Gods Existence is Logically Necessary by Anselm - 2200 Words

God's Existence is Logically Necessary by Anselm (Essay Sample) Content: Philosophy and GodNameInstitutionPhilosophy and GodAbstractThe issue whether God really exist or it is just an imagination created in minds of people has been debated for centuries. Many scientists and philosophers believe that God does not exist. They have challenged believers to scientifically or logically prove that God really exists. Ontological arguments have been put in place by theology philosophers with the aim of proving, logically and scientifically, the existence of God. Philosophers such as Anselm and Aquinas have put across some logical arguments to prove that God really exists. On the other hand, some atheists such as Bertrand Russell have argued that God does not exist; that the idea of God was just created by people to create fear among us and to make us believe that there is someone superior watching over us. The aim of this paper is to analyse these arguments critically. According to the writer, the existence of God is a matter of faith, and the ende avour by some people to logically and scientifically approve or reject His existence is futile.Gods Existence is Logically Necessary by AnselmIn his ontological argument, St. Anselm of Canterbury used philosophical equations to prove that God really exists and that his existence is necessary. Anselm was the first theological philosopher who attempted to reason logically with the existence of God. He was able to convince people with statements which looked like logical equations. In my point of view, I believe that his argument does not hold any water; in other words, I disagree with his conclusions.His basis of the argument was that God is one greatest being that can ever be conceived. The greatness of God, he argues, is one fact that everybody can always comprehend. Even the fools can acknowledge the greatness of God. Anselm was not trying to prove that God exists, but rather he was just working on his meditation. He believes that if everybody including the fool appreciates the kno wledge of God's greatness, then the idea of Gods existence is in our mind. He, however, says that the greatest being is that who exists both in our minds and in reality. That means that if God only exists in our mind, then there has to be another being which is greater than God. But remember, God is the greatest being conceivable (Miller, 2015).The summary of chapter two of his book is as follows. There is one superior being, greater than any other being in existence, and this is God. The greatness of God is one thing that everybody acknowledges. The point, therefore, remains that there is nothing superior to God. Secondly, the fact that everybody believes that God is the greatest of all being means that it exists in their minds. However, there is something greater than what exists in our minds, and that is what exists both in our minds and in reality. This means that there is something greater than God. But remember, there is nothing superior to God, and therefore God is both in ou r mind and reality. So, God is real ; hence, God exists (Miller, 2015).I will counteract his statement in a very simple way. Let us take an example of number infinity. Infinity s a number that does not actually exist in reality as it disobeys most of the arithmetic rules and logic. In other words, Infinity is an imaginary number which really does not exist. So let us use the steps and logics of Anselm to evaluate the existence of the number infinity. Infinity is one number that everybody believes that is the greatest number in existence. According to Anselm, anything that everybody conceives to be greatest must always be in their mind. So far this is true, and that is the reason why everybody believes that Infinity is the greatest number available. Anselm also believes anything which is greatest must always exist both in our minds and reality. The question here is, now that Infinity is the greatest number perceivable, does it really exist in real life? The answer is NO.Let us also give an example of Vampires. They are the scariest, evillest, bloodsucking creatures we can ever imagine. This, therefore, means that the notion of vampires is always in our mind. But remember that St. Anselm wants to convince us that the most extreme thing must always be both in our mind and reality. In other words, when we follow his arguments, then vampires both exist in our imagination and reality. But we all know that vampires are always just imagination. This, therefore, means that not every greatest or supreme or worst thing must always exist both in our imagination and in reality. This is the basis of Anselms argument, hence making his argument null and void. Dont get me wrong; I am not contradicting the existence of God by any means, I am just saying that Anselms argument for his existence is quite non-convincing. I believe that there can always be other better ontological theories that can best describe the existence of God.Five Proofs for the Existence of God by AquinasS t. Thomas Aquinas tried to supply the real evidence by providing five tests that should make anybody believe that God exists. In his book, Five Proofs for the Existence of God, Aquinas endeavours to explain the existence of God by referring to the originality of events. According to him, for an existence of any event or anything, there has to be a brainchild or the starter of these events, and the starter is who we refer to as God. Aquinas so called proofs are full of logical loopholes and inconsistencies that make me reject his argument. This does not mean that I do not believe in the existence of God, I just dont believe in inconsistent statements called proofs.Aquinas proofs were divided into five different ways:Way I: We can always prove that things are always moving in this world. The only way anything can move is only when something which was at rest was moved by something which was in motion. This, therefore, means that there has to be a mover of everything and that the mover must be moved by something. We cant assume that this sequence started from infinity because infinity does not exist in the first place. Therefore, there has to be the first mover, and this is God (Kenny, 2014).Way II: Aquinas believes that there is nothing that always creates itself. There must always be an ultimate creator. And that creator is God.Way III: Something must have caused the existence of a contingent being. This something or someone must have been definite to enable it to cause contingent beings. This definite being is whom we call God.Way IV: Things can be categorised in that on becomes better than the other. In this world of comparison, there must always be something which will better than everything else. This best thing is the one we call God.Way V: Nature behaves in a way that they are directed towards a given direction. However, most of the natural things do not have the brains to direct themselves towards those goals. There has to be one being that directs them, and that is God.Most of these rules may seem convincing, but the truth is that they are not consistent. Take, for example, the first way. Aquinas tries to convince us that the first mover is God. What he doesnt tell us is what motivates God to start moving things. This theory tries to convince us that God has always been moving from the beginning of time or maybe he has never moved. But again if He has never moved, he cannot cause any movement. This begs the question, what caused the movement of God? This, therefore, means that Aquinas Cosmological Arguments were both inconclusive and inconsistent.We can also approach this argument in the perspective of science. Aquinas based its case on Aristotles theory that a bodys natural state is always at rest. This theory was later rendered redundant by Isaac Newton when he came up with the Laws of Motion. Isaacs first law of motion states that a body will always continue to be at rest or will always move with a constant velocity until it is acted upon by an external force. This, therefore, means that it is normal for a body always to move as it is okay for it to stay at rest without the need for any starter.Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand RussellBertrand Russells lecture Why I Am Not a Christian is one point of argument which has been used by atheists to &ld...