religous determinism

The first subject to be broached is the Ontological argument for the existence of God of which Anslem supports “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” in this theory everyone including atheists have some idea or understanding of a higher being than them. Therefore since everyone has a definition of God of some sort he must consequently exist in reality and must be the Supreme Being as this can be conceived in our minds, another point of view is that we need a greater being in order to exist as we are dependent on that life source for life. Rene Descartes demonstrated this theory of God’s existence by extension he basis his theory on the assumption that God is a “supremely perfect being” and he believes that from this we can also assume God exists because existence is a predicate of a perfect being. Trying to imagine a triangle without three sides this is the same as trying to imagine God without the predicate of existence is illogical. To conclude the Ontological argument is based upon the premise that everyone has an idea of perfection built from their programmed understanding of the character of God. One can take from this idea that denying God is denying one’s existence as we cannot imagine something supreme to us as we would have to approve the human nature that we are inferior and if something is supreme to us it is unlikely that we would understand it if our minds are inferior and narrowed and limited to three dimension of which psychologically we exist. A further evaluation of this is shown in Alvin Plantinga’s theory of which he explains that that in every possible conceived world of alternate dimension has a maximal greatness, however comments this does not have to be God. On the other hand is it not possible were there a God that we would mimic him in the leadership role of maximal greatness history shows that pursuit for power ends due to the fault of the one in power suggesting we are not suited to be the main maximal greatness as failure shows there must be a higher being. 

My next subject is cosmological argument for the existence of God my first evidence of this argument comes from Thomas Aquinas his thought pattern was that God effects the world in order to prove that the source exists we need to look at the effects or ripples given off by this source. His first argument was based upon the simple fact that something only moves when there is some force applied to it the mover in question is God in effect each change is a result of a prior change or a changer each consequence has a starting point. This can be seen clearly in the consequence of our earth every minute detail is perfectly planned and premeditated which creates the chain of events that allow us to live. For example in order for crops to grow or fruit on a tree to grow we need water a specific type of sunlight, carbon dioxide which we breath out that makes plants grow which in turn gives us oxygen we are relying on a pattern or a chain that has already been made if it happened by chance there might be problems we may die from lack of oxygen, if the sun was 1cm closer we would fry if it was 1cm away we would freeze showing that if the probability of our existence is by chance then where do our moral principles come from if we evolved we would see half man half beast etc. With the evidence laid out Aquinas proved that there must be a prime mover a designer and a changer if all of these things are not in place then the amount of coincidence for our worlds design would be 0.000000000001.

About Author

Leave A Reply