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. As a result, many theologians have attempted to prove the existence of God. One of the strongest arguments for the existence of God is the Ontological position. Ontological arguments are “derived from some source, other than observation of the world, so from reason alone.” The first and best-known Ontological argument for the existence of God was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th Century. Anselm’s argument is based on the idea that anyone who hears about God or thinks about God, has an idea of who God is.
The universe may have always existed and that this is a 'brute fact'. However, supporters of the cosmological argument use the Big Bang theory as a scientific explanation for the existence of God. Scientific explanation has confirmed that there was a beginning to the universe,
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.
The Ontological argument seeks to prove that God does exist by proving, that He cannot not exist. The ontological argument is that God, being defined as most great or perfect, must exist; a God who exists is greater than a God who does not. The cosmological argument is a branch of astronomy involving the origin and evolution of the universe. Astronomy deals with individual objects and phenomena or collections of
The roles of the PM are linked to the roles of god but the 2 must not be confused. As the PM is transcendent he cannot interact with the human world as he is the greater entity. Aristotle’s concept of the Prime Mover found its way into the medieval theology of Thomas Aquinas and his cosmological proof for the existence of God. Likewise, Aristotle’s teleological arguments found their way into Aquinas’ Natural Law. An accidental universe is as likely as a caused one There are many modern scientific theories that attempt to grasp why the universe is here, who put it here and who created everything in it.
Paley believed that no one else would have been intelligent enough to create the order and complexity of the universe. Aquinas also argues the point that the order and purpose of the world proves that there must be a designer behind it. He believed that God was the answer to the unexplainable and that all natural bodies act for an end. An example for
An Examination of the Teleological Argument Its Criticisms and Its Evolution into Modern Times Jonathan Margulis PHIL100 0204 One of the most important questions argued over the ages by philosophers is of the existence of G-d. Nothing is so critical to human history than G-d and religion. This argument has seen bloodshed and death, while man argues with each other about the existence of a superior being that controls the universe, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent G-d. There have been many proponents who argue that G-d exists. Notable philosophers include, Saint Anslem and William Paley, who both argued the existence of G-d. Saint Anslem in his Ontological Argument writes several reasons for the existence.
To have faith in someone on past knowledge, according to McCloskey, is reasonable however; it is unreasonable to have faith in God as we have no past knowledge of God. Theists base their knowledge of God on the revelations that He has given us, the Bible, and the
For example, it appears that electrons can pass out of existence at one point and come back into existence elsewhere. One can neither trace their intermediate existence nor determine what causes them to come into existence at one point rather than another. Neither can one precisely determine or predict where they will reappear; their subsequent location is only statistically probable given what we know about their antecedent states. Hence, “quantum-mechanical considerations show that the causal proposition is limited in its application, if applicable at all, and consequently that a probabilistic argument for a cause of the Big Bang cannot go through” (Smith, in Craig and Smith, 1993, 121–23,
After reading both arguments I concluded that it is very hard to come to any conclusion about the origin of the universe and the world. Both arguments in my opinion are inductive arguments about religion, the origin and Nature of God and the universe. It’s like these are things that can never be proven true and absolute. Paley attempts to prove with his arguments that God is in fact the designer and creator of the universe. I agree with him.