Proofs for God's Existence

Introduction

The question of whether or not there is a Deity is one that has been asked for

ages and probably still will be asked in years to come. The idea or concept of a

greater power than us humans is conceptual and therefore lacks tangible

evidence . Thus the various arguments that have been derived by various

Philosophers , all claiming that they are able to persuade a non-believer into a

believer . It still remains a very individual and personal decision , as to whether

one chooses to believe or not based on these proofs alone.

I shall discuss two of the proofs which I feel are most profound , and those are

the cosmological and teleological arguments. In as much as these proofs cause

one to think deeply about the concept of God , they are not without fault . I will

also , therefore discuss the common objections to these proofs ,as well as those

of the ontological argument and Pascal's wager. All this in efforts to gain insight

on how well , if so ,or how badly , if not , the proofs are capable of converting

the non-believer into a believer .

St Thomas Aquinas' cosmological argument is the first I shall discuss. In the

Summa Theologica he claims to be able to prove the existence of God in five

ways. He embarks on his quest by posing five premises in which each one

showcases a different way in which God's existence can be proven. In the first

instance, he says " whatever is put in motion is put in motion by another " . That

basically nothing can be in motion unless that motion was initiated by something

else. This idea creates a series of objects passing actuality onto each other. A

chain that seems to go for ever, till infinity. But according to St Thomas ,"this

cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover". It is

therefore necessary to acknowledge the presence of an initial mover, seeing as in

all the other objects move because they have been moved, the same way a staff

moves because of the hand. There must be then a first mover, and this initial

mover is what everyone understands as God.

This idea seems visible in the world in some instances, for example the making

of rain and rain clouds. It all begins with two air streams with different

temperatures and humidity. The warmer air is less dense and therefore rises

above the cooler air. As the warm air rises, it cools and can then hold on to less

water vapor. The water condenses out of the atmosphere, forms clouds and

eventually rain. Well without getting too technical, one is able to see that just as

in the example of fire given by St Thomas, the warm air particles (which are

in fact potentially cold) are reduced to the actuality of coldness by the cooler

particles as the rise above them. In this case its clear that there is also a chain of

things causing others to be in motion, and all this must have begun from one

initial point. That initial point, or the cause of the first movement is God.

The second premise is from the nature of the efficient cause. He says that in the

world of reason we find that there is "an order of efficient causes." He goes on to

say that it is impossible for something to exist merely as a result of itself and

that in efficient causes it is impossible to go on to infinity. There must be an

ultimate cause, one that caused the intermediate, the intermediate the next and

so on. Thus we need to admit to a first efficient, and this cause is what we call

God. This premise is somewhat similar to the third one, or at least it invokes the

same principle as the third one. This third instance or premise is that of

contingency.

He says that in nature we find things that are "possible to be and not be." That it

is impossible for these things to always exist. And because of this, their

existence must be unnecessary. But if it is such that these things or beings are

finite, then it is possible that there was a period when there may have been

nothing in existence. And if this were true, then there still would be nothing in

existence today. Unless there was something, or there is something of infinite

existence that created the finite beings. This infinite being must exist necessarily.

The essence of this super being is what we call God.

One can say that our unnecessary existence is made all the more apparent by