The issue that I shall be addressing is whether a certain objection to a theistic explanation of God’s existence can be sustained. In this paper, the objection in question is advanced mostly by naturalists, and the thrust of it is that theists cannot provide a satisfactory account of God’s existence based on causality because occasional philosophical questions arise concerning the truth of the premises. After carefully setting out naturalist’s objections, I shall suggest that naturalists have overlooked an important resource available to theists – namely, the use of faith in God supported with causality and scientific knowledge in support of His existence. Therefore, enables theism to continue to offer a satisfactory analysis of why it is more plausible that God is the cause of the universe.
A world view is set of beliefs about God, man, and the cosmos. We will consider two world views; theistic and naturalistic. Theism is the first world view we will analyze. The theistic world view is the belief in a personal God who created the world. He is separate from His creation but works in it to achieve his purposes. God’s existence has been a question under debate for a very long time. One of the oldest metaphysical questions is: Does God Exist? (Garrett, 1) Theists are primarily concerned with this question. They use a philosophical approach to argue His existence.
The Term Paper on God’s Existence and Aquinas Objection
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 ...
There are many arguments for the existence of God. There are also four rational arguments theists consider as causality: Cosmological (creation), Teleological (design), Moral Argument (moral law), and Ontological (being).
The cosmological argument is as old as any of the other major arguments for the existence of God (Nagasawa, 116).
This argument comes from the idea that the universe’s existence, it must have been caused by something beyond itself. Therefore this argument focuses on the first cause and relies on the philosophical principle that every cause has an effect (Harris, 35).
An important idea in the work of a cosmological theory according to which there is only “Oneness” or a ‘primordial particle’ at the birth of the universe (Nagasawa, 103).
In Plato’s work we can find one of the earliest formulations of the argument.
Plato (422-347 B.C.), set up his own school of philosophy close to Athens, named after the legendary Greek hero Academus (Gaarder, 83).
He was considered very athletic and taught a variety of subjects including mathematics, philosophy, and gymnastics. His last dialogue, The Laws, his story characters attempt to prove the existence of Gods (Nagasawa, 116).
One passage in particular is a version of the design argument.
This argument states that the beauty and ordered structure of nature have the potential to prove God’s existence. This reminds me of how perfectly set the earth is from the sun or how water is necessary for all life on earth. Plato’s cosmological argument basically says the entire sequence of motion in the universe must spring from some initial principle (Nagasawa, 118).
Plato’s argument would later be revived by Thomas Aquinas as the first of his ‘Five Ways’ to prove God’s existence (Mallett, 20).
Aquinas would first use what Aristotle contributed to philosophy.
Aristotle lived from 384-322 B.C. (Gaarder, 105).
He was a pupil at Plato’s academy for almost twenty years (Gaarder, 105).
He believed there must be a God who started all movement in the natural world, thus being at the top of nature’s scale (Gaarder, 114).
He was the first philosopher to develop a formalized system for reasoning. He found validity of any argument can be determined by its structure rather than its content. It helped him to divide change into two categories. Change could be either accidental or substantial. This led to the four questions we can always ask regarding any change.
The Essay on Ontological Argument for God’s existence
To asses the strengths of the Ontological Argument for Gods existence, we firstly need to understand what it entails. The Ontological Argument looks at proof ‘A Priori’, which is Analytical truth, reason based proof. This can be explained by saying 1+1=2. We know this to be true, as it is based on reasoning, and is a logical statement. This can be seen as a strength of the Ontological ...
Aristotle’s four explanations derived from his studies of former philosophers. He argued there first had to be something actual in order for movement from potential to actual. Aristotle’s explanation of motion in terms of potentiality and actuality led him to an unmoved Mover known as God. Consequently, this became his argument for God’s existence.
The first cause is material. Something with material substance must come from something with material substance. An example would be a marble statue. This material cause is associated with matter alone, while the next three causes are associated with form (Mallett, 33).
Formal cause is the second of Aristotle’s four causes. For example a cat isn’t a dog because it inherited its form and characteristics of its parents. The formal cause is most closely associated with the-what-it-is-to-be (Mallett, 33).
The third cause is the moving cause.
The moving cause is more commonly known as the efficient cause. There must be something that sets movement or change into motion or which it stops (Mallett, 33).
This goes back to potentiality and actuality. Something may have the potential to move but cannot until something actualizes or begins the motion. The efficient cause can be internal or external. Internal efficient causation is a key element to Aristotle’s ontology (being) (Mallett, 34).
This brings us to Aristotle’s final of his four explanations for causation based solely on reasoning.
Aristotle’s final cause is the end of purpose for the cause. In other words, the meaning or sake of which a thing is done. For example the marble statue was made to be a decoration or final cause. All of Aristotle’s four explanations/causes give reason, faith and hope that God’s existence is real.
These questions will function as a way theists can explain God’s existence through causality. He influenced many other philosophers that have used his four explanations to create more arguments sustaining God’s existence. Aquinas is the next theistic philosopher that used Aristotle’s four causes to prove God’s existence.
The Term Paper on Ontological Argument Existence Of God
... second aspect of the cosmological argument for the existence of God comes from nature of efficient cause. Here, Aristotle defines efficient cause, as an event or ... century. (Pg. 315). In fact, Aquinas admits that there is no valid argument against the claim that God and universe existed for all ...
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was a follower of Aristotle. He considered him the greatest of all the philosophers. Aquinas tried to make Aristotle’s philosophy compatible with Christianity (Gaarder, 178).
He earned his doctorate in Theology which would lead and help him evaluate and argue God’s existence sound (Machuga, 226).
He was an advocate of Natural Theology, a teleological argument in support of God’s existence based on reason and ordinary experiences of nature (Harris, 30).
Aquinas affirmed the compatibility of faith and reason mostly in terms of explicating this relationship. Specifically known as, Thomistic Relationship of Faith and Reason, explains reasoning before, during and after faith in God.
Aquinas believes that Gods existence can be shown with natural theology. Aquinas believes it is possible to know that God exists from his creation because he has revealed himself in his world (Rom. 1:18-20).
Aquinas though like Aristotle, says that ‘all knowledge of the natural world must begin with our experience of sense object.’ Nothing can exist in a material or natural world without first being experienced from our senses (Gaarder, 107).
Aquinas relied on two things. First was his analysis of sense objects. Second was that objects of existence require a finite series of causes, most importantly a first cause which would be God. This clearly rests on the metaphysical first principle of causality. He followed Parmenides truth that there must be a cause for every effect.
The first three of Aquinas five proofs are called cosmological arguments. These arguments explain that existence of the world, or part of it, seek to establish the existence of a necessary being that causes the existence of the world. Aquinas argues if Aristotle’s philosophy is correct, than God exists (Machuga, 230).
Theists believe in God as the efficient cause. They believe that long ago nothing was in motion. It took a certain something or someone to bring the motion of things which theists know as God. This leads us to our first argument of God’s existence, examining Aquinas first of five proofs of His existence.
St. Thomas Aquinas first proof is the argument from motion, inspired from Plato’s last dialogue. To summarize the series of causality in motion, we sense things that change. Anything that changes has the potential to change. Any potential change cannot move itself. There is no endless series of actuality. Therefore, there has to be something outside the material universe that causes change (Machuga, 221).
The Essay on Simple Minds God Greater Existence
Does God Exist God not only exists in the understanding, but in reality as well. God, according to Anselm, is a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived" (Anselm 29). According to this concept God could not simply exist in an understanding because that would leave the possibility of a greater being than God - He who exists in reality as well as understanding. Anselm concluded that the " ...
This change Aquinas refers to is God who actualizes the potentiality.
In contrast, this argument has objections. Naturalists believe that something can come from nothing. They believe that only physical laws (natural laws) are the only forces that operate the world. This is not possible to theism. Naturalism cannot prove God’s existence unsound based on Aquinas argument from motion therefore, God’s existence is still plausible. Things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent on something uncaused or God (Machuga, 224).
Aquinas second proof is argument from efficient cause.
The argument starts by stating there is an efficient cause for everything. Nothing can be an efficient cause of itself. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes (Harris, 44).
To take away the cause is to take away the effect. If there is no first cause then there will be no others (Harris, 45).
Clearly Aquinas argues for an Efficient Cause. It indicates that each prior cause must itself have its own cause leading to God as the Efficient Cause (Harris, 45).
His “Third proof” is the argument from contingency.
This argument states some things exist or can possibly not exist. Clearly, something has always existed. Things that could possible exist do not necessarily. Therefore, there must be a Necessary Being which we refer to as God (Machuga, 56).
This is another great argument in support of His existence. His fourth proof is the argument from the degrees of perfection. The fifth proof is the argument from the order of the universe, one of my favorites.
This argument states that everything simply acts for an end. What acts for an end manifests intelligence but they have no intelligence of their own. Therefore, they are directed to their end by some Intelligence. This argument acts from Final Causality and the intelligence is God. All of these
arguments represent hope in sustaining God’s existence.
Another prominent theistic philosopher was Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).
His writings would eventually originate the Moral Argument. This argument relies on the human sense of morality (Gschwandtner, 88).
The Term Paper on Idea Of God Descartes Argument Existence
Why does Descartes think he can be sure that a God who is no deceiver exists Are his arguments convincing Descartes considers himself to be sure that there is a non-deceiving God by using two different arguments in the Meditations: the so-called trademark argument, and the famous ontological argument. Although Descartes believes that they are both capable of proving the existence of God ...
Another way of putting it: There is a universal moral law, which requires a universal law giver who is absolutely good. Thus, the standard of good must come from something completely good.
Naturalists argue and refute this by stating that evolutionary could contribute to moral laws. Another major objection to this argument regards to the existence of evil and injustice set against an absolutely good God. Theists are able the counter argument this. C.S. Lewis, a naturalist who didn’t believe in a God, argued that the whole idea of injustice can only make sense when there is a perfect standard of justice against which it might be evaluated (Gschwandtner, 93).
Many theistic arguments are refuted by naturalists and vice versa. Some theistic arguments such as order of the universe, motion, contingency, and efficient cause are stronger arguments for God’s existent and more difficult for naturalists to refute (Machuga, 201).
Other arguments such as religious experience try to show that their belief in God is justified rather than proving God exists (Nagasawa, 155).
The argument from religious experience is prominent and more modest because it does not try to prove God’s existence. Instead it tries to prove that theists are justified in believing in God’s existence (Nagasawa, 160).
We have evaluated many different strong and weak arguments in support of Gods existence.
Naturalist metaphysics has many implications. This world view rules out spirituality. Man is believed as an interrelationship of physical and chemical properties. It also leads to determinism and rules out meaning and purpose. Naturalists link evolution as the primary explanation for its origin. They believe there is no ultimate purpose or significance to life, no teleology. These are just a few implications of naturalistic metaphysics.
The story of Jesus was so powerful that it led to massive conversions of Christianity. I feel theists have such a vast explanation of how the universe came to be just by reading the beginning of the bible. If God exists in the mind of a believer, I feel he can never really be proven as inexistent in reality.
Naturalists lack scientific knowledge and reason to support causality of the universe’s beginning. Different scientific theories claim that the known universe had a beginning known as The Big Bang Theory (Harris, 43).
The Essay on The Existence of God and the Arguments That Defend It
Running head: THE EXISTENCE OF GOD The Existence of God and The Arguments that Defend It The Existence of God and the Arguments that Defend It Does God exist? It is the question that has flooded the minds of philosophers and scientists, students and professors, and children and parents alike. On one side, there are the atheists who zealously fight against the current of rationality for the ...
Something must have initiated this bang. In contrast, the naturalist questioned the truth behind causality’s premises that theists use to support God’s existence. Science hasn’t been able to identify what was before the initial “Bang” or how it happened.
Theists use scientific knowledge and reasoning to defend their belief and faith in God. Both world views inevitably use faith in reasoning or belief there is a God or there is not. I’ve argued in support of the theistic world view because they have more causality supporting it. Naturalists who deny the existence of God in reality must inevitably admit the idea that God exists in their mind in order for the possibility of God’s reality to be denied (Machuga, 123).
Therefore, I believe faith will always triumph naturalistic reasoning on how the universe came to be. Even if naturalists believe that something came from nothing, it cannot disprove theistic faith and their reasoning in support to God’s existence.
Bibliography
Gaarder, Jostein. Sophie’s World. New York, 2007. Paperback Garrett, Brian. What Is This Thing Called Metaphysics?. 2nd ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2011. Gschwandtner, Christina M. Postmodern Apologetics?: Arguments for God In Contemporary Philosophy. New York: Fordham University Press, 2013. Harris, Harriet A. God, Goodness and Philosophy. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2011. Machuga, Ric. Life, the Universe, and Everything: an Aristotelian Philosophy for a Scientific Age. Cambridge, U.K.: Lutterworth, 2012. Mendelssohn, Moses, Daniel O Dahlstrom, and Corey Dyck. Morning Hours: Lectures On God’s Existence. Dordrecht [the Netherlands]: Springer, 2011.
Millett, Stephan. Berner Reihe philosophischer Studien, Volume 44 : Aristotle’s Powers and Responsibility for Nature. Bern, CHE: Peter Lang AG, 2011. ProQuest ebrary. Web. October 2014. Nagasawa, Yujin. The Existence of God: a Philosophical Introduction. London: Routledge, 2011.