St. Thomas Aquinas's Argument Analysis

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

St. Anselm and Descartes are known for presenting the first ontological arguments on the existence of God. The word ontological is a compound word derived from ‘ont’ which means exists or being and ‘–ology’ which means the study of. Even though Anselm and Descartes’ arguments differ slightly, they both stem from the same reasoning. Unlike the other two arguments on God’s existence (teleological and cosmological), the ontological argument does not seek to use any empirical evidence but rather concentrates on pure reason. The rationale behind this school of thought

God cannot be the creator of evil if he is all good. If he is all good and powerful and he did create evil, then why does he not get rid of

Anselm delivered the first known ontological argument in a prayer. He claimed, 1) God exists in the understanding, 2) good might have existed in reality, 3) if something exists only in the understanding, then it is possible for it to be greater, 4) suppose God exists only in the understanding, 5) God might have been greater than it is, and 6) the greatest possible being could have been greater. There is a contradiction between #4 and #6. Guanilo counters Anselm’s argument by demonstrating that one could substitute different words with God and make absurd claims. For instance, he substitutes God for

Existence is something that can be imagined and therefore is false and a fallacy. How does Descartes really know he exists maybe he is just imaging it all and that his premises behind the existence of God are fake as well. If someone exist then they must have been born which would mean that Descartes parents where the ones who brought him into existence, and their parents brought them in to existence and so on and so on. This would mean that God did not create Descartes existence but that someone way far down the chain of human existence started it

Mankind should not act as gods In the world of Oryx and Crake there is a conflict between nature and mankind. The book is not just filled with conflict between these two. It also portrays the conflict of god and his creation, mankind. The created wants to play the part of creator.

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.            

Then we look at the second argument of Aquinas, The Argument of Causation- everything that is caused has to be caused by something else, there cannot be an infinite number of causes, and same as argument number one that must mean there is a God since all effects have causes. The Argument from Contingency asks if everything already exists contingently has a reason to do so, does the universe exists for a reason and if the universe has a reason for its existence that that reason must be God. The Aquinas fourth argument the Argument from Degrees Aquinas says in order to compare two things in the terms of good or bad, we must have something to compare it to, this would have to be an absolutely perfect thing aka God. Aquinas’ fifth and final argument is The Teleological Argument-

Again, Paul did not need to offer technical arguments. Simply observing the universe should convince people of God 's existence and that He is a powerful, living God. Some people may ask that who was the

One example that can be used by an

These two historical but sacred pieces of writing also happen to show that there is an explicit conflict between religion and science. The Old Testament shows this as displaying the fact that a supernatural being created the natural world. According to Frederick Seller, this supernatural being acts “frequently to intervene in his creation, to make things act in contradiction to their natures.” The New Testament says that it is unscientific and that the world was created by a causally impossible events or miracles. Two examples of these miracles are Mary giving birth as a virgin and Jesus walking on water.

At the beginning of the article, Mackie states that the initial issue with God’s existence is that, “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, Paragraph 3). If god is such a pure and good being, then he should be able to combat all evil. The first statement that showcases that God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, then evil cannot possibly exist. The definition of omnipotent is

In this paper, I will begin by stating the Problem of Evil. Following this I will include two objections to the argument and why I find the argument to not be convincing. The Problem of Evil is an argument concerning the existence of God and why God cannot exist because of the presence of evil in the world. The argument begins by saying that God is both all-powerful and wholly good, and that evil exists in the world. However, these statements contradict each other, so all three cannot be true.

From this it is then reasonable to conclude that this causality was set in motion by a supreme being which is God. This argument answers the question of whether or not there is a God far better than the intelligent design arguments of William Paley. For, Paley’s argument easily invalidated by modern science because it argues that simply because there are complex features that can’t be explained by nature and that there are further complex forms in the universe then there must be a God who created the

Why would such a loving God permit such evil? : This is the question that has been haunting philosophers and theologians for centuries. It seemingly does not make sense for an all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful God to permit the evils that exist in this world. While many arguments are insufficient in explaining God’s permittance of evil, certain beliefs from those arguments may be combined to create a clearer explanation for this seemingly illogical notion. Cleaerly, God must have created evil for a specific purpose.