He also says there are a chain of causes and effects leading back to the beginning of the Universe. He did not believe in infinite regress, and so, for him, there had to be a first cause, and that first cause has to be God. Aquinas’ Cosmological argument has many positive points which could be used to prove the existence of God, and his argument is both logical and convincing. However, I believe there are some major flaws within it, and I hope to use these flaws to show that Aquinas’ Cosmological argument does not prove the existence of a God. The first point to Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological argument is about Motion.
He then goes on to say that it is always greater to exist in reality (in re) than just in the mind (in intellectu). The last part logically concludes that if there is no greater being than God, then God must exist in both the mind and reality. If God was to only exist in in our thoughts and not in reality then we would be able to think of a greater being, e.g. the prime minister because he exists in both reality and our minds. But because it’s impossible to conceive a greater being that God he must exist in both reality and our minds.
According to him, there must be as much reality or perfection in the cause of anything as in the effect. Moreover, he believed that the notion of God represents something so ideal that he could not have been the cause of this idea. I believe that Descartes arguments are not really such convincing because of the following reasons which I would like to point out. We may all come to this point and consider that we all exist; however, it’s not completely true because Descartes had an idea of the perfect being in his mind, but I surely don't have such an idea. Now what am I to believe?
Although, these three arguments all agree in the way that they use unfound assumptions to prove what has yet to be proven; they do disagree on the studies of how to prove what really is God. The ontological argument believes that God is a “being”. The cosmological argument believes that God is “the universe”. Then there is the design argument which needs evidence to prove that there is a God. The Ontological argument seeks to prove that God does exist by proving, that He cannot not exist.
To what extent is the omnipotence of God a logically coherent concept? (35) The concept of omnipotence and God is not easily understood; the term refers to the notion that God is all-powerful and supreme. For some this concept of God being omnipotent is logically coherent, but for others it is not. For instance, saying God is all-powerful suggests that God can do anything. But one scenario raised by Michael Dummett is can God change the past?
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.
God Proofs To what extent does Anselm’s Ontological argument prove the existence of God? One of the great philosophical debates concerns the existence of God. God, by scientific standards, can never be proven to exist. He is, in all sense of the word, larger than life. However, there are so many mysteries in the world that science cannot explain that many people believe something, a much larger force, must be behind it.
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.
Explain Anselms ontological argument Part A The ontological argument is used as a rational explanation to support the existence of God. Anselms ontological argument is known as a “classic “explanation of the ontological argument and is used widely to support the existence of God. The ontological argument is a priori argument meaning that theories are developed to prove the existence of God using nothing but intellectual insight and reason: it does not depend upon our experience of the world to be verified. Anselm defines God by saying God is that “which nothing greater can be conceived.” A way to simplify this explanation is thinking of God as being the greatest thing there can be, i.e. defining God as maximal perfection, there literally cannot be anything greater than God as God is the greatest thing that can possibly exist.
Assess how far the cosmological argument proves that God exists (15 mark) Russell opposed to the cosmological argument as evidence for the existence of God. He added that Copleston was making a fallacy of composition, just because humans have a mother it does not mean the universe had to have a mother. The universe does not have to have a beginning. Russell is supporting the possibility of infinite regress or suggested that there may be no explanation for the universe. The universe may have always existed and that this is a 'brute fact'.