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,
Thus it’s problematic to claim that God is responsible for everything in such kind of universe. Another argument emphasizes the impossibility of an infinite number of past events. If the universe didn’t have a beginning, then there is an infinite number of past events up to now. As an infinite set should be unaffected by addition or subtraction of one, the past history should be unaffected if we add or remove some events. Yet it’s not plausible to say, for example, the history remains the same if we remove all the wars.
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?
Anselm (1033–1109) had opposed an Ontological Argument that one understands God as a being and cannot conceive anything greater because God cannot be understood not to exist. On the other hand, another philosopher named Gaunilo objected Anselm’s Ontological Argument by suggesting that the same style of argument can be used to prove the existence of other entities, such as the idea of a greatest possible island. Although this may be the case, Anselm never got the opportunity to plead his case against Gaunilo’s objection. However, there are numerous biblical evidence to help support Anselm’s argument. Anselm’s Ontological Argument states that one understands that God, as a being, cannot be conceived a greater.
Copleston put forward a defines with was based on some ideas of the third way of Aquinas’ ways. Russell disagreed with Copleston’s argument and suggested that the universe was not explainable in the way Copleston described. In their debate was the issue of contingency and necessity and a reason to explain why anything exists. Copleston explained Leibniz’s “Principle of Sufficient Reason”, which is the claim that there has to be a full explanation for everything. There are things in the world that do not have the reason or cause of their existence, this mean that some things in the world are contingent - they might have no existed.
But because it’s impossible to conceive a greater being that God he must exist in both reality and our minds. In Anselm’s view only a fool can therefore doubt the existence of God, because the ‘fool’ has the idea of God in their mind to doubt him,
One of these is it has been significantly more of a challenge to demonstrate that God is not possible. An example of this would be that God is said to have extraordinary power which is omnipotence, but however can God create a triangle with 4 sides, or can he make a round square? This is raising the question of is can God ‘simply’ defy basic rules of logic… The theist under this explanation of God would reply that God is only omnipotent to the greatest possible extent therefore this theist could respond by claiming that God simply cannot do what is logically
A teleological or design argument[1][2][3] is an a posteriori argument for the existence of God based on apparent design and purpose in the universe. The argument is based on an interpretation of teleology wherein purpose and design appear to exist in nature beyond the scope of any such human activities. The teleological argument suggests that, given this premise, the existence of a designer can be assumed, typically presented as God. Various concepts of teleology originated in ancient philosophy and theology. Some philosophers, such as Plato, proposed a divine Artificer as the designer; others, including Aristotle, rejected that conclusion in favor of a more naturalistic teleology.
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.