The study of philosophy arises from questions on religion which the major question is the existence of God. The God that we are talking about in this issue is the God of Christianity. This God is believed to be a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and completely benevolent. Omnipotent is all-powerful while omniscient is all-knowing. An important concept on the argument of the existence of God is the existence of evil. An idea of the existence of God is compatible with the existence of evil thought by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.
Many philosophers have ideas that are relevant to the subject of God’s existence. One idea is if there is a God, he is incomprehensible to us and therefore we cannot expect to know what he is or what she is. This idea’s meaning is saying people cannot understand God because he is infinite. The idea of God being infinitely incomprehensible is lead to the solution of believe and it will benefit you, or don’t believe and there will be no difference. This idea assumes if we believe in God’s existence we are better off in our lives.
The idea of God being infinite to show that he exists was thought of by philosopher Blaise Pascal. Pascal states “we know that there is an infinite and are ignorant of its nature” (Perry 52). The idea behind this is that we might know that there is a God without knowing what he is. Since people do not live forever we are consider finite which we know the existence and the nature of it. It is said that we know the existence of both the infinite and the finite but we do not know the nature of the infinite since it does not have limits like we do.
127 our experts are availableright now
St. Anselm expressed his views in the ontological argument which was created in Chapter 2 of Proslogion. St. Anselm’s argument was on the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. Anselm states “if such a being failed to exists, then a greater being can be conceived.” But an objection to this thought was it is absurd to think that anything can be greater than God, where nothing greater can be created. Therefore God exists because no greater being can be created. Anselm argues that there is nothing greater than God; therefore he must exist if he is that great. Anselm says if God only existed in the mind, then something that is tangible that actually exists has to be greater. But it is wrong to think that there is anything or any other being to be greater than God himself.
St. Anselm questions the psalmist that states, “The fool has said in his heart that there is no God.” Anselm responds to this by expressing concerns of why did the fool say this when there is proof in a rational mind that God is the greatest being of all. Anselm questions the fool asking him how he could say something doesn’t exist if he doesn’t understand it. Anselm states that there is more than one way of expressing words from the heart.
One way is that people imagine something in a way that they understand the words to imagine it. Another way is that we understand the thing in itself. The first way is we imagine God not existing but in the second way we cannot imagine God not existing. Anselm states that anyone that understands what God is, cannot believe he does not exist. Although he states a person can say, “God does not exist” in his heart, but only if the words are meaningless. Anselm says that anyone that understands this idea must believe that God does in fact exist since he cannot fail to exist even in our conception.
Anselm’s belief that God does exists is argued through the idea of no one greater than God can be created. Anselm states that he believes that it is impossible for something or someone to be greater than God so he has to exist.
St. Thomas Aquinas is a Christian philosopher who created five proofs of the existence of God to strengthen his argument that he does exist. An objection to God is that if the word God means something that is infinitely good, then he does not exist. The objection states that if God were to exist then there would not be any bad in the world, but since there is he does not exist. A second objection the existence of God is that nature is the reason for change in natural things while human reason and will can be the cause of purposeful acts. With that being said, God does not exist since there is no need to say he does.
The response to the first objection which is God does not exist because he is supposedly supremely good but there bad exist in the world, so God cannot exist if bad things do. The response goes as follows; since God is all powerful and all good he could bring out the good in the bad. Therefore it is said that God’s infinite goodness permits that he can bring out the good in the bad. The response to the second objection that states that there is no reason to say God exists since nature cause natural things to change, while human reason causes purposeful acts is that God is the first cause of nature and humans. The response is that there has to be a first cause in which that is God while there has to be something higher than a human to cause a human to act on something purposely.
The five proofs that Aquinas argues for the existence of God are change, nature of causation, possibility and necessity, gradations to be found in things, and the things that govern the world. The first proof deals with the facts about change, which some things in the world do change. In order for change to occur, it has to be done by something else because things do not change on their own. This proof is based on there has to be an influence for a change to happen.
Since it is impossible for something to change on its own and there has to be an influence, then this cycle will go on and on. But this cycle cannot go into infinity because there has to be a first cause and the first cause is thought to be as God. The second proof is stated to come from the nature of efficient causation. The second proof is similar with the first proof on God being the first cause in change. To explain this idea clearly, there is a series of cause and effect but we cannot go back into infinity so there has to be a beginning or first cause. So it is believe the first cause to be God.
The third proof that helps with Aquinas argument on the existence of God comes from the facts of possibility and necessity. In our world things can either exist or not exist which is factual. It is said that at times a thing may exist but then may not exist; therefore if something once did not exist it can fail to exist again. With this idea, if everything can not exist then there would have been a time that nothing existed. But if at one time nothing existed then nothing should exist now. Therefore if something exists with necessity, then it was caused by something else. Since there must be existence of necessities in the world, then we say God does exist because he or she does not have necessity to anything else.
The fourth proof deals with gradations to be found in some things. It is said that some things are better or truer than other things. Since there has to be something that is maximally greater than others, then it said to be God to be maximally great. The fifth proof deal with the facts about what governs the world. Aquinas states “something that lacks consciousness can tend towards an end only if directed by something with consciousness and intelligence” (Perry 46.) Aquinas means that since trees are unconsciousness and will eventually die, it has to be lead by something to end so the intelligent force is God.
Hume expresses the differences between natural religion and revealed religion through the Dialogues Concerning Natural religion to explain the existence of God. Natural religion is based off of scientific thought. Revealed religions oppose natural religion since it is the mysterious doctrines of religion that can only be revealed through revelation. Hume suggests in his dialogues that we have little or no idea of God whatsoever which limits our capacity to regard God as an object of belief or passion.
Hume emphasizes the point that God’s being is “so different, and so much superior” to human nature that we are not able to form any clear or distinct idea of his nature and attributes, much less one based on our own qualities and characteristics. Hume speaks of God as a being that is incomprehensible who has less analogy than any other being in the universe, and is seen as faint traces or outlines in the world that people cannot describe him any attribute or perfection. Hume is stating that we cannot say God is imperfect or great if we cannot see who he is.
In the dialogue there are different characters in which Philo is said to be Hume’s way of expressing his thoughts on God. Philo believes the existence of God is that he exists since the universe does. Although beyond the idea of god existing because of the universe, we have no idea or understanding of his nature. Philo states in the dialogue, “our ideas, reach no further than experience: we have no experience of divine attributes and operations.” Whatever idea of God we are able to frame, it is an idea of something that we can conceive as either existing or not existing. Existence is not some further quality or “perfection” which a being possesses along with its other attributes. There is, therefore, no contradiction or absurdity involved in denying that God exists.
Bertand Russel expresses many arguments on why he is not a Christian. While expressing his thoughts on why he is not a Christian the ideas of the existence of God are shown as well. Russel explains natural-law as one argument but that it is not as effective as it used to be. The idea behind natural law is implying that there is a lawgiver for everything. This idea is confusing since human laws are commanding on people to act or behave a certain way which you may choose to do so. While natural laws are an explanation of how things are or what they do. Although people cannot argue that there must be somebody who told a person to act a certain way because then we would be questioning God. The question would be why would God tell them do that a certain way and nothing to others?
Russell explains that in the argument from design everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world. An example of this is that a rabbit has a white tail so that it is easier to shoot. Russell states it is unbelievable to think that people would think that anomnipotence and omniscience being would create such a world like ours with all its defects. Russell states “although it is a gloomy view to suppose that life will die out, sometimes when I contemplate the things that people do with their lives I think it is almost a consolation, it is not such as to render life miserable” (Perry 58.) Russell expresses here that it is not so bad to know that life will eventually die because the way he sees others live their lives. I feel that Russel does not believe in a God since he states it’s unbelievable to for a perfect person to create an imperfect world.
The argument for the remedying of injustice is another argument which Russell took a stand point on. The argument for remedying of injustice is “the existence of God is required in order to bring justice into the world” (Perry 59). Even though there is a lot of injustice in the world where the wicked prosper and the good suffer, we say that God exists in order to have a balance of life here. Therefore in the long run justice will be served because of heaven and hell. So Russell would state that, we find a great deal of injustice in this world so we can say that justice does not rule the world therefore God does not exist.
After reading and learning about the multiple views and ideas of all the philosophers I still stand strong on my view on the existence of God. I have always questioned religion and God since I was a child. I did not understand how to believe in something that was not physically there. So I would agree on objections of God’s existence such as God cannot exist if evil does since he is supposedly all good. I feel that if this being that is supposed to be perfect, and great he would not create a world with imperfection and evil. I do not agree that a being that was supposedly all-good would create evil, so he cannot exists if still believed to be all- good. If it was never said that God was “all-good” then I would agree that he created good and evil. I do not believe in a God because I feel it is silly to put effort into something that is not tangible. Therefore I would agree with all of the objections of Gods existence.
An opposing point of view to my view would be that God created evil in this world to balance the lives we live. A response a person that does believe in God could respond to my thoughts on believing in something that is not physically there would be, the acts of kindness and good are acts of God which are physical.
In conclusion each philosopher that I have read about has different arguments and views on the existence of God. St. Anselm believes that there is no being greater than God, so he must exist. St. Aquinas has five proofs of Gods existence which consist of change, nature of causation, possibility and necessity, gradations to be found in things, and the things that govern the world. David Hume believes that since God is so supreme, there is no denying the existence of God. Bertrand Russell expresses his view points in different arguments on the existence of God. I have kept my stand point on the existence of God being that he does not exist while expressing an opposing view of my own view.
