Arguments for the Existence of God?

Lush-Beauty · Jan 24th, 2009, 04:39 PM

salam guys
i m studying philosophy in religious studies module and i need lil help about these argumnts if any one hav eva studied or knw about it.

Does Any one knws about few Arguments for the Existenec of the God?
such as

-Cosmological Argument by Aquinas
-kalam Argument by Imam-Al ghuzali
-Ontological Argument by Anselm/Gaunilo

psyah · Jan 24th, 2009, 07:27 PM

^ Peace Lush-Beauty

Ludwig Wittgenstein - To believe in God is to realize life has meaning

things always come from other things, therefore there must be a 'something' that was always there in order for us to be here today. St Augustine

To believe in God is to rely on only one unknown, but to disbelieve in God is to attempt answering all unknowns, the former is more pragmatic.

Hegel - God is the only being who exists in essence

Qur'an - He is One (Unique), Eternal, Does not bear, nor given birth to, nothing compares to Him

Descartes - Existence cannot be separated from the essence of God any more than an isosceles triangle from its two equal angles.

Kant argues that it is not enough to define something to say that it exists, citing the example of money.

Comment- However, this argument should not be applied on the situation when the definition itself bears some relationship to existence itself.

Cosmological proof: Leibniz - no fact could be true or existent, no statement could be true unless there is sufficient cause that it should be so and not otherwise.

Which means 'in principle everything that is true has full explanation, but it may be that we in practice cannot reach some of those explanations'

Aquinas - If the world, then God, the world is, therefore God

example of a contingentia mundi -

According to Kant the cosmological proof boils down to the onotological proof

physio-theological proof - which is reasoning by using the 'why's for the world'

There is another way to look upon this matter though ... It is to argue that the concept of God is evolutionary. A feeling of God, be it an imperfect feeling or an imperfect concept of God or both will lead towards a process of refinement for the concept of God. All established criticisms of infered arguments are only critical of imperfect perceptions and not of the subject matter that the perceptions are focus toward. Kant believes he has disproved the proofs of God, but it did not prevent him from choosing 'faith' in God. I gather this because the concept of God is required, though the process that would lead to that requirement is not a rational one.

But it is not to say that it is not based on reason ...

ravage · Jan 25th, 2009, 05:58 PM

there is in addition to the above, the teleological argument

i have a very good audio series of lectures on philosophy of religion by Professor Hall from University of Richmond, which i'd highly recommend.

Lush-Beauty · Jan 26th, 2009, 08:46 AM

[quote=psyah;6289614]^ Peace Lush-Beauty

Cosmological proof: Leibniz - no fact could be true or existent, no statement could be true unless there is sufficient cause that it should be so and not otherwise.Aquinas - If the world, then God, the world is, therefore God quote]

Jazaka_Allah pysah
This line would cover my wrk If the world, then God, the world is, therefore God.Aquinas knew God Exists but he didnt wantd 2 belv
YouTube - Five Reasons to Believe that God Exists- St. Thomas Aquinas

Lush-Beauty · Jan 26th, 2009, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ravage

there is in addition to the above, the teleological argument

i have a very good audio series of lectures on philosophy of religion by Professor Hall from University of Richmond, which i'd highly recommend.

Teleological Argumnt>> By William Paley.
I hav done this Argument last yr. i studied views of 3 Philosphers in it. It says clearly God Exists.

i want 2 knw more about those Argumnts which i mentioned above.

IntelliPhant · Jan 26th, 2009, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lush-Beauty

salam guys
i m studying philosophy in religious studies module and i need lil help about these argumnts if any one hav eva studied or knw about it.

Does Any one knws about few Arguments for the Existenec of the God?
such as

-Cosmological Argument by Aquinas
-kalam Argument by Imam-Al ghuzali
-Ontological Argument by Anselm/Gaunilo

The ontological argument in essence attempts to prove the existence of God by an analysis of the idea or notion of Him. The common form of the ontological argument goes like this.

“God is truly understood to be the being than which a greater cannot be thought of. But a being who exists in reality and not merely as an object of thought is greater than a being who exists merely in the mind. Hence, if God did not exist actually outside the mind, He would not be that than which nothing greater can be thought of. Therefore, God exists in reality and not merely in our minds.”

The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. Century A.D. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being — namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists — can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived — i.e., God — exists

Descartes utilized the ontological argument throughout his works. His proof runs like this: “When one says that something is contained in the nature or concept of a thing, thereby affirms that this something belongs in truth to that thing, is true of it. But the necessary existence of God is contained in the idea of God. Therefore, it is true to say of God that necessary existence is in Him, that is, that He exists.”

Leibniz’ ontological argument goes like this: “It is possible for God to exist, since that does not involve contradiction. But if God is possible, He must exist, since a God who is merely possible is not that which is understood by the concept ‘God.’ Therefore, God really exists.”

The cosmological argument is another way of arguing for the existence of God. It is also known as the first cause argument for the existence of God. There are three versions of this argument: the argument from causation in esse, the argument from causation in fieri, and the argument from contingency.

St. Thomas Aquinas, the most famous philosopher of the Middle Ages adapted an argument he found in his reading of Aristotle to form one of the earliest, and the most influential versions of the cosmological argument.
The cosmological argument does not attempt to prove other attributes about God. Scholastic philosophers believed however further arguments can be used to prove to anyone via logic some attributes of God, such as his omniscienice, simpleness (or total lack of composition), and more. However, they believed other things can not be known about God by deduction and can only be known by divine revelation, such as that God is a trinity.

Framed as a formal proof, the first cause argument can be stated as follows:
1. Things are caused.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Therefore, everything that is caused is caused by something other than itself.
4. A causal chain cannot stretch infinitely backward in time.
5. If the causal chain cannot stretch infinitely backward in time, there must be a first cause.
6. Therefore, everything that is caused has a first cause, i.e. God influential versions of the cosmological argument.
The cosmological argument does not attempt to prove other attributes about God. Scholastic philosophers believed however further arguments can be used to prove to anyone via logic some attributes of God, such as his omniscience, simple ness (or total lack of composition), and more. However, they believed other things can not be known about God by deduction and can only be known by divine revelation, such as that God is.

The greatest work of Thomas was the Summa and it is the fullest presentation of his views, it has three parts, Part one. treats of God, who is the "first cause, himself uncaused" (primum movens immobile) and as such existent only in act (actu), that is pure actuality without potentiality and, therefore, without corporeality. His essence is actus purus et perfectos. This follows from the fivefold proof for the existence of God; namely, there must be a first mover, unmoved, a first cause in the chain of causes, an absolutely necessary being, an absolutely perfect being, and a rational designer. In this connection the thoughts of the unity, infinity, unchangeableness, and goodness of the highest being are deduced.

p.s

I have read critique on the work of these philosophers and I have copied a few parts relevant to your query, if you are interested to read more I can send you a book also.

ravage · Jan 26th, 2009, 11:28 AM

as an aside, all arguments for god, cosmological, teleological and ontological have severe limitations, and eventually fail to make the case they try to make.

IntelliPhant · Jan 26th, 2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ravage

as an aside, all arguments for god, cosmological, teleological and ontological have severe limitations, and eventually fail to make the case they try to make.

Are these limitations inherent to the strength to the arguments presented by philosophers, or we, human being, don't have capability to conceive the idea of God owing to our limitations? or language has not reached at an epic level to present a priori in an acceptable way, any thoughts?

Obama · Jan 26th, 2009, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lush-Beauty

salam guys
i m studying philosophy in religious studies module and i need lil help about these argumnts if any one hav eva studied or knw about it.

Does Any one knws about few Arguments for the Existenec of the God?
such as

-Cosmological Argument by Aquinas
-kalam Argument by Imam-Al ghuzali
-Ontological Argument by Anselm/Gaunilo

Wa Alaikum Assalam

Why go so far back to "old" Books......................

Look at what is happening at present.....................

The First Election after 9/11...........

A poor Muslims' Son becomes President of the most Powerful Nation on Earth.................Proof enough don't you think!

ravage · Jan 26th, 2009, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntelliPhant

Are these limitations inherent to the strength to the arguments presented by philosophers, or we, human being, don't have capability to conceive the idea of God owing to our limitations? or language has not reached at an epic level to present a priori in an acceptable way, any thoughts?

my comment was specifically about those three lines of argument, which ofcourse are implicitly generated by philosophers.

Lush-Beauty · Jan 26th, 2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntelliPhant

The ontological argument in essence attempts to prove the existence of God by an analysis of the idea or notion of Him. The common form of the ontological argument goes like this.

“God is truly understood to be the being than which a greater cannot be thought of. But a being who exists in reality and not merely as an object of thought is greater than a being who exists merely in the mind. Hence, if God did not exist actually outside the mind, He would not be that than which nothing greater can be thought of. Therefore, God exists in reality and not merely in our minds.”

The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. Century A.D. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being — namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists — can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived — i.e., God — exists

Descartes utilized the ontological argument throughout his works. His proof runs like this: “When one says that something is contained in the nature or concept of a thing, thereby affirms that this something belongs in truth to that thing, is true of it. But the necessary existence of God is contained in the idea of God. Therefore, it is true to say of God that necessary existence is in Him, that is, that He exists.”

Leibniz’ ontological argument goes like this: “It is possible for God to exist, since that does not involve contradiction. But if God is possible, He must exist, since a God who is merely possible is not that which is understood by the concept ‘God.’ Therefore, God really exists.”

The cosmological argument is another way of arguing for the existence of God. It is also known as the first cause argument for the existence of God. There are three versions of this argument: the argument from causation in esse, the argument from causation in fieri, and the argument from contingency.

St. Thomas Aquinas, the most famous philosopher of the Middle Ages adapted an argument he found in his reading of Aristotle to form one of the earliest, and the most influential versions of the cosmological argument.
The cosmological argument does not attempt to prove other attributes about God. Scholastic philosophers believed however further arguments can be used to prove to anyone via logic some attributes of God, such as his omniscienice, simpleness (or total lack of composition), and more. However, they believed other things can not be known about God by deduction and can only be known by divine revelation, such as that God is a trinity.

Framed as a formal proof, the first cause argument can be stated as follows:
1. Things are caused.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Therefore, everything that is caused is caused by something other than itself.
4. A causal chain cannot stretch infinitely backward in time.
5. If the causal chain cannot stretch infinitely backward in time, there must be a first cause.
6. Therefore, everything that is caused has a first cause, i.e. God influential versions of the cosmological argument.
The cosmological argument does not attempt to prove other attributes about God. Scholastic philosophers believed however further arguments can be used to prove to anyone via logic some attributes of God, such as his omniscience, simple ness (or total lack of composition), and more. However, they believed other things can not be known about God by deduction and can only be known by divine revelation, such as that God is.

The greatest work of Thomas was the Summa and it is the fullest presentation of his views, it has three parts, Part one. treats of God, who is the "first cause, himself uncaused" (primum movens immobile) and as such existent only in act (actu), that is pure actuality without potentiality and, therefore, without corporeality. His essence is actus purus et perfectos. This follows from the fivefold proof for the existence of God; namely, there must be a first mover, unmoved, a first cause in the chain of causes, an absolutely necessary being, an absolutely perfect being, and a rational designer. In this connection the thoughts of the unity, infinity, unchangeableness, and goodness of the highest being are deduced.

p.s

I have read critique on the work of these philosophers and I have copied a few parts relevant to your query, if you are interested to read more I can send you a book also.as an aside, all arguments for god, cosmological, teleological and ontological have severe limitations, and eventually fail to make the case they try to make

I m v thankful 2 U

U have made it easy nd clear as 5 reasons by Aquinas
U r right their Argumnts didnt make them Successful

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obama

Wa Alaikum Assalam

Why go so far back to "old" Books......................

Look at what is happening at present.....................

The First Election after 9/11...........

A poor Muslims' Son becomes President of the most Powerful Nation on Earth.................Proof enough don't you think!

lol Obama Obama
I m Muslim and i knw God Exists
but i m studying Philosophy and reading these Argumnts thats y came here 4 help.

psyah · Jan 26th, 2009, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ravage

as an aside, all arguments for god, cosmological, teleological and ontological have severe limitations, and eventually fail to make the case they try to make.

Peace ravage

That is why I use the terms 'reason' and 'evidence' and not 'logic' and 'proof'.

It is completely reasonable to present the said arguments and classify them as evidence, but to then take the challenge of providing logical arguments and hence attempt to prove the existence of God would be a fallacy in premise inherently against what faith requires.

Were it possible to prove God, then it would not be noble to believe in God. However, belief based on reason such as the illogical arguments above then this is perfectly 'understandable' by all people and though it cannot be logically determined it can be objectively understood. This is where the middle ground between blind belief and certainty of sight sits.

Lush-Beauty · Jan 26th, 2009, 04:03 PM

Religion tells Why
Science tells How

ravage · Jan 26th, 2009, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psyah

Peace ravage

That is why I use the terms 'reason' and 'evidence' and not 'logic' and 'proof'.

It is completely reasonable to present the said arguments and classify them as evidence, but to then take the challenge of providing logical arguments and hence attempt to prove the existence of God would be a fallacy in premise inherently against what faith requires.

Were it possible to prove God, then it would not be noble to believe in God. However, belief based on reason such as the illogical arguments above then this is perfectly 'understandable' by all people and though it cannot be logically determined it can be objectively understood. This is where the middle ground between blind belief and certainty of sight sits.

why is it reasonable to accept a fallible argument as evidence?

i dont believe anything can be objectively understood, thats almost a contradiction in terms. understanding is always subjective and personal.

Lost souls · Jan 27th, 2009, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lush-Beauty

Religion tells LIE
Science tells WHY

..
tHAT'S WHAT IT IS..

dk_bagga · Jan 27th, 2009, 01:22 AM

I don't know if GOd exists or not. but i know that God's image in our mind is created by this society where we are living. I don't know this is true or false.

psyah · Jan 27th, 2009, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ravage

why is it reasonable to accept a fallible argument as evidence?

i dont believe anything can be objectively understood, thats almost a contradiction in terms. understanding is always subjective and personal.

Peace ravage

I didn't say it is reasonable to accept a fallible argument as evidence. I said it is reasonable to accept arguments that are comprehensive yet not logical.

At best the ontological arguments and cosmological arguments are self fulfilling so logically they are not 'untrue' rather they are 'indeterminate' which means as you know that 'they present the possibility' of truth. This is a reasonable argument and not a fallible argument. To accept something which is 'untrue' is fallible such as the concept of Trinity.

Now to explain by what I meant by objectively understood.

I didn't intend to say that everyone understands the matter like everyone else. Rather I intended to say that although something may not flow according to strict logical rules ... the concept of reflecting on things brings humans to the same reasonable conclusions. That to understand that something of complicated nature has to be made by something else is something that everyone can grasp albeit not necessarily in the same way. That to ask a sample set of people if they understand this to be reasonable most people will say yes. The few that will say no are the people who have misunderstood the question and may probably reply with a reason that the argument is not conclusive, but that was not the answer to the question asked...

diwana · Jan 27th, 2009, 11:26 PM

Any argument in existence of God can be countered by opposite argument.

Existence of God is a belief based on circumstantial evidences. For many its a hearsay and for others its its a strong belief.

Reward is promised by God who believe his existence. No if's And's or but's.

Man does not have the ability to know if God exists or not.

Lost souls · Jan 28th, 2009, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diwana

Any argument in existence of God can be countered by opposite argument.

Existence of God is a belief based on circumstantial evidences. For many its a hearsay and for others its its a strong belief.

Reward is promised by God who believe his existence. No if's And's or but's.

Man does not have the ability to know if God exists or not.

Man doesn't that's why he produced science...

diwana · Jan 28th, 2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lost souls

Man doesn't that's why he produced science...

Man did not 'produce' science. Man only 'discovered' scientific knowledge and used it to produce certain 'material' items.

Science is incapable of proving or refuting God's 'existence'. Like I mentioned earlier, existence of God is a matter of 'belief' (faith).