Arguments For The Existence For God

Arguments for the Existence for God

1. The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is based on the principle of cause and effect. What this basically means is that the universe was the effect of a cause, which was God. One of the oldest and most well known advocates of the Cosmological Argument was Thomas Aquinas who outlines his argument for the existence of God in his article entitled The Five Ways. The first way in his argument is deals with motion. Aquinas says that in order for something to be in motion something had to move it because it is impossible for something to move without the presence of some sort of outside force upon it. Therefore the world around us, nature, and our very existence could not have been put into motion without the influence of the "unmoved mover", as it is called in the book, who we know to be God.

Aquinas' second way to prove that God exists is by stating that nothing can be the cause of itself. For example, I am not the cause of myself. I would not be in existence today if it were not for my parents having a baby and naming it Chris. This is true for everything around us: trees, buildings, cars, planes, etc, none of these can be the cause of themselves. They all must be created or manufactured from seeds, humans, and machines in order for them to exist as they do today. The next way comes from possibility and necessity. First is possibility which means that it is possible for everything in the world to at some point in time not exist, thus meaning that there was a time when nothing existed and since something cannot come from nothing it is necessary for something to have always existed. However as Aquinas previously stated this necessary being cannot be the cause of itself plus there cannot be a time at which it did not exist therefore this being must have always existed and be God.

In his fourth way Aquinas bases the existence of God on the gradation of things such as things being the greatest or the smallest, the hottest or the coldest. Aquinas says that there must be a cause of this and it is God. The last way that Aquinas proves God comes from the governance of the world. Aquinas says that things in the world lack knowledge and yet they still work their way towards an end, but he says that it is impossible for something to lack knowledge and work its way to an end. Due to this fact Aquinas determines that there must be some intelligent being directing all natural things towards their end and that this being is God.

After reading Aquinas' argument some would agree, some would disagree, and some would say it could be better byÐ'...Ð'... and list reasons. Clarke and Rowe are two of the later type. Clarke believed that the universe was a series of events and that each of these events are dependent upon the event before it. So as you work your way backwards down the chain you get to an independent event that started the whole series who Clarke said is God. In Rowe's argument he says that there has to be PSR (principle of sufficient reason) in order to prove anything including God. Which means there has to be enough evidence and proof that a thing or God exists.

In my understanding of the Cosmological Argument I would have to say that I agree the most with Clarke's explanation. Not only is it short and sweet but it almost takes Aquinas' argument and folds it up and puts it in its pocket. I think believe it is much clearer for anyone to see and admit that everything that happens in this world is connected and caused by previous events and decisions. Due to this anyone can go back to the story of Adam and Eve and ask themselves the question of what caused these two? It is at this point where one is forced to admit that there is an "unmoved mover", an independent being, and an uncaused cause who is called God.

3. Out of all three arguments for the existence only one of them is based on an a priori knowledge and it is the Ontological