The debate was immense for several reasons, one of utmost importance is that it meets the assertion that Christianity can be reasoned logically and rationally. In this debate, Thomas Warren uses the same tools of logic and rationality employed by atheists and agnostics to respond to and defeat Anthony Flew
For this disputation, I had the pleasure of arguing against the topic of be it resolved that you can convince a non-believer to affirm the existence of God using philosophical arguments. As the opposing side, Sarah and I counter argued the following: the argument from motion, the ontological argument, Pascal’s Wager, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument. The argument from motion argues that it is only possible to experience that which exists, and people experience God, therefore God must exist; however it can be counter argued that since faith cannot be demonstrated or experienced, as it is unseen, God cannot exist.
Ockham's Razor was an argumentative strategy constructed during the Middle Ages, which empiricists have applied multiple times to use in order to support a counterargument in opposition to the rationalists' explanations for 'innate ideas.' Although shown to be useful for the former argument, is it an effective tool for analyzing the proofs of God? In this paper, it will be argued that when trying to analyze proofs of God, it is best to reply to questions with hypothetical answers that make the fewest presumptions. "The answer to the question "Why do so many people believe in gods?" is a very complicated one because it entangles us in a thicket of psychological, sociological, anthropological, and philosophical-not to mention purely religious-issues." (Palmer 155).
The basis of Anselm’s argument is that “anyone who understands God will understand that God exists”; on the other hand, the basis of Gaunilo’s objection is that “you can understand something, but it doesn’t have to exist in your mind”. Gaunilo means that it is possible for the mass to understand the general concept of God; a discussion or conversation can be made about God with a mutual understanding and God does not have to actually exist in the mind. An example to further explain this objection is a chiliagon, a polygon with a thousand sides. The concept of a chiliagon is understandable, and there is a mutual understanding between everyone talking about this subject, but nobody can really have a clear idea of how a chiliagon is actually like, so it does not exist in the
The objection addressed the validity of the argument which had the premise 1, nothing is the efficient cause of itself except God and premise 2, a chain of causes cannot be infinite. The argument thus concludes there must be a first cause. This conclusion agrees with my thesis that Saint Thomas Aquinas’s argument formulated in the second way leads to a valid argument, which concludes that there must be a first cause and that God
In “Why Believe” by Saint Anselm, there lies a compelling argument which utilizes a Reductio Ad Absurdum argument to prove his conclusion. Anselm begins his argument with four premises, then states his Reductio Ad Absurdum argument, and finally concludes his whole argument with “God exists.” The argument for the existence of God by Anselm begins with his definition of God which is “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.”
In this essay, I will set out to prove that Thomas Aquinas’ First Cause Argument does not show that God exists and the conclusion that God exists does not follow from the premises of the first cause argument. I do think that the conclusion is valid and could be sound/or has the potential to be, but the premises fail to provide the basis upon which to reach such a conclusion. Hence, I will be raising some objections to the premises and will try to disprove any counter-arguments that could be raised in its defense. This would be done by examining Aquinas’ First Cause Argument and trying to disprove it whilst countering arguments in its defense.
Before restating the Anselm’s argument for the existence of God, it is important to understand who Anselm was and what might have compelled him to come up with the ontological argument for the existence of God. Anselm’s background information will be helpful in evaluating the validity and reliability of his arguments. Anselm was born in Italy in c. 1033. In 1063, he entered the famous monastery. In 1093, he moved to England, having been appointed Archbishop of Canterbury.
Parrots can weigh anywhere from zero point sixty five to one point six kg that is one point forty three to three point fifty three pounds. They can be anywhere from three point five" to forty" (Wild parrots of New York. 2015). On the chest, the grey feathers are white-tipped, giving a scalloped effect. Some blue can be found in the tail and flight feathers.
These arguments for God’s existence tend to rely on the assumption of an unmoved mover as the basis of all things created in the universe and, what’s more, a designer of the universe. God is, for Aquainas, the efficient cause of all things in the universe, the initiator to any change, the designer of all complexity in the universe, the source of its potential for being. This, at the outset, supposes that God exists.
There have been an innumerable amount of arguments for the existence of God for hundreds of years. Some have become much more popular due to their merit, and their ability to stay relevant through changing times. Two arguments in particular that have been discussed for a very long time are the ontological and cosmological arguments. Each were proposed in the period of the high middle ages by members of the Roman Catholic Church. They each have been used extensively by many since their introduction.
For example, there are religions which view God as a physical object or as one that has a body. Therefore, Aquinas observes that Anselm’s definition can only work with those who define God in one way. Secondly, he observes that even if all people were to understand the meaning of the word “God”, it would then only subsist in people’s imagination and not physically. However, his claims can be refuted on the basis that, when one says that “no greater God can be conceived”, then one would only be talking about God. The word God is what you call a being that is above all understanding.
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
The traditional claim of all Cosmological Arguments is defined as “something outside the universe is responsible to explain the existence of the universe” (PowerPoint 380). In the “causal argument,” or the First Cause Argument on the cosmological argument, “something” outside of the universe that is supposed to inform us about the existence of the universe is argued to be explained as God. As the first cause argument goes into depth and with the help of Thomas Aquinas, it is easy to see how God is responsible for explaining the existence of the universe around us. Within the first cause argument on the cosmological argument the following premises and conclusions are discussed: Premise 1: There exists things that are caused. Meaning that
PAPER #2 History of philosophy: Philosophy 20B Thomas Aquinas reasons that “God is one” in the Summa theologiae, part one, question eleven, article three. Using three proofs, one on “Gods simplicity,” the second on “the infinity of Gods perfection” and the last based on “the unity of the world.” The following will be Dissecting and providing explanations along with criticism. As well, what it is meant by “God is one”.
