One philosopher that freely gives off his opinion on god's existence would be St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Aquinas, in his Summa Theological, he explains five separate proofs for the existence of God. His proofs rely on the world, what we see or experience. St. Aquinas’ first proof explains how there was once an all powerful object that started all the motion. Anything that is currently in motion was first at rest and was moved by another motion which was moved by another motion. Because anything that is in motion was not in motion until it was moved by another motion means that there has to be a first motion that started it all. Since anything that has to be in motion be moved by another motion then the first motion would have to be the ultimate
…show more content…
Anselm's argument seems to be the most understandable argument to me. The argument tries to establish the existence of God from the definition of a supreme being. Since god is the Supreme Being, than nothing greater can be thought. Everyone seems to know what the word, God entails. St. Anselm claims that since God exists as a concept in everyone's mind, he must also exist in reality. So in that case, God's existence is greater than any idea we have of him, therefore he must exist. Because the idea of God being real within our mind makes us believe that it is a huge possibility that the idea does exist in reality which can make it impossible to think of God as a supreme being has to exist.
When people speak of design, they are speaking of the perfection of everything created and how it all meshes together to work flawlessly. Some creations, we do not always know the purpose they have, but it does not mean the purpose does not exist. In my personal opinion, I would have to strongly agree with Thomas Aquinas. I can see the logic Aquinas uses to come to the decision of his 5 proofs. Many would disagree with his reasoning, but I believe I lean toward his ideas. I don’t think he went wrong in any of his proofs because I believe everything has a reasonable and logical reason to …show more content…
We have been taught that there is good and evil in the world but these are actually a matter of personal choice. Our assumption is that since God is perfect, he must be willing to prevent evil because only good is perfect. Since God is omniscient, he must also know when evil is about to happen and how to stop it. This argument really implies if God was really perfect and all good then he must’ve created a world that is perfect, but since he did not, it makes one decipher why not. I strongly believe the argument of evil is an extremely strong argument. I believe if God is perfect than he should've created a perfect world with no evil.
Kierkegaard’s point is that no matter how correct your logical system might be, there will always be holes and spaces. I agree with Kierkegaard because as these empty spaces are logical spaces, it is hard to fill them, so instead one tends to fill these spaces with faith. What characterizes faith is the absolute uncertainty that follows behind it. Faith is understood as something that cannot be disapproved. Instead of focusing everything on rationality, we should focus more on faith because reason has no place in faith. That is why I agree with Kierkegaard and believe his argument is
Anselm's argument seems to be the most understandable argument to me. The argument tries to establish the existence of God from the definition of a supreme being. Since god is the Supreme Being, than nothing greater can be thought. Everyone seems to know what the word, God entails. St. Anselm claims that since God exists as a concept in everyone's mind, he must also exist in reality. So in that case, God's existence is greater than any idea we have of him, therefore he must exist. Because the idea of God being real within our mind makes us believe that it is a huge possibility that the idea does exist in reality which can make it impossible to think of God as a supreme being has to exist.
When people speak of design, they are speaking of the perfection of everything created and how it all meshes together to work flawlessly. Some creations, we do not always know the purpose they have, but it does not mean the purpose does not exist. In my personal opinion, I would have to strongly agree with Thomas Aquinas. I can see the logic Aquinas uses to come to the decision of his 5 proofs. Many would disagree with his reasoning, but I believe I lean toward his ideas. I don’t think he went wrong in any of his proofs because I believe everything has a reasonable and logical reason to …show more content…
We have been taught that there is good and evil in the world but these are actually a matter of personal choice. Our assumption is that since God is perfect, he must be willing to prevent evil because only good is perfect. Since God is omniscient, he must also know when evil is about to happen and how to stop it. This argument really implies if God was really perfect and all good then he must’ve created a world that is perfect, but since he did not, it makes one decipher why not. I strongly believe the argument of evil is an extremely strong argument. I believe if God is perfect than he should've created a perfect world with no evil.
Kierkegaard’s point is that no matter how correct your logical system might be, there will always be holes and spaces. I agree with Kierkegaard because as these empty spaces are logical spaces, it is hard to fill them, so instead one tends to fill these spaces with faith. What characterizes faith is the absolute uncertainty that follows behind it. Faith is understood as something that cannot be disapproved. Instead of focusing everything on rationality, we should focus more on faith because reason has no place in faith. That is why I agree with Kierkegaard and believe his argument is