Is There a God?

            The existence of an omniscient being has been a center of philosophical debate, thus, raising several essential questions such as “Is there a God?”.  In light of arguments roused, philosophers and theologians debate over the existence of God in varying, and sometimes conflicting, schools of thought.  In any case, God exists, at least in a person’s own level of understanding and belief.  A scrutiny of relevant arguments, apart from the ecclesiastical texts,  found in moral, theological, and ontological frameworks illustrate or, to the very least, contribute authenticity of God’s existence.

            The basic premise of the ontological approach scrutinizes the nature of God, it inclines on the very principles of the term God as proof of the existence of God.  This is how St. Anselm’s stream of thought confirmed the existence of God, he grounded the proof of an omnipotent being’s existence from the very definition of the term God.

            Anselm claims that denying the existence of God is a self-contradicting mentality: a supposition of the greatest being conceivable as not the greatest being conceivable is preposterous (Moore & Bruder, 2005, 396).  Anselm defends that denying the existence of God means an understanding of what is being denied, therefore, God exists, at least in the non-believers plain of understanding (Moore & Bruder, 2005, 396).

            Alvin Plantinga, meanwhile suggests the concept of faith in a rational sense.  He argues that belief in God is elementary, particularly for theists, because it is rational to  hold beliefs despite the lack of sufficient evidence, and it is foundational for the entire belief systems of theists (Moore & Bruder, 2005, 431).  In other Plantinga simply implies that “belief does not necessarily have to be an end product of justification and inference” (Moore & Bruder, 2005, 431).

            Like Anselm and Platinga, Rene Descartes mainly believes a person’s idea of a God is already proof of the existence of God.  He primarily contends that his idea has a cause, and his ideas cannot be the cause of itself.  Descartes also insists that having an idea of God, or understanding the the nature and context of God proves that God exists.

              In justifying the existence of God, St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Five ways of proving God’s existence, argues that it is considerable to think that things in the world are in constant motion, and such motions are not possible without the existence of a first mover (Moore & Bruder, 2005, 398).  Likewise, the second way of proving God’s existence explains that everything were caused by something else, and the first effect would not be possible without first cause.  As such, individuals must admit a first cause, which in this case is God (Moore ; Bruder, 2005, 398).

            Aquinas also argues that all things in this world are innately good, truth, and nobility.  In this sense, He argues that the source of such virtues comes from one entity, and that entity is God.  It is then plausible to think that the existence of things are caused by a single entity for Aquinas gives out the essence in the authenticity of the existence of God through analysis in varying contexts.

            Kant on the other hand takes his concept of the existence of God based on the tenets of his ultimate goal, which is to achieve universal good.  He explains that despite the fact that God’s existence cannot be proven or demonstrated, the world should be viewed in such a perspective that it is created by God (Moore & Bruder, 2005, 416).  Kant justifies his claim by saying that not believing in God a person is uncertain of the happiness which he or she deserves.  Kant adds that a person’s happiness is proportionate to his moral worth, thereby suggesting that the existence of God is to be assumed with the use of moral agents (Moore ; Bruder, 2005, 416).

            Although much of David Hume’s theories on the existence of God is based on Aquinas’ first three ways of proving God’s existence  Hume basically argues that everything in existence has a cause different from itself, but the series of causes have an origin, there is one being (God) whose existence is not caused by another (Moore & Bruder, 2005, 412).  Hume furthers that the aforementioned uncaused cause is a necessary being (Moore & Bruder, 2005, 412).  However he instills that a Deity is leveled with the existence and intellect of earthly things.  He argues that the world and its creation are likened toward a human creator, thought, and intelligence (Moore & Bruder, 2005, 412).

            On the contrary, Hume’s claims that everything is directed toward the human interest defeats the idea and concept of a God.  Through his argument regarding the balance between human intellect and omnipotent intellect, he eliminates the very concept of God.  Much similarity can also be seen from Kant’s argument because Kant requires a moral agent instead of simply proving and demonstrating the existence of God.  Kant’s moral agent merely eliminates the very foundations of the concept of analysis of nature found in the ontological             argument.  Furthermore, Kant implies a cause and effect theory as found in his principles about God.

References

Moore, B.N., ; Bruder, K. (2005). Philosophy of Religion: Reason and Faith. in Philosophy: The          Power of Ideas. Columbus, OH: The McGraw-Hill Companies

;