...atheists like Hume who would 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...
Words: 337 - Pages: 2
...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
...foolish to pull out a dictionary and to try to prove to the person that makes such a claim that words exist. It is clear that He is, as we examined last month, suppressing a truth that is evident to all. He is a fool. He instead needs to be shown how foolish and contradictory such a claim is. It is self-refuting. You cannot claim that words do not exist without using them. This is what we must show this person to show them how ridiculous a statement this is. What do we say when someone says they do not believe in God? Do we respond in the same way? Not usually. Usually we respond by trying to give a list of evidences to the truth that God exists, when the Bible says that they already know that God exists. Instead, we should be responding with the same attitude that we would respond with if someone said they didn't believe in words. Just as the person who is suppressing the truth about the existence of words, so to is the one who claims that God does not exist. Remember what God says in Romans 1 (which we looked at last week)? Everyone is without excuse for rejecting the God they know exists. They are foolish for doing so. You cannot even make the argument that God does not exists unless God DOES exist, let alone prove it. This subject will be what we study today. I have titled this sermon, "Proof that God Exists." The proof that I will show this evening is not like the arguments that we would commonly hear people use to prove God exists, such as the Cosmological Argument, The...
Words: 3236 - Pages: 13
...itself as a whole. But many would say, as Russell later told Copleston: “Then I can only say that you’re looking for something which can’t be got, and which one ought not to expect to get.” If you have explained each individual element of a series any explanation of the series as a whole would seem to be superfluous, and besides he says that ‘the whole’ doesn’t really exist anyway – it is ‘an arbitrary act of mind’ that makes things into wholes. What we term the ‘whole universe’ in modern physics may be only a bubble in a larger reality that we have no way of grasping. Also if we are only entitled to talk about causes when we have had experience of them, then this argument would seem to be over-stretching itself in speculating upon what it cannot know. On the other hand, there is of course a problem with stopping at a certain point and saying that we should seek no further explanation, in that it is a basic presupposition of all scientific work. However, even though a principle of rationality is that we can find an explanation for things, it is not a logical requirement – there is no guarantee that there will be one. So, I think Hume significantly weakens forms of the argument that depend on the principle of sufficient reason. However, I think that Hume’s criticisms of a necessary being somewhat misunderstand what is meant by necessity in this case. Some have said that this argument arrives at a factually necessary...
Words: 2857 - Pages: 12
...Does God Exist? Descartes’ Arguments and Proofs Rene Descartes considers what he can be sure to be true in his Meditations on First Philosophy. His meditations cover a vast variety of areas: the nature of the mind and body, the senses, the essence and existence of material things; but of all of these topics, one of his most thought-provoking and fascinating meditations is that on the existence of God. His argument is fairly well stated, but it is not flawless in its reasoning and logic. Through explanation and analysis of his position, this paper will set out his belief on the existence of God, the importance of this argument to his overall position, and to discuss several of the problems in his reasoning. The first proof at which Descartes considers God is the in the third meditation. By this point, Descartes has already concluded that the only thing thus far that he can be sure of is that he exists as some sort of thinking thing. He has considered the existence of a malevolent spirit that has set out specifically to deceive him at every turn, which has the effect of rendering any other belief spurious at best. In the face of the possibility that something is deliberately setting out to deceive him, he is left only with the knowledge that he is a thinking thing. From there, we get into the third meditation, wherein Descartes considers the possibility of the existence of God, and what precisely that would entail. (Beyssade) Descartes starts by pointing out that in order...
Words: 1540 - Pages: 7
...arguing the existence of God, there are numerous teachings and arguments, some more rational than others, the classical arguments being the most well known to all. The claim in all these arguments uses a non-religious approach to logically reason the existence of God, rather than argue on the premise of faith to obtain a rational belief; a belief reasoning as justification. The classical arguments are divided into what is considered empirical and rational arguments, with every individual finding their own reasoning to relate to them. In this essay, I will explore the extent of how the classical arguments can proves God existence, and why some people counter-argue they cannot. The first of the classical arguments being Anselm’s Ontological argument, an argument attempting to prove God’s existence through abstract reasoning alone. The argument is entirely a priori as it does not include real evidence or anything factual, seeking to demonstrate that God exists based on the concept of God alone. The outline of the argument is that because we have an idea of God, an idea of a being which no greater can be thought, therefore God must exist. The argument relates to three concepts: the concept of God, perfection and of existence. The three concepts associate with one another, arguing that perfection is part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails existence, therefore the concept of God entails God’s existence. Anselm’s argument is set on the basis of a conception of God as “that...
Words: 2038 - Pages: 9
...of Jesus are matters that can be established through proper historical argumentation, even apart from any prior arguments for the existence of God. Instead of trying to prove the existence of God through some form of rational proof, the evidentialist attempts to prove the existence of God through the truth of scripture and then using that truth to prove the existence and nature of God. To do this the evidentialist has to successfully defend his understanding of past events and his interpretation of texts and historical theories and ideology. The evidentialist also assumes a shared view of experiences, scientific theories, and the general rules of logic when engaging a skeptic, and there has to be some shared study and common ground of the nature and philosophy with the unbeliever to have a meaningful discussion. One of the advantages of being an evidentialist you can argue both for theism and for Christian theism at the same time without recourse to an elaborate natural theology. For instance, you can begin by arguing for the historical factuality of Jesus resurrection and then argue that such an unusual event is explicable only if a being like the Christian God exist. Having established God's existence via Christ resurrection although miraculous, this then leads the evidentialist to show that Jesus resurrection also authenticates his claims to be God incarnate. The evidentialist...
Words: 1096 - Pages: 5
...Descartes’ Meditation 3 is a proof which attempts to provide evidence for the existence of God. Descartes gives this evidence through reasoning, starting out by describing how he comes to this conclusion of the existence of God. He does this by closing himself off mentally from the outside world, ignoring sight, hearing, and his other senses and looking deeply in himself (Cahn 496). This allows him to make an introspective look at God’s existence without the influences of another person. From this state, he organizes his thoughts and from his collective thoughts and reasoning, he deduces that God does exist due to his finite existence, a mere substance that is “not sufficient to explain my [Descartes] having the idea of an infinite substance, since I am finite, unless this idea proceeded from some substance which really was infinite” (Cahn 500) and the understanding that God is a substance that “is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent and supremely powerful” (Cahn 500). This basically means that since he should not be able to have the ability to think the way he does without either being an infinite being or having an infinite being put the thoughts into his head. This explanation appears to be extremely logical, but once it is analyzed several flaws in reasoning are picked up from the reading. I agree with most of Descartes reasoning on the existence of God, which I will clarify further, along with an explanation of the biggest...
Words: 789 - Pages: 4
...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
...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
...The Cosmological argument argues for the existence of God a posteriori based on the apparent order in the universe. For Aristotle, the existence of the universe needs an explanation, a cause, as it could not have come from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing so since there is something, there must have been some other thing that is its cause. Aristotle rules out an infinite progression of causes, so, that led to the conclusion that there must be a First Cause. Likewise with motion, there must have been a first cause; Aristotle calls this the ‘Prime Mover’. There is a God, says Aristotle -for how else does motion begin? Whilst this argument does generally offer some support for the existence of God, it does not prove his existence. Aquinas believed that, since the universe is God's creation, evidence of God's existence can be found in his creation using intellect and reason, as such a concept of God is beyond all direct human experience. Hence, he devised his 'Five Ways,' 5 a posteriori arguments for the existence of God, based on our empirical experience of the universe. The Cosmological argument rests on the first three of Aquinas' Five Ways. The first way is called the argument from motion or ‘change’. It is in this first way that Aquinas follows Aristotle’s ‘prime mover’ thesis. The first way (The 'Kalam' argument) follows as: • Everything in the world is moving or changing • Nothing can move or change by itself • There cannot be an infinite regress of things changing other...
Words: 949 - Pages: 4
...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
...Whether or not God exists is a debate that has been ongoing since the dawn of civilization. Although we might never be able to find a satisfying answer to the question, there have been multiple philosophers throughout time that have taken a worthwhile shot at it. One such philosopher was a monk from the 13th century by the name Of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas offers an argument in support of an existent god by pointing to what he calls efficient causation. The basis for this argument is that in a world where every reaction is caused by an action, there must be an original “push” of action to set the entire Universe into motion. This push, Aquinas says, is God. There are multiple ways to refute his reasoning, as well as multiple more in support...
Words: 1275 - Pages: 6
...true by definition, for example, 2+2=4 or a square has 4 sides. On the other hand, synthetic statements require verification to prove whether they're true or not, for example, if somebody says it is a cloudy day, you would have to look out your window to see that it is cloudy. An issue with the verification principle is that we make statements based on unverifiable opinion all the time. This means important ethical statements are regarded as meaningless as well. This means that it argues that the laws of science and historic statements are also meaningless as they too cannot be truly verifiable. The verification principle offers a challenge to belief because when we speak of God we need to be cautious because some may argue that we could portray god as anthropomorphic. The Verification Principle can also be seen as a challenge for religion because the verification principle states that something must be proven to be true or false (i.e. verifiable or falsifiable) for it to be meaningful. An atheist would argue that religions lack empirical evidence which is required to prove the existence of a God. Ayer's doubted the existence of a God due to this lack of evidence. This means that God cannot be verified, meaning religion is meaningless. For example, the Verification Principle would argue that phrases such as "prayer is wonderful" are meaningless as it cannot be verified. For a catholic, prayer can be a great experience. However, for an atheist, prayer would be...
Words: 647 - Pages: 3
...Beliefs According to the dictionary theology is defined as “the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity”. (Theology, n.d) The term theology derives from two Greek words when joined means “the study of God.” Theology studies focus on the nature of God and different religious beliefs. Whereas, philosophy focuses on the study or creation theories of the more simple things in life. The term philosophy is also derived from two words, which stands for love and wisdom. According to the dictionary philosophy is defined as “the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct”. (Philosophy, n.d) For example, thought and how we should live, and the existence of nature. So, basically theology is becoming familiarized with GOD and concentrating on how and when he functioned as he did. Philosophy, on the other hand, is focusing on the more expanded meanings and positions. Ethics is the study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy (Ethics, n.d). There are three schools when determining and understanding the process of ethics. The three schools of ethics are virtue, consequentialist, and deontological. Each of these schools holds importance but are nothing without the other. All three of these are needed to come to the best ethical decision. When talking about...
Words: 1000 - Pages: 4
