes (PowerPoint 384)?” Thomas Aquinas is a famous philosopher who is well known for his theological writings. Here, Aquinas steps in to defend this premise saying that “if there were an infinite regress of causes, we could not have gotten to the present moment because we would have had to go through an infinite series to get here, and it is impossible to go through an infinite series (PowerPoint, 384).” William Lane Craig then comes in and discusses the claim of premise three and Aquinas’ defence and states that, “the idea of an actual infinite number of anything leads to contradictions. Both Thomas Aquinas and William Lane Craig’s defence claims help show that premise three is true, proving that the first half of the first cause argument is a sound
Anselm’s argument is based on this known definition of the concept of God alone. Descartes’ argument for the existence of God is based on his foundation of knowledge, logic. Humans have the idea in their minds of infinite perfection. Humans also have the idea of themselves as inferior to this idea as imperfect. For humans to have the idea of infinite perfection, there must be truth in the reason for them having this idea.
In Thomas Aquinas’ theory of The Five ways, his argument for the existence of God is put to the test in an attempt to prove that theory to be true. His attempt to prove the existence of God through observation, and critical thinking does provide a stepping stone to further the augment for a supreme being. Those arguments or proofs were; Motion, Cause, Necessity, Degrees, and Design. While Thomas Aquinas was in “Ways”, thinking ahead of his time, the short comings in his theory have been recognized. While looking through a modern lens of thinking, and understanding of the natural world, some of Thomas Aquinas’ theories fall short, however I do believe some still hold merit for discussion.
The argument for God’s existence is that God is a perfect being, he is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, and supremely powerful. Descartes goes on to talk about how God exists because he can conceive of him as better than himself (AD 40). God is perfect and perfect at everything, and was the first thing that sent everything into motion (AD 45). God is the ultimate cause.
PAPER #2 History of philosophy: Philosophy 20B Thomas Aquinas reasons that “God is one” in the Summa theologiae, part one, question eleven, article three. Using three proofs, one on “Gods simplicity,” the second on “the infinity of Gods perfection” and the last based on “the unity of the world.” The following will be Dissecting and providing explanations along with criticism. As well, what it is meant by “God is one”.
In this essay, I will set out to prove that Thomas Aquinas’ First Cause Argument does not show that God exists and the conclusion that God exists does not follow from the premises of the first cause argument. I do think that the conclusion is valid and could be sound/or has the potential to be, but the premises fail to provide the basis upon which to reach such a conclusion. Hence, I will be raising some objections to the premises and will try to disprove any counter-arguments that could be raised in its defense. This would be done by examining Aquinas’ First Cause Argument and trying to disprove it whilst countering arguments in its defense.
In other words, Anselm stipulates that God must exist since we can’t think of something greater than God but Descartes says the main reason why God exists is because he is a perfect being. St. Anselm and Descartes arguments are without doubt the most important arguments to the existence of God. They formed the basis for further discussion both by those that agree to these schools of thought as well as those that saw the arguments as weak and decided to show why. Both philosophers agreed that the comprehension of the concept of God was sufficient for anyone to believe in the existence of God even though Anselm argument was skewed towards our inability to conceive a more powerful being while Descartes mainly concentrates on the perfect nature in
The act of believing is important, no matter the subject matter. Beliefs are necessary because behavior is important, and your behavior depends on your beliefs. I believe there is a God, existentially speaking, God is a creator, he provided the beings, animals, and nature that fills our world. Aquinas too believed in the existence of God, and how his force leads a sequence of causes and effects. Russell, on the other hand, did not believe in the existence of God and explains the challenges between his own beliefs and the beliefs of Aquinas.