History Of The Existence Of God Philosophy Essay

History Of The Existence Of god Philosophy EssayAfter reading Anselms Proslogion, a mortal could be positive(p) of the existence of a controlling cosmos, based on the ontological argument he provides. Anselm claims that there exists a beingness that which nonhing great evoke be thought. He is referring to ameliorateion and shows how the unsubdivided image of paragon in ones mind essays that god exists beca enforce it is that which nothing greater asshole be thought. An idea that exists only in the mind and not in man is not as great as an idea, which exists in moreover about(prenominal). Since deity is the great being, god essential exist in our minds as well as in reality.If a person had read the starting of the five ship fagal presented by Thomas doubting Thomas in the Summa of Theology and his Summa Against the Hea then(prenominal)s, this person could be convinced of a divine being through the proof of an un contacted mover, who Aquinas conveys as divin ity. The first of the five ways that Aquinas uses to prove the existence of God is related to motion. Aquinas says that some objects in the valet de chambre ar in motion. These objects must be moved by some opposite object in motion. From that, he makes the deduction that there is a grand chain of movers that not only move objects nevertheless in any case ar moved by objects before them. Since the chain gougenot go to infinity, there must be some unmoved(predicate) mover that starts the chain and Aquinas concludes this being to be God.We forget c tout ensemble the twain previous convictions A, representing Anselm and T, representing Thomas Aquinas. Also, we ordain refer to G as the conviction that God exists. Together both(prenominal) convictions, A and T, are not same to G. A and T both take unalike routes in proving G merely are blemished in their cause ways.Take for example A by itself, which is not refer to G. From individual to individual, there squirt be di fferent notions of the enunciate God. For example, take an idea of a sports car that which nothing greater preempt be thought. Two different people may hit two very different ideas of what makes a sports car the sterling(prenominal). The use of the enounce superlative in the argument is left for individual interpretation and also serious the thought of the greatest sports car does not mean that it exists. Simply conceiving the greatest of eitherthing does not result in its existence. If everyone had the same definition of God, a stronger sheath for A equaling G could be made but we know this not to be true. Anselms argument works under special circumstances but cannot be extended for every case.T by itself is not equal to G. Strictly speaking, T merely provides reasoning for a being that is an unmoved mover, not an all-powerful deity. However, Aquinas attributes this being to God but it can just as easily be attributed to any other being. Applying Aquinass pattern that mo tion of an object must be received from a mournful object before that object, the argument would result in infinity. If God is the first unmoved mover to start the motion of objects, the notion of God contradicts Aquinas foundation that all movers must be moved.An workaday idea of God is a supreme being that is all frank, omniscient, and omnipotent. Given such a conception, the conviction represented by A partially fails to be equivalent to it because of the various self-reliances that Anselm makes in his ontological proof. Anselm references the greatest being, that which nothing greater can be thought, however, this does not necessarily mean that this being is omniscient, omnipotent, or other qualities that are included in an everyday conception of God. This is due to the simple fact that a persons interpretation of greatness or idea of greatest may or may not encompass these qualities. Consider the everyday mans knowledge for a great basketball player. Some would assume th at this person would be extremely tall. Using Anselms proof for the greatest basketball player that can be thought, each persons idea could be potentially different from the next. Some may define the greatest as the quickest or the best at shooting while others would jib that it would be the tallest man. This visitation to be equivalent is only a partial failure because some may have the same definition as the ordinary conception while others would have a different definition.T partially fails to be equivalent to the ordinary conception of God as well but is closer to equivalence than A. In the first of Aquinas five ways, he simply proves a being that is a mover that is not moved. This can be interpreted to be an omnipotent being because it breaks away from the assumption that all objects that can move must be moved by some other object before it. Only an all-powerful being would be able to be the unmoved mover. The first of the five ways does not embody the other ordinary concep tions of God in any way. However, if we were to puff up our prior knowledge which led us to conviction T from just including the first way to including all five ways then we are closer to equivalence. Each of the five ways proves a different quality that a being could have which can be juxtaposed with the ordinary conceptions of god. Aquinas is closer to proving the existence of God with his five ways in comparison with Anselms ontological proof.We allow for refer to the limited acceptance that David Hume distinguishs for earthy theology, as H. H is not directly equivalent to A or T, or both together because H is built upon the premise that analogies cannot be extended to the existence of God. A and T both conclude with statements that choose the existence of God. Strictly speaking, Hume would not agree with A or T, then H does not equal A or T. Hume does however agree with the fact that if the arguments, A or T, are convincing enough, then they can be extended to human intel ligence but not any further.H captures less of what people ordinarily take the word God to mean. Hume does not suggest anywhere in his limited acceptance of cancel theology about the existence of God or any of the ordinary notions that are associated with God. Since he does not accept the existence of God as deduced by natural theology, his statement, H, does not bear any similarity to the ordinary conception of God. To a certain extent, A and T do acknowledge God and based on individual interpretation capture what the word God incorporates. Therefore, H captures less of the ordinary notion of God then A or T. Philosophers have yet to agree upon a authorized answer to whether God exists or not and each one provides their own argument. Each argument has its strengths and weaknesses and ultimately, we continue to work to find the answer.Word search 937Problem of EvilThe challenge issued by Gretchen Weirob in John Perrys converse on Good, Evil and the Existence of God is directed t owards surface-to-air missile Miller. not only does Gretchen want Sam to prove to her the existence of God, but also Gods coexistence with poisonous in the natural mankind. A successful answer to this challenge would be a clear and proficient proof for how a perfect God can exist and can create a manhood where there is evil. Sam starts arguing that God has a heavy(a) draw plan for the universe, which includes necessary evil and imperfections for the greater close. Gretchen does not buy into his big picture argument and in order to prove the big picture, Sam presents her with a three-part theodicy.The first part discusses free will, where Sam says that creatures and beings have the selection to make good choices or bad ones and the path that they choose is simply up to them. Consider the choice a student makes in the midst of swindling on a test and studying diligently. The decision that he makes is up to him because he has free will. Gretchen is not convinced and does not believe that an all-good God can exist because of this reason.Sam counters with the second part, which considers the notion of the afterlife where God does justice for all the wrongs that are done in the land. For example, a flaw justice system could result in a immoral not being punished for his crime or an innocent man fetching the fall for something the man has not done. In the afterlife, God, an all-fair and just being, would punish the criminal and reward the innocent man. Gretchen provides examples for evils that are not caused or controlled by valet and Sam has an answer for that as well.The final part deals with the existence of devils, which causes agony and pain through natural phenomenon. This encompasses the remaining evil in the foundation that is not directly an effect of free will. For example, a tsunami that wipes out umpteen cities is not something a human can control and it is explained by the will of the devils.These various ideas and the examples that def end them offer a satisfactory response to how evil can exist in the area created by a supreme being. Sams theodicy is difficult to argue with as he provides examples and observations in the natural world that eventually encompass all kinds of evil in the world. Gretchen is unable to add up up with any more counter-examples or scenarios of evil in the world and she admits that Sam has provided a satisfactory response to her challenge.In David Humes Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Philo claims the idea of such a Deity is consistent with the nature of the world. God create the world and everything in it. Therefore, a logical parallel to draw is between the nature of the world and the nature of God. Philos argument could answer Gretchens challenge because she is simply looking for a possible explanation not necessarily a feasible one. As long as Gretchen is provided an explanation for how God can exist alongside the evidence of so much evil in the world, she will treat this as a satisfactory response.However, there is good and evil in the world and given this nature, we cannot infer that God exists. Since our world is not perfect, our evidence and observations cannot be used as a expel for the argument of Gods existence. For example, if a vehicle were to collide with an innocent pedestrian, an all-perfect God would not only know it was going to happen but also could have prevented it from happening in the first place. We can extend this example to all grief in the world and dismiss any understanding of God that comes from the world. If a perfect deity were to create a perfect world, we could use that evidence to prove the existence of such a deity.In my opinion, the inability to make this inference would hinder Philos ability to meet Gretchens challenge because he would be unable to prove to her that a supreme benevolent being exists. Philo explains four hypotheses for the possible nature of God perfectly good, completely evil, good and evil, and inco mplete good nor evil. The first two are immediately throw out because of the natural world has both good and evil thereof God has to somehow embody both forces. The third possibility is viewed by many as two separate beings, one representing good and another representing evil. If this were the case, then our world would be caught in a struggle and this is not evident simply observing what happens on Earth. What we can see is irrespective of the nature of a person, that person is subject to the laws of nature. For example, a thief and a charity worker living in a city could both lose their homes because of a hurricane. Their individual nature has nothing to do with whether the hurricane will affect them or not. God set up these laws of nature to affect everyone. Therefore, God is neither good nor evil.At best, Philo would prove to Gretchen about neither an all-good, nor an all-evil God, rather a neutral one. Gretchen would not be entirely convinced because her definition of God alo ng with the general consensus is that God is all-good. The only assumptions for a possible existence of God come from what we can observe and the caper of evil in the world is a definite deterrent in proving this to be true.