Arguments for the Existence of God from a Philosophical Context - Essay Example

Your Full Your 7 December, Arguments for the Existence of God from a Philosophical Context The existence of God is a question that has been proposed for thousands of years and continuing debate with huge number of people from both sides of dispute. Most cultures and societies from inception had an idea of a Supreme Being that controlled all things and all activities in the entire universe. Numerous schools of philosophical thought attempt to define the concept of God through different approaches and views. This paper examines the dominant arguments for the existence of God and how it is presented by some philosophers, primarily, Anselm and several other philosophers whose views defines the Supreme Being. Fundamentally, Anselm seeks to provide a priori proof, which is to negate the view presented of the fool in the Bible who says there is no God in Psalm 14:1 (Princeton University para 2). Therefore, he works from the angle of trying to present the arguments and proofs that an ideal or wise person should have. This implies that in Anselms views, a wise and a good person will be one who can go into himself, evaluate things and see and accept that God exists and have a feeling of his attributes and features which are not so obvious or clear to the average mortal. In Anselms earlier work, Monologion, he states three arguments to prove the existence of God. He first thinks that there is something above all goodness and that is a superior good. He believes that things are good in different way and they all go through a supreme good thing. That thing is good in itself and is the source of the good things. Therefore, since other thing cannot be greater than the good thing through itself, that thing must be supremely good. Anselm therefore concludes that the supremely good thing is also supremely great. There is, therefore, one thing that is supremely good and supremely great. In other words, supreme among all existing things. The second argument states a similar idea that all existence must come from one ultimate cause. If there are several causes then they either must exist independently or support each other. However, if those causes exist by supporting each other mutually, they cannot exist by causing what they supported. Therefore, if they exist independently, it means that they share a common power and become an ultimate cause. Finally, Anselm argues that there must exist one thing that every existing things exists through. To explain this, he illustrates his idea as follows; things must exist through something. And something might be one or more than one. If there is more than one thing, either they all exist through one thing, or exist through themselves. Therefore, he concluded that there is something that is best and greatest and supreme among all existing things. To Anselm, God is that which nothing greater can be conceived. Therefore, in refuting the views of the fool who does not accept the existence of God, Anselm starts by drawing a distinction between things that exist in the understanding and things that exists in reality (Barnes 2). If people start to think about something then they are really thinking it and understand it. Things that exist in reality include concepts and institutionalized arrangements that we know and understand to exist. Thus for instance, we feel the air around us, we feel heat and we feel cold. We do not see it, but we understand they do exist. These form the core of things that exist to all humans. Then we have things that exist in reality that we can see, touch and feel. Anselm identifies that a grasp of things that exist in the understanding and things that exist in reality overlap to give the human being knowledge. Therefore, we all need to understand and appreciate the things that God does. People may be thinking of something that they believe does not exist, while they do not need to understand that it exists. And once we do that, we can identify the things and the ways that God operates and from there we can conclude that there is indeed an existence of God in reality. Therefore, Anselm states that God is a Being which nothing greater can be conceived (Lees 14). This builds an understanding to the human mind because we sense and feel this greatness around us each and every day. And this is seen as the conceptual truth that the human mind naturally accepts. Based on this, the human being has something within him that makes him acknowledge that a Supreme Being exists and this Supreme Being is over and above all powers and all forms of forces in the entire universe. This shapes the thought and conception of the human mind and this is an innate and in-born idea that every human being comes into the world with. Through this existence in understanding, an individual or person is able to grasp the divine existence of God in reality. This argument is balanced by the fact that if all human beings accept that there is a power higher and supreme in this world, then it is some kind of a consensus that every human being subscribes to. One does not need to struggle to understand that there is a God and God is above all other powers. This is a natural thing in our mind. And due to this consensus in the way all people think then there is a natural conclusion that a supreme power and a supreme force exists that orders affairs in the universe and this becomes a reality to the human mind. Anselm also has some ideas about the essence of God. He indicates that God does not have matter and form or any shape; therefore, He cannot be a substance. It is impossible in a being that is the unitary source of all and in a being that has no prior cause that if God were such a substance. Furthermore, God cannot be a substance possessing such qualities as justness, wisdom, truth, and goodness; for if he were, he would be just, wise, true, and good through another and not through himself. God does not possess justness and wisdom; he is justice and wisdom. That is, as was indicated in the earlier proofs, God is identical with these features, and because in Him they are one and the same essence, God is an essence. From a different angle, there is also the natural tendency for people to seek social order and follow hierarchies (Descartes 23). Everyone accepts that there are hierarchies. When a child is born, he realizes that he has a mother. Then he gets to understand that his father has some kind of power over his mother but his mother has power over his siblings. In the society, his father is accountable to someone who is also accountable to another. Hence, the idea of social order and hierarchy is a natural part of the human mind. And this, in applying to the supernatural world, allows human beings to perceive and accept the power of God and his presence in our lives and around us. This complements Anselms views of God. David Hume on the other hand critiqued the approach used by previous philosophers. In Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, David Hume uses three fictional characters Philo, Demea and Cleanthes to illustrate this idea. Cleanthes states that people have ability of knowing God by studying evidence from nature. From studying, the order of the nature, Cleanthes believes that people will understand that there is an intelligent designer behind it and this reveals the existence of God. The other two argued that nothing can be proven to exist using their non-existence and this does not imply a contradiction. Hume identified that there is no clear basis to prove the existence of God, unless the contrary is impossible. He criticized the idea that the conception or the thought of God implies his existence. This is because if we thought God exists, that is not sufficient to prove anything. It was just a personal and a private claim that anyone can make. Hume therefore argued that since everything is base on the sense, there is no proven of existence either on reality or abstract. This apparent contradiction indicated to me that Hume did not want to take sides with neither Anselm nor Descartes. This is because he saw major flaws in their view that God was perfect and was to be defined by his perfection and how that perfection occurs in life. On the other hand, David Hume identified that whether God exists or not is not up to philosophers to deduce. People have no idea how to conclude the essence of God and people have no way to prove it. He could exist and no single philosopher could have the means of assessing His existence. Personally, I think David Humes view of God and his existence in relation to empirical methods is the best. This is because Gods nature and form that all previous generations since inception have accepted is one that cannot be seen but felt in our lives. Whether we are able to prove that or not in our own generation are immaterial. There is evidence that God exists in understanding and this creates a kind of reality to the human mind. Some people have relied on God since inception and people still rely on God. This confirms the view that there is an existence in understanding and for people to rely on Him shows that he exists in reality to them. Therefore, this philosophical revolution seeking to prove the existence of God does not change the certainty of Gods existence. Rather, we must accept that God exists, but his nature and form is such that we cannot deduce or comprehend it. And certainly, our subjective views and sentiments about God do not change this position. In conclusion the earliest philosophers sought to present God as a perfect being, which it can be present in distinctive way. Whilst Anselm argued that God existed in our understanding and our realities, Descartes posited that God is an absolute being that is perfect and our attempts to conceive him does not affect this. However, Hume came to identify that there is no need to prove the existence of God because God could exist and no one can still prove the existence. Works Cited Barnes, Jonathan. Anselms Proslogium or Discourse on the Existence of God. London: St Andrews College , 2006. Descartes, René. "Meditation V: On the Essence of Material Objects and More on Gods Existence." Meditations on First Philosophy. (2012). Lees, James Thomas. Anselm of Havelberg: Deeds Into Words in the Twelfth Century. Amsterdam: BRILL, 1998. Princeton University. "Anselms Ontological Argument." 4 January 2013. Princeton University Philosophy. 11 December 2014 . Read More