God's existence

Anselm's argument

Aquinas' First Way (Change)

Explanation

Using our senses, we can understand that there are things in motion in the world

Everything in motion is caused by something else in motion

So nothing is in motion unless it has the potential to move and is in a relationship with something that can put it in motion

There is potentiality and actuality (eg. potential energy and actual motion)

Nothing can be brought from potentiality to actuality except by something in actuality

Therefore an object cannot bring itself from potentiality to actuality (Itself cannot be caused and caused)

So every object in motion was brought by another object in motion, which was then brought into motion by another object in motion and so on...

But this cannot continue into infinity as there would be no first object in motion

There must be a first mover which was moved by nothing, and we call that God

Examples

Criticism

Why can't this sequence enter into infinity?

Entire argument is hinged on one assumption that this cannot go on infinitely

Science says otherwise

While science does support the notion that energy cannot be created nor destroyed

What about the big bang instead of a God as the first mover?

Multiple first movers

Aquinas believes there is only one first mover

Why can't there be multiple first movers?

What/Who put God in motion? How do you prove he was just there to move everything?

What if there was always motion in the universe?

Dominos

Each domino has potentiality

Yet they can only moved when caused to moved by another moving domino

The first domino to fall must be influenced by an external factor, a first unmoved mover

First law of thermodynamics

Energy (motion) in the universe cannot be created or destroyed

They can only be transferred or converted into different forms

So it would seem that there would have to be a first mover to create all the energy (motion) in the universe

Aquinas' Fifth Way (Harmony)

Explanation

Natural bodies work for an end goal, even if they are not knowledgable or conscious for the best possible result

Therefore a clear indication has a proper form of function, it is their basis of design without thinking

They arrive at their goals by purpose, not by chance (it is too directed to simply be coincidental)

But they do not have knowledge or consciousness, therefore must be guided by something which does towards their goals

So there must be something knowledgeable that guides all natural bodies, and we call that God

Examples

Criticisms

Plants bending towards light

Plants are not conscious

So how do they do this?

Migration of animals

Turtles seeking the ocean after birth

Birds flying south

Other animals migrating based on seasons

Stunning accurate that is innate

How do they innately have this knowledge?

Seconds after birth they will crawl into the ocea

Assumption that there must be something guiding natural beings

How can you disprove these actions are not simply by chance and other animals of same species copying each other?

How do you prove these natural beings are not knowledgable?

Could these natural beings be conscious and choose the actions themselves?

Natural Selection and Evolution

Scientific theories indicating no guidance present

Survival of the fittest

Plenty of natural beings have gone extinct due to not being competitive enough to survive

So did God not guide these natural beings?

Argument is often used to suppress LGBT groups and other minority groups that go against religious beliefs

These groups go against God's design

But they survive and thrive in today's society

So natural beings can go against God's design and guidance and still live?

Explanation

We think of God as a the greatest being which no greater can be fathomed

This being can either exist only in our minds or in both our minds and in reality

Then assumed this being exists only in the mind

Establish that existing in both mind and reality is greater than existing only in the mind

This being existing in the mind can also be conceived to exist in reality

The being that exists only in our mind is therefore not the being than which no greater can be conceived

Something that only exists in the mind is not the greatest being that can be conceived because it only exists in the mind

It could only be the greatest if it also exists in reality

Therefore, this being that which no greater can be fathomed must exists in both mind and reality

Therefore God must exist in reality, because God is the greatest being possibly fathomed

Examples

Criticisms

Christianity

God is portrayed as the greatest possible being in every possible characteristic

God is flawless

Perfect island argument

Perfection does not imply existence

By substituting 'God' for an 'perfect island', Anselm's reasoning would conclude that an perfect island exists

However no one would reasonably conclude that an perfect island actually exists

True premises and a false conclusion should not occur in valid arguments

By creating a similar argument to a given argument but with true premises but a false conclusion, the given argument is disproven

The Fool's Objection

Anselm does not provide clear characteristics and quantifiable ideas of 'a being than which no greater can be conceived'

Therefore Anselm's definition of God is inherently impossible to understand