An Examination Into The Respective Proofs Of St. Aquinas

Both of these proofs of God’s existence are not convincing since they are founded on arguments that can be challenged. The method used by Descartes to

The arguments made by Aquinas at first seem to be powerful. However, when examining and taking a closer look the arguments don’t seem to be as

Aquinas sets up this argument in his discussion of whether or not God exists. His five proofs set up the framework for much of his later writings in the Summa

The philosophers Anselm, Guanilo, and Thomas Aquinas, debate in order to confirm the proof of the existence of God. Anselm, the first philosopher, makes his claim by comparing a painter's idea of their painting to the existence of God, his point is the art has always existed just as God. Guanilo disagrees with Anselm claim by calling Anselm a fool. Some Christians would disagree with Anselm with the reason that someone cannot compare the existence of God to a painter's artwork for the reason that they are not the same. The painting is more similar to God's created creation, but should not be a comparison to the existence of God.

Some people might say that proof of God's existence empty of concept. Others, that God's existence can not be rationally justified and acceptance of creator, no less than that of a Savior is a matter of Faith. But I agree with Anthony Kenny who wrote "… a valid philosophical proof of God's existence would be sufficient, though not a necessary, condition for the possibility of a rational acceptance of theism…" That is why I would like to examine the five ways introduced by St. Thomas.

St. Anselm begins his argument by saying that God is the one that grant the ability of understanding to faith, in which an understanding insofar that has been very beneficial to him. He added that an understanding which he believes God is in fact what he believes to be. Thus, with that understanding leads to the rationale of the notion of something greater to be thought exist is an unconscionable. Anselm’s argument stresses the perspectives which to purport by presenting to those who deny the existence of God as the greatest being is self-contradictory. Therefore, the point of his argument, it is essentially crucial to realized that such a being exist. The “ontological argument by St. Anselm “is the most compelling and fascinating argument

Descartes’ method offers definitive conclusions on certain topics, (his existence, the existence of God)but his reasoning is not without error. He uses three arguments to prove existence (His and God’s) that attempt to solidify his conclusions. For his method to function seamlessly, Descartes needs to be consistent in his use of the method, that is, he must continue to doubt and challenge thoughts that originate in his own mind. He is unable to achieve this ideal state of mind, however, and his proofs are shown to be faulty.

While quite a bit of Aquinas framework is worried about uncommon disclosure—the principle of the Incarnation of God's Word in Jesus Christ—the Five Ways are cases of characteristic religious philosophy (Vidali, 2017). The arguments are known as argument from motion, argument from efficient cause, argument from necessary being, argument from gradations of goodness, and argument from design (Lander University, 2012). The argument that has caught my attention and goes with my beliefs is the argument from gradations of goodness. Aquinas' fourth argument is that from degrees of goodness. Everything display more noteworthy or lesser degrees of goodness.

The debate of the existence of God had been active since before the first philosopher has pondered the question. Anselm’s Ontological Argument was introduced during the 11th century and had stood deductively valid until the 18th century. Then there are the arguments to aim disprove God, such as the Argument from Evil.

Aquinas' second proof is similar to his first in that it relates to cause and effect. St. Thomas reasoned that in a world of order there is an order to all cause and effect. And , since there is a cause for the existence of all things there must be a cause that caused all things and had no cause itself. He points out that nothing in creation existed prior to itself and the causality cannot be traced back infinitely. If the efficient or first cause did not exist then nothing would exist. That first or efficient cause is God.

In the book, The Proslogion, written by Saint Anselm, we find the Ontological Argument. This argument made by Saint Anselm gives us proofs that he believes helps prove the existence of God. Anselm gives many reasons as to why the simple understanding of God can help prove that God himself exists, as well as mentioning how the idea of God cannot be thought not to exist. Though this argument has been looked at by people such as Guanilo, a monk, whose response to Anselm 's proofs was trying to say that there were flaws, there are more reasons as to why Anselm 's proofs work well with his argument. From the understanding of God existing, and the idea behind greatness Anselm 's argument is one that is strong and can work as a proof when trying

Without this premises his argument would fail. It must be agreed to, because it is a true statement. You do not have to believe in God in order to agree to these Premises. In agreeing to these first premises, St Anselm forces you to admit that God does exist in reality because his premises support his conclusion. St. Anselm's Theory is that if God is that which nothing greater can be conceived, the idea of God must exist, if only in the mind. To exist in reality is greater than existing in the mind (idea). Therefore God, being that which nothing greater can be conceived must exist in reality. All his premises support his conclusion, creating a valid and sound argument proving that God must exist.

I will be writing about St. Thomas Aquinas’s “Five ways” and William Paley’s “Teleological argument”. I will be looking into the difference between the two philosophers who both believe in God but have two different approaches on how they can both prove that God does exist. I would like to look deeper into the difference between the two and to see whose theory of Gods existence is more logical with the least arguments. I will be looking at two of Aquinas’s laws two and five,

Question:     Briefly summarize Aquinas’ Fifth Way of proving the existence of God. What counter-argument does Hume cite in answer to this argument from Design? What is John Hick’s answer to Hume’s argument from Evil? Is he right?

When St. Thomas wrote this section of his ground breaking essay what he ultimately was claiming, was that through philosophy and observation, there is a way to see how the natural world points to there in fact being a God. Although to some it may seem absurd, modern day science based upon observation and experimentation, does not completely discredit or debunk the first, second, third, and fifth arguments from St. Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways, but rather it suggests substantial evidential credibility, in regards to his theories on God’s existence.Concepts, theories, and laws drawn from the