Since nothing can move of its own accord, and nothing can change itself, there had to be something else which has no cause and had the ability to initiate the Universe. Aquinas said that this entity without a cause and the power to create a Universe had to be an ‘Unmoved Mover/ Prime Mover’. He surmised that this Prime Mover had to be God. This argument has some positive points, in the fact that the natural occurrence of movement plus change have been brought into it, which makes the argument seem valid and plausible. However,
i) The teleological argument comes from the Greek word ‘telos’, which means end or purpose. The teleological argument argues that the existence and the complexity of the universe including the order, beauty and purpose of the world cannot be an accident. Therefore, an intelligent and purposeful God must have designed the universe; therefore, this proves Gods existence. There are two forms of the design argument; the first is the analogical argument, which includes the parts of the universe and human design. The second is the inductive argument.
Explain Anselm’s ontological argument ‘Ontos’ means being or existence in Greek and’ locos’ means rational account, telling us that the ontological argument is a rational account of existence. The ontological argument starts with the concept of God and an a priori definition of God. This means it is based on assumption that something is true. This makes it a deductive argument, meaning it is based on a premise and shown to be logically true. For example, we know all bachelors are single men, john is a bachelor therefore we reason that john is male.
Therefore, there must have existed a first mover independent of anything else, this being God – the prime mover. The Kalam cosmological argument is an Islamic argument that tries to prove there is a cause for the existence of the world. It believes that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist therefore; the universe has a cause for its existence. The Muslims who initiated the kalam cosmological argument believe that it is obvious that God is the cause for the universe and so they do not look for evidence instead they believe God simply is the answer.
Omniscience refers to God’s unlimited knowledge which includes the knowledge of the past, present and future. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all believe claim that omniscience is a coherent concept, believing that God is omniscient alongside the belief that humans are morally responsible for some of their actions at the least. They believe that people have a free choice as to what they do when faced with a dilemma; that God does not force them into a certain decision but leaves humans to choose, which in turn leaves humans alone responsible for their actions. Thomas Aquinas suggested that the knowledge God possessed was not physical, he argued that humans gain knowledge through their bodies, such as taste, but this does not mean that knowledge itself is physical. We are able to know that the square root of 9 is 3, but a square root is not a physical thing, we cannot hold it, this however does not stop us from knowing what a square root is.
This thing starting the motion or change could be equated to God when comparing the domino analogy to Aquinas’ argument. Aquinas’ second way of arguing for the existence of God is causation. He argues that everything must be caused by something as nothing can cause itself (this would mean that it existed before it began, which is impossible). This must therefore mean that there is a first cause, a force that was the initial cause, not depending on anything else to come into existence, to be caused, implying that it caused itself. This means that there must be a
He therefore comes to the conclusion that there must be a first mover that was not put in motion by something else, and states that this unmoved mover is understood to be God. God is therefore purely in an actual state. The second argument is very similar to the first one which is why they are so often grouped together. Aquinas states that nothing causes itself, and that all efficient causes follow an order however this cannot go on to infinity as there would be no first efficient cause. He therefore concludes that a first uncaused cause is necessary and this cause we know as God.
If you don't think that Descartes actually believes in God defend your position. Rene Descartes, a French philosopher, scientist, mathematician and writer, also known as Renatus Cartesius. He has honored as a Father of Modern Philosophy because of his writing which has still been considering by today’s modern world. As Descartes proved the existence of God, his argument for the existence of God was a perfect being. According to him, there must be as much reality or perfection in the cause of anything as in the effect.
Aquinas’ version was arguing from design qua regularity. He believed the world has to be designed because of the overall order of the universe that couldn’t have come about by itself or by chance, so therefore an intelligent being must have set in place, and the being must be God. In contrast, Paley believes someone designed the world because everything
Furthermore, Natural Moral Law is absolute in its nature because it allows no exceptions to its rules and can be applied universally. Aristotle believed ultimate happiness (known as eudemonia in Ancient Greece) to be the aim of life, Aquinas developed this idea though, claiming this was achieved through eternal fellowship with God and ‘beatific vision’. He postulated that the application of Natural Moral Law in our lives was the way in which we could achieve this ultimate goal of ultimate happiness. Aquinas identified four laws by which humans live; his general definition of law is “a rule put into place by one who has care of the community”. The lowest level of law, according to Aquinas is human law; the law created by us and abided by in everyday life in order to from a recognisable structure in society.