The Argument For God 's Existence And Nature

6.Which of the following most accurately describes what an appeal to precedent is? A. B. C. D. A type of inductive generalization A type of analogy A type of disjunctive syllogism A type of causal argument

Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica represents one of the most famous attempts to prove God's existence. Aquinas wrote at a time in which people began to develop skepticism concerning the existence of God. In this regard, it is instructive to position Aquinas

The argument of whether God does or doesn’t exist has been a popular philosophical topic and everyday topic around the world for many centuries. It is a very important concept that philosophers have been trying to grasp since the beginning of philosophy. Anselm and Hume both have arguments that give us reasons to believe whether God exists or doesn’t exist. In this paper, I will venture into Anselm’s ontological argument, Hume’s contra-ontological argument, and objections to both of these arguments.

Does God exist? This question has been in debate for centuries with many opposing views, some arising from philosophers on the same side while others refute Gods existence altogether. However for this particular paper I will be taking the best explanations approach. What I mean by this is I do not have proof of God’s existence but the existence of God is the best explanation for the universe around me. With this statement in mind we will discuss arguments in support of God’s existence as well as philosopher H.J McCloskey’s article On Being an Atheist.

The third argument Aquinas makes is that of possibility and necessity. This argument holds that everything in this world has possibility to be and not to be. If there is the possibility that everything at one time or another cannot be, then at one time there was nothing, because everything that could have been, wasn 't^(et if there was nothing at one time, then there was nothing that could be^and so there would still be nothing. Therefore, there had to be something that existed to cause all the possibilities

A large part of Philosophy is a priori and a posteriori arguments. “Indescribable” by Laura Story has a very great a posteriori theme.

In The Five Ways, from Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas gives the five ways in which an individual can prove that there is a God. In his arguments, Aquinas uses a posteriori and inductive arguments to help prove the existence of God. An a posteriori argument is an argument that uses statements that you cannot know through pure reason like the statement dogs are descendants of wolves. In contrast, an a priori argument is an argument that consist of statements you can know through pure reason like 2 is the square root of 4. Likewise, an inductive argument is an argument that is an attempt to provide premises that make likely the truth of the conclusion, which is used in Aquinas argument. In contrast, a deductive argument is an argument that attempts to provide premises that guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

For us to be the cause of ourselves we world have to exist before we existed besides this would be logically impossible. (We are the effect of our parents cause). He claimed for every effect there must be a cause. This leads to a long chain of causes and effects until we reach an ‘ultimate cause’ this can only be god. In Aquinas’s two ways his ideas are influenced from Aristotle’s awareness of a ‘prime mover’.

Aquinas could be stating that although he doesn’t know who or what the first cause was, there was a first cause. Aquinas could be stating to believe there was a first cause, even though unknown, because of the mere existence of nature, animals, and humans. Aquinas is stating that although ‘first cause’ is an unknown form, it did happen because the ‘first cause’ resulted in the physical world. In the aspect where Aquinas could be saying there had to be a first cause for the physical world to exist, then I believe his argument could be effective. Although his argument does not source who or what the ‘first cause’ is, his argument does at least acknowledge the existence of a first cause.

Since there is no visible proof of God, it is hard for people to believe. There are atheists, agnostics, skeptics, freethinkers, and many other types of non-believers. In contrast to these views, I will argue that there is a God. In fact, Thomas Aquinas tries to explain the existence of God through five arguments. My paper will argue this view by appealing to the five arguments that Thomas Aquinas has discussed in his Summa Theologiae.

Aquinas also forms an argument known as the design argument or the teleological argument which is a a posteriori. This is the concept that everything is directed towards an end and as inanimate objects have no rational powers then they must be directed to this purpose by some external power. William Paley supported Aquinas’ argument surrounding the idea of design, upon which he expanded further. Paley’s argument is known as the watch analogy. He said that if you were to find a watch upon the floor with all its intricate complicated parts, you would never argue that

Therefore anything that is in the process of changing cannot change itself so one thing is changed by another which in turn is changed by yet another (Clark, 122). Eventually, this stream of change has to stop somewhere or else there would be no first cause of change and consequently no subsequent causes. So when we come to the first cause that is not changed by anything else, Aquinas believed it is what we understand to be God (Clark, 122-123).

In Descartes’ meditations, Descartes begins what Bernard Williams has called the project of ‘pure enquiry’ to discover an indubitable premise or foundation to base his knowledge on, by subjecting everything to a kind of scepticism now known as Cartesian doubt. This is known as foundationalism, where a philosopher basis all epistemological knowledge on an indubitable premise.

Throughout the course of this essay we shall examine two of the major philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The arguments that we are going to focus on shall be the Design argument and the Ontological argument. We shall compare, evaluate and discuss both the Design (or teleological) argument for the existence of God and the Ontological Argument for the existence of God, as well as highlighting philosophical criticisms of both theories too. By doing so, we shall attempt to draw a satisfactory conclusion and aim gain a greater understanding of the respective theories and their criticisms of each theory.

The term “a priori” refers primarily to the basis on which a proposition is known. If a statement has been written a priori it has been made without prior