...Establishing God’s Existence Scott F. Davis April 29, 2013 Beyond Proof and Necessity: Logically Establishing God’s Existence Monarchs have claimed divine ascension through Him; centuries of popes have directed pilgrimages and holy crusades according to His divine wishes, and as long as mankind’s time on Earth has been in existence, brother has slayed brother in the name of one singular and all powerful God. To be certain, no telescope ever designed could reach outwards through the universe to see God’s kingdom; no microphone ever produced would be able hear the sound of God, and no camera ever invented possessed the ability to record the likeness of God--yet somehow it became inherently possible that over three billion of the earths’ population today believe in God—whether He be called Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah or the Great I Am. What remains is the time immortal question which mankind has been left to reason: Is it necessary to prove His existence? This paper serves to clearly answer the question, using logic, reason and evidence to support, that it is not necessary to prove the existence of God. Demonstrated within this paper will be the arguments of proof, or the proof of God, that is, an address of the cosmological, ontological and origination by design theories of existence, with centering on the ontological theory. Further contained will be assessments of existence as is inherently essential to evaluate the matter of necessary existence. An address...
Words: 3104 - Pages: 13
...for the existence of God (18) The Ontological Argument is an a priori and deductive argument which attempts to prove God’s existence. It is also a reduction ad absurdum argument which shows that the existence of God could not be denied because to do so would involve adopting an illogical argument. It was formed by St. Anselm (1033-1109), but is still a strong argument for the existence of God today. Anselm firstly argues nothing greater than God can be conceived and secondly, it is greater to exist than not to exist. He next explains that if we conceive of God as not existing, then we can conceive of something greater than God. To conceive of God as not existing is not to conceive of God. Anselm states that it is inconceivable that God doesn’t exist and therefore God exists. Anselm thought that not believing in God is ridiculous, claiming it is better to exist in the mind and in reality than to just exist in the mind. Existence is a predicate of perfection. Therefore God must exist in reality. ‘The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’’ (Psalm 14).Anselm stated that even an atheist must have a definition of God because even the suggestion that God does not exist requires the concept of God. It seemed logical to conclude that to argue that there is no God; even the fool must understand the concept of God. Since the greatest thought must have an equivalent reality to be greater than even the least significant thing in reality for God to be the greatest thought, God must exist...
Words: 1675 - Pages: 7
...Thomas Aquinas believed in God and wanted to prove God's existence to anyone who would not accept his faith alone. We can prove God's existence in different ways, but we cannot prove it by examining the concept of God. Aquinas proves the existence of God in five ways. In “ Summa Theologiae” written by Thomas Aquinas, in his third article he accepts that something necessarily exists which is god. The third way is found to be the most complex out of the five ways. Aquinas states that everything can fit into a “need-not-exist” category, so if everything belongs or fits into this category then is it true, that at one time nothing did exist? Or on the other hand, would have it been impossible for anything to exist, and even now would nothing exist....
Words: 643 - Pages: 3
...Does God exists? Has been asking this question over and over, but there may not be an exact answer to this question. Over the time this topic has been disputing among the philosophers and the people who tried to answer it. . There are many questions and issues that are related to this question. Depending on the people if they are believers or not? Or what are the essences of a person religion? There is no specific answer to any of these questions and therefore one would ask. When people are asked about God existence, from their answers we can classify them in to two groups, the first group would be the believers whom answers will be yes based on the person’s believes. The second group would be the atheist who does not agree on God existence. However, whether a person is a believer or an atheist, there cannot be a significant prove that God exist or not. There two argument to the question of whether God exist or not. The Ontological Argument and the Cosmological Argument. The ontological argument is presented by St Anselm and the Cosmological Argument is presented by Saint Thomas Aquinas. In this essay I am going to explore both argument. The Ontological Argument The first argument I am going to explore is The Ontological Argument explained by St Anselm. In exploring St Anselm argument we can summarize it in the following characteristics. The first characteristic of Anselm ontological argument is that God is a perfect being, and it is imperfection not to exists, hence God does...
Words: 1076 - Pages: 5
...certainty, that God does exist. The cosmological argument is used to prove the existence of a necessary or eternal Creator. Philosophers argue that because the universe exists, some God like being had to cause it to come into existence. It was established that everything that exist had to have a beginning that caused them to exist, and in their opinion that cause was God who is outside of the universe. The Teleological arguments are arguments from the order in the universe to the existence of God. They are also known as arguments to design. These arguments purport to prove the existence of God from empirical facts, the premise being that the universe shows evidence of order and hence design. The Ontological arguments is a priori argument for the existence of God, asserting that as existence is a perfection, and as God is conceived of as the most perfect being, then God must exist. With MCcloskey or any atheist they offer no evidence on how the universe came into existence scientifically or otherwise. On the Cosmological Argument MCcloskey says that the “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being.” But according to Evans and Manis the cause of the universe is necessary because any explanation of any contingent being’s existence will be incomplete unless it culminates in the casual activity of a necessary being. Evans and Manis defines a necessary being as one that cannot fail to exist, a being that is the cause of the existence of all contingent...
Words: 324 - Pages: 2
...when I comes to the existence and the belief of God. The essay will explain the philosophers view points on the religion of God. There are a few arguments of which existence is the strongest. It will explain many aspects on science and religion, atheism, moral and human freedom on God’s existence. Believing in God and believing in God’s existence can have many aspects with different views from philosophers, the arguments will explain which philosopher is more compelling than the other. When it comes to the existence of God, some philosophers believe that it is necessary to have proof and some believe that proof is not necessary if we have faith. One philosopher named, Thomas Aquinas believed that God is from faith and first cause is the proof of God. Let’s take a look at what Thomas had to say, “that the existence of God is not demonstrable: that God's existence is an article of faith, and that articles of faith are not demonstrable, because the office of demonstration is to prove, but faith pertains (only) to things that are not to be proven, as is evident from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 11.” (Paul Halsall, 1988.) Therefore, I don’t believe that we need proof of God’s existence. I agree with Thomas that God is faith. No, proving God’s existence is not necessary because God is faith, we have to believe in God to have the faith, If we do not believe in God then we might try to prove him, but will not get anywhere. There are arguments on the existence of God. The ontological...
Words: 1578 - Pages: 7
...It has long been the contention of the atheist that there are no good arguments for the existence of God. In his article “On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey seeks to nullify the classical arguments for God’s existence by contending that they are not rationally sound. He further holds that the existence of evil proves the impossibility of an omnipotent, all-good necessary being who has created the universe. This missive is an attempt to give refutation to Mr. McCloskey’s argument, also by means of reason and logic. It is the presupposition of the author that God does in fact exist, that He is a necessary being, and that the existence of evil in no way poses a problem to the logic of His existence. Mr. McCloskey essentially begins his argument by implying that the known arguments for the existence of a theistic God are made up of a series of proofs, none of which can be definitively proven. In fact, he is dismissive of such proofs, contending that “most theists do not come to believe in God as a result of reflecting on the proofs, but come to religion as a result of other reasons and factors.”1 While this statement is most likely true, it is erroneous to dismiss the theist’s belief on the basis of its origins. In doing so, McCloskey commits the fallacy of genetics. At the outset, McCloskey demands that the teleological and cosmological arguments provide definitive proof of God’s existence; failing this, they should be abandoned. This is an unreasonable standard, as most things...
Words: 3927 - Pages: 16
...Cosmological argument. Aquinas Cosmological argument is an attempted proof of the existence of God working from the undeniable fact that the universe exists. He formulated his argument in three ways. His first formulation of the Cosmological argument was the argument from motion. He argued that everything in the universe is in a state of constant motion and change. He saw change as the motion of an object turning from a state of potentiality into a state of actuality and thought that something must cause the object to change between these states. He goes on to say there must have once been something that performed the function of an unmoved mover; for were this not the case there could be nothing to set all other objects in the universe into their courses of motion and change. Therefore Aquinas concludes that this unmoved mover is what everyone else refers to as God. Aquinas second formulation uses the argument from cause. He argued that everything in the universe has an efficient cause, nothing is its own cause. Therefore everything is caused by something else. However there cannot be an infinite regression of causes because if there were no First Cause which was a sufficient cause of itself in itself then there could have been no following causes, and nothing would exist today. Because the universe does exist we must therefore accept the existence of an uncaused cause and this cause is God. Aquinas third formulation uses the argument from contingency. He argues everything...
Words: 568 - Pages: 3
...Proving the existence of God is a confounding problem that has captured the interest of people for many centuries. From the point of view of human suffering, it is possible to argue that the existence of evil and suffering in the world is a basis to challenge the existence of God Johnson explains this problem using the example of a six month old infant who perishes in an inferno. “Can we consider anyone as good who had the power to save this infant from painful death and did not” (Johnson, p.1). According to the arguments put forward by atheists, the existence of God is not compatible with the existence of evil. The existence of God would require that evil would not exist in the world. Therefore, conversely, since evil exists and leads to Human...
Words: 593 - Pages: 3
...re-inforce faith but not proves God’s existence, this is stated by Anselm as Proslogian is a supplementary prayer book. However the argument itself does border on trying to proves gods existence, this argument is as follows: God is a being that which no greater can be conceived, a being that exists in reality is better than one that just solely exists in the mind, therefore god must exist in reality. Anselm himself argued that even through reason, those without faith could not truly understand god, as Anselm stated that the argument was never meant to for faith upon someone but this argument itself was only for the reassurance of faith, he himself already accepts gods existence. Anselm considered that reason alone can lead to error and therefore has to be supported by faith as it is only through faith that greater understanding can be achieved. if the believer accepts there is god then the ontological argument may be a valid argument that god’s existence is necessary. In the same way a triangle has 3 sides, for a believer that believes they understand the concept of god then for them god exists to quote Anselm: “For I believe this too, that ‘unless I believe I shall not understand’”. Therefore Anselm himself believes that it does not actually prove anything unless you have this preconceived notion about the existence of god, this is also known as faith. Karl Barth supports the idea that the argument in itself was to not prove gods existence but it is a prayer, this is something...
Words: 1066 - Pages: 5
...representative of a religous tradition. philosophy of religon may be engaged in by thinkers who are not religous at all, as well as by committed religous thinkers philosophy of religion not so much religious thinking as it is thinking about religion. Religious Philosophy is Religious thinking Explain the arguments for and problems with fideism. Fideism: human beings are never religously neutral; they are always either in faithful service to or in rebellion against God. Claims that faith is the precondition for any correct thinking about religion Problem: fideist cannot attempt to win over his critics by rational argument as the presupposition of such dialouge means the possibility of common ground (fideists deny common ground) eliminates the possibility of showing the nonbeliever the superiority of a religous worldview where should one place one's faith? What 2 factors do Evans and Manis raise in answering the fideist claim that critical reflection about religious beliefs is arrogant and presumptuous? God, if real, wnats humans to reflect about religous truth the manner in which the thinking is carried on. PAGE 27 According to Evans and Manis, is it possible to be completely neutral, and is it valid? the...
Words: 3902 - Pages: 16
...for the existence of God. (18) Ontology is the branch of philosophy that explores the whole concept of existence. Sometimes scientist have to assume that something exists in reality in the physical world even if they have never come across an example of it, because a combination of factors indicate that there must be X, even if we have not found it yet, in order to explain other things. The ontological argument for the existence of God is an a priori argument, working from first principles and a definition in an attempt to demonstrate the existence of God. It is also a deductive argument, using logic rather than depending on the evidence of sense experience. In this way, then the ontological argument is different from other attempts to argue for the existence of God. The ontological argument argues that almost everything, which exists, does so in a contingent way; it depends upon other factors. We as individuals are contingent beings; everything else apart from God exists contingently. God, however, it is argued by religious believers, is necessary rather than contingent, there was no time when God didn’t exist. There is nothing that could happen which would cause God to cease to exist. The ontological argument begins with assumptions about God, without any empirical evidence such as the characteristics of God: Omnipotent, omniscient and omnipotent. This is what makes the argument an a priori argument, as most of the evidence used are based on assumptions of what God is like...
Words: 1496 - Pages: 6
...argued that existence can’t be proved using reason as we need both observation and empirical evidence to prove God’s true existence. Others argue that faith doesn’t need logic in order to prove the existence of God, through believing in his existence he exists, alongside knowledge from revelation in the Bible. Kant argues that existence is not a predicate of God, it adds nothing to our knowledge of God, and so we cannot just assume that he exists. It is impossible to compare God to a perfect island, just because he appears to perfect does not mean we can assume he exists; applying logic to a being doesn’t bring it into existence. Others would argue that God’s existence is logically necessary. It could be argued that philosophers like Plato use logic and reason to prove God’s existence for example in the allegory of the cave. Anselm would have disagreed with this statement completely as he clearly thought that God could be proved by logic and reason alone. His ontological argument relies upon using logic as he deducted, he argues that God is, ‘than that which nothing greater can be conceived’ thereby if there is nothing greater than the most Supreme Being conceivable, the most Supreme Being must exist. Thus his entire argument is based upon the foundation of logic in order to prove God’s existence. Similarly Descartes would have also disagreed with this statement as he felt it was as logically necessary for God to exist in the same way that it was logically necessary for triangles...
Words: 350 - Pages: 2
...argument argues the existence of a first cause, God, from a posteriori and priori premise. It argues that the universe is contingent and therefore requires a cause, as nothing is the cause of itself. This is known as redicto- ad- absurdum. The argument is backed up by the five ways put forward by the 12th century theologian and philosopher, St Thomas Aquinas. In the 12th century, St Thomas Aquinas put forward 5 ways to prove the existence of God in his book “Summa Theologica”. Aquinas’s five ways to prove the existence of God are based on the work of Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, whose work was later translated in Arabic, by Muslim philosophers Al- Kindi and Al- Ghazali, and then translated into Latin. I will be examining three of Aquinas’ ways, uncaused cause, unmoved mover and necessary being. As well as examining these three ways to prove the existence of God, I will be looking at their supporters and critics. Aquinas’ 1st way to prove the existence of God was the uncaused cause also known as the first cause. Aquinas considers the world in terms of “cause and effect” which means that without a cause there is no effect. Everything in the universe has a cause. Human beings have a cause (their parents) too. Aquinas argued that we could follow the chain of “cause and effect” all the way back, but there cannot be an infinite chain. There must be an uncaused cause, which causes everything to happen without itself being caused. This uncaused cause is God. God does not require...
Words: 1140 - Pages: 5
... Kuykendall 5 May 3, 2015 McCloskey Response Paper “On Being an Atheist” Does God Exist? That is the question we face! For many years Theists and Atheist have debated this question for many years along with their central views and beliefs that we as human being rely on as it relates to Life and God. The Point of views and debates center around the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological argument (argument from Design) and the most debated argument as it relates to this topic called the Problem with evil? When questioning wither or not God Exist these traditional arguments play significant roles in investigating and proving or discrediting someone’s view or stance on this specific Philosophical belief. As you read McCloskey article “On Being an Atheist” he argues the Theist stance who believe in the Existence of God from the perspective view of an Atheist. McCloskey in writing this Article is not trying to discredit their belief in the Existence of God, but to raise questions, doubts and uncertainties concerning their arguments on which they stand on to prove their belief by ultimately concluding that the Theist arguments are not valid and should be disregarded as evidence to prove their belief in the existence of God. The problem with McCloskey argument against the argument of Theistic View is the Theist argument is not to literally prove their belief concretely on the existence of God, but there view is design to give us what is called “Best Explanation”. According to...
Words: 2421 - Pages: 10
