The existence of God can be rationally proven, and Thomas Aquinas does a better job of this than Anselm. Aquinas uses strictly logical reasoning while Anselm starts off with a biased attitude; his opinion is clearly shown by his quotation from the Bible: “unless I believe, I shall not understand,” (Isa. 7:9). No such traces are evident in the works of Aquinas, whether in an obvious form such as a religious excerpt or in his argument’s logic itself. If only because of this, one is able to take Aquinas’ assertions more seriously than Anselm’s, because there is no sense of proclivity toward Christianity in his work.
Beyond the obvious leaning toward Christianity that Anselm has, his arguments make less sense because he claims things to be true without giving reasons why. “But clearly that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist in the understanding alone. For if it is actually in the understanding alone, it can be thought of as existing also in reality, and this is greater,” (Ans., Prosl.). In this excerpt, Anselm is trying to say that God, the entity than which a greater cannot be thought, must exist because reality is greater than understanding, and so if we can think of God, God exists. That is because if we can think of It as existing in reality, God would be less than if It actually did exist in reality, and so God must therefore exist in reality in order to be the greatest thing.
The curious part about this argument is that it only works for God; that is, one cannot say that because a purple unicorn can be thought of, that that purple unicorn exists. This is a very circular argument that Anselm makes, as it assumes that God is a special being in that the argument works only for It, and not for other beings, but this itself presents a problem because, for the argument to work, one has to assume that God exists to be a special being. This is pointless, of course, because the whole point that Anselm was trying to prove was that God exists; in order to do that, the argument cannot presuppose that God exists.
Anselm also goes on to write, “Thou so truly art, then, O Lord my God, that thou canst not even be thought of as not existing,” (Ans., Prosl.), and, “no one who understands what God is can think that God does not exist,” (Ans., Prosl.), both of which are quite false, as atheists believe exactly what Anselm is saying cannot be believed. Perhaps a rebuke by Anselm might be that these atheists then do not understand God, otherwise they would believe in It, but that presents a problem as well. That being, can any human understand God? It seems very hubristic of Anselm to demand understanding of deity, and ridiculous of him to expect that one must understand said deity before one can believe in it. This is because of the reasoning that one cannot expect understanding of a thing before one is certain of that thing’s existence; we need existence of an entity before we can truly understand it, because true understanding of a thing cannot come from mere ideas about the nature of that thing.
Aquinas finds fault with Anselm, and sums up Anselm’s argument’s main problem nicely:
Yet, granted that everyone understands… this word “God”… nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this is precisely not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist. (Aq., Summa Theol., Art. 1, Repl. Obj. 2)
Another response to an error in Anselm’s logic is, “because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us,” (Aq., Summa Theol., Art. 1, Answer).
Aquinas does the best job of proving the existence of God in his five proofs, and the first of these makes the most rational sense. He states that everything that is set into motion must have been moved by some previous action, and so on back in time. However, this cannot go on infinitely, because that would mean that there was no first mover and thus that there was no beginning to movement. That is clearly not the case, as there is movement now, action and reaction now, and so there must have been a beginning.
To have a beginning, though, there must be a mover that did not require a mover itself. This mover-without-prior-mover we call God. One might ask what makes God special, and not requiring a mover Itself, but that is looking at the situation from a wrong angle: the definition of what God is said to be makes It special. It is called God precisely because It does not require a mover for It to move, precisely because It is special. If what we called God did require something to move It before It could be set into motion, then we would be mistaken in calling It God. We would apparently not have gone back far enough into the chain of movers and the objects they move. This leads to the interesting idea that if we cannot see that God exists, it is our own shortcoming, and certainly not one of God’s due to Its lack of existence.
Aquinas’ second proof is very much like his first; he seemingly only exchanges the words “mover” and “moved” for “cause” and “effect.” In his third proof, there is a small problem, and it is this: Aquinas states, “We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be… But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not,” (Aq., Summa Theol., Art. 3, Answer). However, just because it is possible for something to happen does not mean that it must happen. The possibility is there, and so the potential for occurrence is there, but it is not a certainty that the possibility will ever be fulfilled. It is important that Aquinas is wrong in claiming what he does, for he goes on to say, “Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist… which is absurd,” (Aq., Summa Theol., Art. 3, Answer). Because it is only a possibility that at one time nothing was in existence, and not a definite certainty, then the rest of his argument is null.
Aquinas’ fourth proof is not as well written as his first, but it does stand on its own. An analogy for what he seems to be claiming can be found in a set of numbers: for any given set of numbers, there must be a highest number. Even if there are several numbers of the same highest value, those several are the highest values. God can be said to be the highest value in the set of numbers that is all creation. Aquinas talks of the gradation of things, and uses the words, “less good, true, noble, and the like,” (Aq., Summa Theol., Art. 3, Answer) to describe the relationships between objects. He says that God is “something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection,” (Aq., Summa Theol., Art. 3, Answer), i.e. the highest term in our set of numbers.
The fifth proof that Aquinas delivers is done nicely as well. Aquinas writes of beings that have no obvious intelligence and yet always they act toward the same end. Repetitively, without fail, these beings reach the same result each time they are acted upon in the same manner. (Chemical elements and their properties come to mind, for example.) Aquinas states that such order in clearly mindless entities cannot be by chance, or by any desire of the mindless entities themselves. Any direction that these entities possess must come from an intelligent being, and that being is God.
Aquinas’ argument makes sense when one considers, from what other being would such direction come? Human beings may throw together specific chemicals, but we do not make those chemicals react how they do. Since we are the most intelligent species of which we know, and we are definitely not causing particular elements to behave as they do without fail, there must be some higher power that is.
It is therefore by logical necessity that God must exist. While not all of the arguments set forth by Anselm and Aquinas were foolproof, only one good argument is necessary to prove God’s existence if that one cannot be disproved. Perhaps in the future when new discoveries come to light, we may find reasoning that can beat even the sturdiest of Aquinas’ five proofs, but for now, we must concede that God does exist, at least until we can prove It does not.
we must only concede that there is no proof, either for or against the existence of a god, therefore it would be wiser to take the non-existence stance until proven otherwise, it’s illogical not to.
Aquinas’ fourth proof and Anslem’s proof seem somehow related. That is, they are based on the definition of God. Aquinas’ falls short in that it requires perfection, or the absolutely good, to not only exist as a concept but to be real and obtainable. As in the example of numbers above, conceptually there is some number higher than all the others, but is it possible to point to any one number and say “THIS is it, the HIGHEST possible number!?” No. For there is always the next number and the highest number remains an obtainable concept. And if the highest possible number always remains unobtainable, can we really say it singularly exists? No. It is too elusive. There is always that +1 number that comes after our brightest imaginations. We can make a circular argument and say the highest possible number is “Whorteen Thosinite” but even that is not childproof as we well know even a dull child will say “Whorteen Thosinte and one”. Anslem, on the other hand, feels that God is necessitated by the definition of God. I.e., Since God is perfect and it is certainly more perfect to exist than not to exist, than God must exist. This sounds wrong to the ear from the outset, but in my judgement it is a better argument than all of Aquinas’ arguments. Still, here is a flaw: is EXISTENCE a more PERFECT state than non-existence. If the devil were non-existent that would seem more perfect. If death didn’t exist, or tragedy, or taxes, that would seem more perfect. Heck, if candy didn’t exist I might have a more perfect waistline. So I don’t think exisence is by necessity more perfect than non-existence. Anslem really just appears to be making a play on words, clever as it may be.
Aquinas’ fifth proof is an argument from design and I leave that to science, which has inadvertly dismissed that screed.
As for Aquinas’ first proof (which includes the second), it is arbritrary as well as circular. For a good example of how it is circular, just reread it but replace “God” with “the Big Bang”. Now the Big Bang is necessitated as the Prime Mover and we have proven the Big Bang exists. I do not think any strict theist would be as foolish to believe this is a proof of the big bang; nor should they expect an atheist to see it as a proof for God. The reason it is arbitrary, on the other hand, is a matter of a point in time. Let’s say God does exist, why does HE have to be the Prime Mover? Couldn’t it just as likely be that something started God? Again, if you fail to see the logic in that, replace the idea of “God” with the Big Bang. Couldn’t it be that something started the Big Bang? Of course it could.
The arguments for God are rational in appearance only. They do not stand up to deeper criticism and only hold up among those who already believe.
I think Aquinas did not find the best way of putting across his fifth.
By definition intelligence is the ability to put 1 and 1 together, the ability to recognise/create truth and facts.
The source of the laws of physics requires that capability for the laws of physics to hold together as they do, for them to work.
If the source of the laws of physics did not have the definition of intelligence behind them then they would fall apart.
As a result of intelligence they always act towards a specific will or “toward the same end”, without fail. Because of the ability to acknowledge truth. Aka knowledge aka intelligence.
Nothing is possible beyond rationality/God/his will, that’s why the universe exists as it does.
I simply wanted to respond to a point Jim made in regards to Aquinas’ 1st and 2nd argument (i.e. essentially the Cosmological argument). What of the Kalam Cosmological argument developed by the Muslim philosopher and theologian Imam Al-Ghazzali?
You reason that if one was to replace the word “God” with “Big Bang” your point would be illustrated (i.e. something could have caused God). However, I do not think this reasoning is sound, because although the words my be interchanged, the concepts cannot in the same manner as they are rather different. God is by definition Eternal, Absolute and Uncreated etc. He did not, by definition, begin to exist. One may argue that the Universe does not explain its own existence, it began to exist in the Big Bang. Thus, it must have had a cause of some sort (do not mistake this to be a physical assertion, it is a metaphysical one). This cause could be mechanical in nature, or personal. If it is personal (i.e. Conscious in some form), we will call it “God”.
And logically, in order to avoid an infinite regression (refer to Hilbert’s hotel dilemma) it is simplest (Occams Razor) to end the Causal chain at God being the Ultimate cause. Now, back to what I said about this being a metaphysical assertion. Some Atheists have argued that causality makes no sense in the absence of time. They mistake this assertion as being physical in nature (i.e. God “causes” the universe – a process that occurs in some sequential fashion, thereby requiring time). I will leave it to the words of Hamza Andreas Tzortzis:
“The Professor exclaimed that to posit a cause outside of the universe, and therefore outside of time, doesn’t make sense. However I argued that God’s act of creation can act as a simultaneous asymmetric type of cause, which is not temporally, but causally prior to the moment of creation. His act of creation is thus simultaneous with the creation of the universe. So the universe is an effect produced by a cause in time, in other words the act of creation enters time and causes the universe to come into existence at the same moment, and there are no good philosophical reasons why this can’t be true.
I ended my response by concluding that there is no Philosophical consensus on the definition of causality (not to mention time itself!). Therefore, in the absence of a consensus the most basic definition should be used, and this definition doesn’t include time as a necessary factor. The basic definition is ‘something which produces an effect’. ”
A comment on Hamza’s blog elaborates on this quite nicely:
“I could theorize that time is itself a relative phenomenon. In other words, without mutliple (one or more) created entities to use as a reference point, does time exist? Put another way, without any reference points in creation, what is time really? Without the moon, the sun, the stars, the earth, and our bodies (aging), what would time be to us?
I could also theorize that time for Allah (outside of the creation) – if that exists – is not the same as time for us (in the creation) as we are a part of his created universe and bound by the physical laws he created. in addition, logic and intuition tell us that before our version of time began with the creation of the universe, there was a point at which the universe did not exist, as it is a created entity. therefore, there must be causation (even if you’d prefer to call it ‘instantaneous causation’) because as a created entity, time itself had a cause, and that eternal cause is Allah. in the end time is itself an effect of his command: ‘Kun fiya kun.’ (Be and it is).”
Is There Any Proof of the “Great Flood”?
Let’s look at Noah’s Ark. According to the Bible, God spoke to Noah, telling him to build an ark to save his family, chosen by God, and two of every animal, from the impending flood that would cover the face ot the earth in water. Here are some pictures that could also help answer the question, “is God real?”.
According to the Bible Noah’s Ark came to rest in a place called in Hebrew, Urartu, which is today, Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey. Look at these photos and make up your own mind. http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah%27s_ark.htm
A vast majority of the population of this earth are looking for the answer to the question they ask themselves, and maybe others ask them:” Is God real?”. Obviously you have to come to this conclusion yourself; this is for every individual to discover alone. The Bible and the teachings are based on faith, and faith by definition is believing in something that you cannot see or verify.