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.
‘The universe needs no explanation.’ Discuss. (10 marks) Christian philosopher St Thomas Aquinas would have disagreed with this statement as he was the one that put the cosmological argument forward which questions the universe and how it came into existence. Aquinas would have maintained his view as he believes that everything that is in motion has been caused by something else and he believes that this something else is God. He also claims that God is the first cause as he is the one that caused the universe to come into existence and continues to keep it in motion. He would continue to disagree with this statement because he claimed that because everything in the universe is contingent, it must mean that the universe as a whole must have a cause behind it.
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. The world is the real or imagined of individual objects, and none of these have the reason or cause of there existence and they depend of other causes. The universes explanation therefore must be eternal and self explanatory to be complete, necessary being - God and he is his own sufficient cause. Copleston redeveloped Aquinas’ argument by concentrating on contingency: 1)There are things in this world that are
The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God [Your Name] [Course] [Instructor] August 1, 2011 The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God The ontological argument is based on logic and reason and not observance of the physical world. “Deductive arguments or ‘ontological proofs’ offered for or against the existence of God claim that belief in God is either necessary or absurd from the very nature of things. If one starts with the right premises and definitions, one is led by the inexorable processes of logic toward a necessary conclusion. The problem, of course, is that the premises and definitions that theists and non-theists want to use are rarely indubitable, and like the contexts required for interpreting inductive evidence, these premises and definitions inevitably involve assumptions about God or the world which are already in line with the conclusion one wishes to draw.” (Crutcher, 2010). Onotological Argument for the Existence of God Fails St. Anselm was the first to present an ontological proof of the existence of God.
He argued that if people speak equivocally about God, then it cannot profess to know anything about him as it is saying that the language we use to describe humans or the experienced world around us, doesn’t apply to God. Aquinas believed that there
The first of these give ways make similar points based on the idea that infinite regression is not possible; there must have been one thing that started off everything that happened. Aquinas argues that this must be God. The first way is an argument for an ‘Unmoved Mover’. Here, Aquinas claims that everything in the world is in a constant state of change or ‘motion.’ He goes on to argue that something cannot be both potentially and actually the same thing; a cup of boiling tea could not be both hot and potentially hot, though it could be potentially cold and actually hot. By this logic, everything which is ‘in a state of movement’ must have been put into this state by a different object.
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, Descartes considers the possibility of the existence of God, and what precisely that would entail. (Beyssade) Descartes starts by pointing out that in order for any effect to occur, its cause must be in possession of the effect itself or at least an equal amount of ‘reality’. From this he concludes that “It follows from this both that something cannot arise from nothing, and also that what is more perfect – that is, contains in itself more reality – cannot arise from what is less perfect.” (Baird and Kaufmann 32) His example here is that a rock cannot be created by anything that does not contain
Overall, I believe that Aquinas’ 3 ways are not very convincing as a proof of the existence of God. The different ways in which Aquinas try to prove the existence of God just make it either impossible for there not to be a God, which rejects any other ideas or, they make misleading assumptions that are not justified. My first reason for believing that Aquinas’ 3 ways are not very convincing is the 2nd way – from Cause. David Hume argues that you cannot see, hear or use any of your senses to see a cause. You cannot see a cause only two things happening in conjunction with one another.
Not only are the events around humans out of their control, their very thoughts and feelings are determined separately from any free will that they might possess. The concept of determinism must be separated from pre-determinism, a religious concept that states that the entire past and future was determined during the universe’s birth. Some people believe that one cause (usually thought to be God) was the start of a chain of events, where each link is in turn the cause for the next events in said chain. Some believe that the mind and body have different circumstances when it comes to determinism of the mind and determinism of the body. This is called mind/body dualism (The History of the Free Will Problem).
The first way is based around Motion describing whatever that is in motion there must be something else behind it. Therefore it cannot be going back infinity there must be an unmoved action which started off without having cause and the only solution to the unmoved action is God. The second way is based on cause which is saying that nothing can cause its self it doesn’t exist without being caused. To find the right cause that started everything we cannot go infinity to find the main cause and if nothing can cause it’s self there must be an uncaused cause and the cause is God because God is the beginning and the end of everything. The third way is the contingency of the matter in the universe, explaining that there must be a being or something that brought everything into existence.