The Issue of Gods Existence - Case Study Example

HUM FINAL II ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT BY ST. ANSELM The idea of God’s existence is one of the most, if not the most, controversial idea that ever cross the human mind. This particular conception since then became the focal point of philosophical discourses in the medieval period. But, even in the contemporary times the issue of God’s existence is still a major if not the core discourses in philosophy of which questions such as does exist is still a valid inquiry. Let alone to those who are not believers. This inquiry has been popularized by the main stream philosophy that is to say the modern and the contemporary philosophical thinkers. As such, let us look into one of the more intriguing argument pertinent to the existence of God. St. Anselm is one of the leading theologian-philosopher during the medieval period. He provided us with one of the many versions of the ontological argument for the existence of God. According to Anselm, ‘God is the greatest conceivable being.’ And since God is the greatest conceivable being, therefore God exists. Now, one may not agree right away with him but let us try to clarify some point made by St. Anselm. Two things can be inferred from the argument. First, the human mind is capable of conceiving the greatest being. That to say, that it is only the human mind that has the capability and the capacity to recognize the greatest being. Second, the moment that the greatest being is conceived, it exists. At the onset it seems that St. Anselm seems to jump from mental conception of a being to its actual existence. But is he guilty of it? No! For St. Anselm, the actual existence is greater than mental existence so much so that “if the greatest conceivable is not actual, it is not the greatest conceivable being” (Grave 32) As such, at the core of his argument is the truism that existence is better and that understanding this is the greatest key to ‘defining’ God. What is existence then? If we are going to look at Realism, in its simplest form, it affirms the claim that X (a thing) exists at a given place Y in time Z. This is basically similar with axiom of location which purports the idea that a thing if it is real, exists at least on one location, and at most one location. It attests to the reality of matter, thus affirming materialism or the physical body of objects. As such, it is not surprising that naturalism basically supports this strand of interpretation in lieu of existence. On the other hand, another way of understanding existence is via apprehension of the universals or forms or ideas and this is termed as idealism. Under idealism, the axiom of location is insignificant and the idea of ‘grayness exists’. Now how do we relate this with St. Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God? There is no doubt with St. Anselm that God exists on the premise that God is the greatest conceivable idea. But God is not only a mental concept. Rather, God possesses an actual existence since “actual existence is greater than mental existence” (Grave 32) for the reasons that first, if the greatest conceivable is not actual, it is not the greatest thing and second, if the greatest conceivable is not actual, it is not the greatest conceivable. This is very important since for St. Anselm it is not enough that the idea is conceivable or that it has a mental existence. But, because he himself recognizes that a thing cannot only exists in the human mind or in the understanding, greater than what actually exist. However, God is a being too great to be conceived that even the “fools cannot deny the existence of God in his mind” (St. Anselm in Grave 31). Being such, St. Anselm is telling us that God exists both in our understanding and in reality. Therefore, God’s existence is true. The effort with which St. Anselm tried to clarify for us is the idea of God base on proof corroborating the relation between reason and faith. His proof shows that faith and reason are not in contra- position against each other but that reason can be used to advance proof in lieu of faith. But one problem that counters St. Anselm’s ontological argument is forwarded by Immanuel Kant when he claimed that existence is not an essence which is implied in the ontological argument of St. Anselm. Although Kant’s critique has dealt a terrible blow in the ontological argument of St. Augustine, current discussions on modality is skirting away, existence is not an essence counter position. KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT It is metaphysically impossible for something to come out from nothing. This particular claim maybe enough for some people to accept the validity of the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God. However, it is unfortunate that not everybody is familiar with the Kalam’s cosmological argument. What is it then? Kalam’s cosmological argument for the existence of God has originated and has been developed by Muslims in Moorish Spain during the late 900’s. The argument is basically anchored on two presuppositions: first, human beings are inherently rational and that queries pertinent to the origin of the universe are important in our understanding of the human context and situation. And second, it defines the term God as the ‘greatest conceivable being’, for instance, Zeus versus Apollo, who is the greater god’s between the two? Apparently, it is Zeus. Therefore, it is more likely that Zeus is the God. These two precepts will allow us to understand the entire Kalam cosmological argument. The argument is made up of two premises I Whatever begins to exist has a cause. II The physical universe began to exist. The universe has a cause. Premise I, is a causal relationship. As a major premise, it asserts the logic, facticity and validity of the assertion that ‘something cannot come out from nothing’. Being such, Science itself assumes that everything that which has a beginning has a cause. The truism of this major premise is undeniable. Law of thought and the laws of Nature assent to the truth of this particular premise. Premise II is an instantiation of premise I, since it now speaks of a particular event which is claimed to have a beginning. According to science, the physical universe began 13.7 billion years age, which in turn presents to us the idea that the physical universe has a temporal beginning, since it mentioned about a span of time of its existence. And this date is attested by the Big Bang Theory. What makes premise II important is the idea that it supports the notion that we cannot hold infinite regress as we try to comprehend the beginning of the physical universe. It has a beginning in finite time. The universe exists in a particular finite time and space. The conclusion ‘the universe has a cause’ follows from premises I and II. Its truth is not only based on logic but it is also based on the coherence of the evidence presented by Science. As such, the Kalam’s cosmological argument is valid and sound and its premises and conclusion true. But how can it counter atheism? An atheist may argue that Kalam’s cosmological argument though sound and sound it does not directly prove the existence of God. The beauty of the argument lies on the fact that it uses logic and Science as the foundation for its assertion regarding the existence of God. It denies infinite regress and at the same time it supports the principle of parsimony which states that plurality is not to be posited without necessity. In the same manner, it delineates the question by clearly setting the boundaries between the ’origin of the universe’ and the ‘creation of the universe’. Under this, it sets the parameters between the two question and at the same time shows that the question of origin of the universe vis-à-vis the question of the creation of the universe is a continuous one. Moreover, it makes more prominent the idea of an uncaused cause which is the cause of everything is not a mere rhetoric or a figment of imagination. It can be inferred logically from a very coherent, strong, sound and valid argument. In my opinion, it is in fact more common sensical if compared with the multi - universe theory which holds that there is possible universe that exist at each different instance of time. The conception that “God bringing finite reality into being at a point in time before which no such reality existed” (Craig 476) does not counter the other attributes that we attach to the idea of God. More over, Kalam’s epistemological argument places us in a good epistemic position as we try address a metaphysical query pertinent to the creation of the universe. The atheist may deny God’s existence, but the Truth of Logic and the Inference and theories of Science bear to the Reality, existence of God. JUST WAR Humanity’s experience of wars stupefies human understanding. Since, such an experience shatters the foundational belief that all human beings are rational beings and that humanity’s actions are always guided the by tenets of rationality. However, since human story is undeniably peppered with wars, perhaps it is apt time for us to look into the concept of just war. According to Claude, “Every war is at least a bilateral phenomenon” (Claude 84). With this in mind it is not surprising that different views regarding the proper approach to war have been elucidated and one of those is just war. The idea of just war started with the Romans although contemporary appreciation of the concept is attributed to St Augustine and St Thomas. According to St Augustine, a just war can be waged provided that it is for “the avenging of injuries suffered – when one must vanquished by armed forces a city or a nation which is unwilling to punish a bad action of its citizen, or which refuses to restore what it has unjustly taken; yet never might a war to be began out of a craving for power or revenge” (Nussbaum 455). And this idea of just war of St .Augustine is fortified by St. Thomas Aquinas with his discourse On War. In the text, St Thomas Aquinas maintains that there are three important factors in a just war and these are: 1. prince has a power thereof 2. that there is a justa causa, to wit that the adverse party deserves to be fought against because of some guilt of his own. 3. that the belligerents are possessed of recta intention, the intention to promote the good or to avoid evil. These two conceptions of just war as presented by St. Augustine and St. Thomas respectively present to us the grounds wherein war can be justified and categorized to be a ‘just war’. At the same time, this elucidation of just war, affirms the idea that “few people have ever really and steadfastly rejected the view that war is sometimes justifiable and sometimes not” (Claude 85). It is just another way of saying how could a war be just and in fact, we know the consequence of it. And secondly, many of the wars waged in humanity are forms of aggression. To mention an example on the war of aggression is US – Iraq war. It is a clear war for world power and supremacy and oil. This is clearly presented in a documentary film by Michael Moore entitled Fahrenheit 9/11. Though it is very controversial and provocative film it shows us a nation in constant fear of ‘’terror’’ attacks. On the second look, Bush’s war on Iraq was first started by George Bush (the father) and concluded by George W. Bush (the son) by deposing Iraq’s president in the guise of maintaining world peace by ceasing Iraq’s weapon of mass destruction. Saddam was dethroned, but where are the weapons of mass destruction? Nothing! Clearly it was a war of aggression. ST. AUGUSTINE AND PLATONISM The influence of Plato in St. Augustine is undeniable. The parallelism of the Republic and the City of God is so much such that it has been sometimes maintained that the city of god is the Christianize Republic. But more than the admiration that Augustine has for Plato, what are the Platonic influences to the study of Augustine and Christianity. The Platonic influences are: 1. the centrality and authenticity of spiritual substance 2. the concept of evil as the privation of the good. 3. duality of the body – soul but both body and soul are integral in salvation BIBLIOGRAPHY: Claude, Iris L. “Just War: Doctrines and Institutions”. Political Science Quarterly, Vol 95, No. 1 Spring 1980. pp 83 – 96. Craig, William. “What Place, Then, for a Creator? : Hawking on God and Creation. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol 41,No 4, Dec. 1990. pp 473 – 491. Grave, S.A. “The Ontological Argument of Anselm”. Philosophy, No. 100, Jan. 1952. pp 30 – 38. Nussbaum, Arthur, “Just War: A Legal Concept?”. Michigan Law Review, Vol. 42, No. 3, Dec. 1943. pp. 453 – 479. Read More