These arguments never get to any particular God. They have all established that the existence can be described by itself; none of this even implies a deity, or a universal consciousness. When you start by rejecting the presumption of a God, all the arguments fall flat on their face. What these three arguments are, are thesis trying to defend the indefensible. 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 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.
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'.
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.
For the notion (a), though scientific evidences, such as the Big Bang Theory, suggest the “space-time” universe began to exist a finite time ago, but they may not be persuasive enough to show that the world truly had a beginning. For the notion (b), Mathematical equation “1+1=2” and logical principle “if P then P” are examples of non-physical things, and the relationship between God and other non-physical things becomes tricky. They seem eternal and it’s not very plausible to say that they began to exist at the Big Bang. They seem to be independent from God’s creation. Thus it’s problematic to claim that God is responsible for everything in such kind of universe.
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,
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.
His First Way is based on motion, which, according to Aquinas, does not only include movement from one place to another but also the change of quantity and quality. Aquinas thought that al things within the universe are in motion and that an object only moved when an external force was applied to it, or in other words, nothing can move itself. However, he also firmly believed that this chain of movement or changes could not go back to infinity. According to him, infinite regress was an impossibility. Since nothing can move itself, he concluded that there must be a Prime Mover, a so-called first mover, which itself was unmoved.
On one hand you have the philosophers who believe you can speak and write about God, because God is reality. On the other hand, are the Logical Positivists who claim that statements about God have no meaning because they don’t relate to anything that is real. There are a number of philosophers who claimed to have proven conclusively that religious language is meaningful, for example Aquinas’ theory of analogy. An analogy is an attempt to explain the meaning of something which is difficult to understand and forming relations through attributes or relations that are similar. Aquinas rejected univocal and equivocal language when talking about God.
Christians could argue that they believe Jesus was still the Messiah and everything he stood for is what they believe in but maybe the authenticity of miracles today can be questioned as there is no Jesus around to prove them being performed by a Deity just as the definition says there should be. So believing in miracles would be hard to do because there is no proof because Christians just have to believe what the Bible says and can not question it even though there is no proof of miracles other than what the Bible says. It would be hard for Christians to believe in miracles because there is no evidence that supports them… (The Bible can’t be classed as evidence because it has no proof it’s real and could be a fictional book) But Christians would have to believe in them because if they disagree that would be sort of going against the belief of Jesus. I think Christians don’t have a choice and have to believe in miracles otherwise they’re going