Several hundred years ago, two great philosophers Thomas Aquinas’s and Rene Descartes used the method of ontological argument for the existence of God and used intuition and reason alone to get to each other’s theory. Rene Descartes wrote out several mediations, but the one we’re going to touch base on is meditation III that he wrote in the 1600’s; While Thomas Aquinas’s wrote his five proofs of God in 1270 that specifies God’s existence in each proof; the one that gives the best argument is the existence of God in his III proof.
While both philosophers provide great information about their reason about God, Thomas Aquinas’s and Rene Descartes both attempt to prove the existence of God, but they differ in respect to how they attempt to prove the existence of God. Both Thomas Aquinas and Rene Descartes in their works question the thought of existences but used different types of thinking methods to get to their answer. Rene Descartes has more of a rational approach to the existence of God and Descartes also uses a “concept” of God and states his being of perfection.
Descartes quotes in his Meditation III saying “he can be certain that perception and imagination exist” and in Descartes deep meditation thought process he examines in his own mind to see if he would make up God. But in his conclusion Descartes finds out that God is “Perfect” and he states that God is also an infinite and all powerful substance. Rene Descartes also points out that the idea of God could not have originated in me since I am a finite substance. Descartes also pointed out that it is not possible for a finite to dream of infinity .
I was in the debate team in high school. And there were times that our team would take the against side of the statement. In his famous work Prologion, written in 1077-1078, Anselm presents the idea the God exists because God is the greatest thing of all, that the idea of thinking of God exists prove its existence. Hundred of years later, Thomas Aquinas brings up the account that addresses ...
In that event; the idea of the infinite must have come before the idea of the finite. On the other hand, Thomas Aquinas used prior knowledge to obtain his answer to the existence of god and also used Aristotle’s argument as a back bone to his support. In Aquinas’s third proof he begins to state the existence of nature of how things come into existence. He states that if there was nothing in existence than all of a sudden everything become into existence. Than there has to be something that already existed to make everything exist and for that to happen that had to be someone, so that is God.
Aquinas also pointed one in one of his earlier proofs of the First Mover. Aquinas says that anything moved is moved by another, so there must be a first mover (a mover that is not itself moved by another) and that first mover is God. Both of the philosophers used great methods to come to their conclusion about how god came into existence. They both used different thinking methods to get to their well respected arguments but did come to the conclusion that God does “exist”.
I believe the key difference about the two philosophers was the time difference between the philosophers, Thomas Aquinas wrote his proofs in the medieval ages around the 1200’s while ( with no disrespect) Rene Descartes wrote his meditation in the 1600’s. There is a big 400 year gap between ideas are compared but that came down to the same conclusion So in the end, Thomas Aquinas and Rene Descartes both attempted to prove the existence of God, but they differ in respect to the different thought processes to obtain the existence of God.
An still to this day both Philosophers are regarded as key factor in the world of philosophy and their arguments were so influential that they were able to land a spot in our textbook “THE GREAT CONVERSATION”. But thanks to these gentlemen and their contributions to their works were able to get a better understanding of how the existence of God came into being and gives a question to answer on our own. So how did God come into existence?
The first argument introduced by Aquinas states that nothing could move, unless it is being moved by something else, suggesting that there is an original mover. Aquinas asserts that motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality, but nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality except by something in a state of actuality. Further, he concludes that ...