We can stop to think about what we can physically do as humans and consider that God made us from dirt to believe there is a God. This idea in regards to the proof that there is a God who he created us. One could say it is our human nature to wrestle with the fact that God does not exist or not because it is who we are as humans to think that God does not exist. There are great philosophers such as Aristotle and Agustin who try their hardest to prove that God does not exist. Subsequently, on the Big Bang theory, some people who were genuinely disturbed, such as Einstein, who wrote privately, "This circumstance of an expanding universe irritates me…
The fact is that God transcends our mental capacities and he controls our comprehension in all spheres of life (Noone, 2009). In line with Foreman's Presentation, concerning "Approaching the Question of God's Existence," one can argue that the ideas of McCloskey in interpreting cosmological and teleological arguments are based on a wrong hypothesis. On the Cosmological Argument, the existence of God has been a reality, whether the creator was a being or a thing. The existence of the universe is not enough to validate the existence of God.
When discussing the philosophy of God’s plausible existence, several well composed arguments are presented, from Anselm’s Ontological Argument based the definition of God, to the Teleolgical argument grounded in the idea that a complex creation demands an intelligent creator; additionally, many debate that there is no need for a rational explanation as we are required in the nature of belief to take ‘leap of a faith’ regarding the existence of God. While each side offers valuable insight into this dilemma, I would argue that neither fully proves the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God. However, as I will discuss in the rest of the paper, the Teleolgical Argument and Kierkengaard’s faith eliminates dread argument when combined can reasonably provide evidence for the existence of God.
Here, it seems to me that Descartes is implying the second half of the Cartesian circle, that God existence forces him to think that is distinctly and clearly
However, I cannot completely agree with either point of view concerning God’s power. According to Hick’s theory God is, was, and always will be all powerful, but the Process-Relational Theory suggests that God though a very powerful being, He is not all powerful. Both suggest that evil exists either because of God’s awesome power or due to the lack of that power. As a Christian it is easy to agree with John Hick’s arguments that God is all knowing and all good but can the belief that God is all powerful hold its own in a world full of evil. If he is all good why would he not use his bounty of power to rid the world of evil?
Anselm’s argument is based on this known definition of the concept of God alone. Descartes’ argument for the existence of God is based on his foundation of knowledge, logic. Humans have the idea in their minds of infinite perfection. Humans also have the idea of themselves as inferior to this idea as imperfect. For humans to have the idea of infinite perfection, there must be truth in the reason for them having this idea.
Critical Analyses of St. Anselm’s argument for the Existence of God and Douglas Gasking’s argument for the Non-Existence of God. Arguments against St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God St. Anselm begins with a definition of God, argues that an existent God is superior to a non-existent God and concludes that God must exist in reality, for his non-existence would contradict the definition of God itself. The argument does not seem plausible to an unbiased person, even at the very first reading. It seems as if not all aspects of the question under scrutiny have been considered.
These arguments intend to determine God’s existence mostly through logic and non-aligned to experience. Anselm’s argument is founded on the belief that God exists in the mind, and thus it is probable for God to exist in reality. According to this claim, something that exists in the mind and can also possibly exist in reality is something greater than it is (Malcolm, 1960). In this case, Anselm contends that God cannot only exist in the mind, but it is possible that he also exists in reality since God is the greatest possible thing. However, there are some other philosophers, including Immanuel Kant, who object this argument, disputing facts about the existence of God.
Science represents facts and religion represents values. Each has a specific domain of teaching authority without affecting the other.1Richard Dawkins has criticized Gould's position on the grounds that religion is not and cannot be divorced from scientific matters or the material world. He writes, "it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference.
In his 1802 work Natural Theology, William Paley attempts to logically prove that God exists and created the universe, known the Intelligent Design argument (Himma). In this argument, he states that the universe is like a watch in three relevant aspects, complexity, regularity, and purpose. Because of this, he says, we know that a watch has a creator, therefore the universe must also have a creator. However, I believe that this argument is flawed because I think the analogy does not work on two of these counts, regularity, and purpose. I also believe that Paley uses circular logic to explain his definition of purpose.
Holy person Thomas Aquinas was an Italian Dominican monk, Catholic priest, and Doctor of the Church. He was a massively persuasive philosopher, theologian, and jurist in the custom of scholasticism, within which he is called the Doctor Angelicus and the Doctor Communes. He believed in god and proved the existence of god with different argument like motion, efficient cause, design and possibility and necessity. I personally liked the design form of argument.
Philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas attempted to justify god’s existence through the study of the cosmos. With this argument, Aquinas borrowed many ideas from the philosopher Aristotle, which actually influenced some of his key parts. Aquinas offers five proofs to god existence in two of his works. Two out of the five are used in the cosmological argument for god’s existence. This cosmological argument is based on the observation of the physical world, which includes the cosmos.
After reading The Teleological Argument, William Paley’s conclusion is straightforward and can be stated in just two words: God exists. His entire argument is based on a watch and is used as a means to prove God’s existence. As simple as a watch may seem, Paley describes its complexity and claims that a higher power had to have created its intelligent design. But how does he know that God designed the watch and a man didn’t? Paley argues that we have never seen a watch been made and that we are all incapable of designing something so unique and intelligent; therefore, we can conclude that something greater than us must have created it.
All of the philosophers that we've studied so far have made some valid arguments concerning the existence, or non-existence of God. If I had to be swayed by an opinion for God's existence, or non-existence it would have to be by William Paley's argument. Paley's analogy is strong because of his metaphor of the watch to explain the universe and the existence of an intelligent designer. The weak part of this analogy is that the watchmaker as evidence can be produced in the physical form; the universe maker as evidence cannot be produced in physical form.
This assignment will discuss the shared idea of existence and causation within Goldstein’s argument and Aquinas’ argument, as well as the vague idea of God that both philosophers conclude exists. Both philosophers argue that something cannot be the cause of itself and that there must be cause of the universe or a “first cause”. This is a virtue of the general cosmological argument and establishes . Aquinas (Oppy & Scott 2010, p.83) proposes that a self-caused cause is impossible since an event cannot precede itself. This assumes that time is linear.