April 30th, 2010
2 Samuel 22:31-37 (NIV)
As for God, his way is perfect; the Lord’s word is flawless. He shields all who take refuge in him. For who is God besides the Lord? And who is the Rock except our God? It is God who arms me with strength and keeps my way secure.
He trains my hands for battle; my arms can bend a bow of bronze. You make your savings help my shield; your help has made me great. You provide a broad path for my feet, so that my ankles so not give way.
April 29th, 2010
2 Samuel 22:29-30 (NIV)
You, Lord, are my lamp; the Lord turns my darkness into light. With your help I can advance against a troop, with my God I can scale a wall.
April 28th, 2010
The basis of every argument is whether or not the premise is true. If the premise of the argument is not true then the conclusion must be false, but if the premise of the argument is true then the conclusion is possibly a true conclusion. Although all arguments has a counter argument criticizing differences in beliefs they are nonetheless intriguing and helpful when we attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God. Atheists who attempt to disprove the existence of God, such as Antony Flew, sometimes discover great truth in the existence of God and embark on a new journey, Theism, because the evidence of God is so sound. The arguments for the existence of God may not prove His existence, but it does allow us to substantiate the possibility of God’s existence.
Anselm’s Ontological Argument
If God exists in my understanding then God might have existed in reality and if something can exist in my understanding and might have existed in reality, then it might have been greater than it is (Rowe, 41). Anselm’s Ontological Argument must be my favorite argument, whether accurate or not, it is by far one of my favorites.
This ingenious argument provides ground for an argument that God’s existence is possible. Gaunilo’s criticism of the island which none can be greater is an attempt to make Anselm’s argument an absurdity, but Anselm’s argument does not apply to things that cannot exist such as a married bachelor. A married bachelor is a contradiction, and therefore, cannot exist. Anselm’s rejoinder to Gaunilo’s argument explains that for something to be that than which nothing can be greater it must be something that can exist (Pojman, Anselm, 5).
This is a brilliant argument because it shows that anything that can exist in my understanding may exist in reality and then may be greater than I believe it to be as long as it is something possible to exist. Anselm’s argument does not prove the existence of God as stated by Kant , but it does prove that God is a possibility. If I understand the existence of the Fountain of Youth then it may have existed in reality and may be greater than that which it is in my understanding. The Fountain of Youth does not exist as far as we know, but it is possible that it may have existed in reality since it can exist in my understanding which speaks numbers for the argument of a Creator and ultimate mover being God as something than that which may be greater than it is.
Cosomological Argument
The Cosmological Argument has two parts which I will state the first and the latter. Every being that exists or ever did exist is either a dependant being or is a self-existent being, but not every being can be a dependant being, therefore, there exists a self existent being (Rowe, 21). Secondly, there must be a first being to start any causal series. If every being were dependent, there would be no first being to start the causal series; therefore, not every being can be a dependant being (Rowe, 24).
Criticism based on this Cosmological argument is on premise three that there cannot be an infinite regress of cause (Pojman, 10). The reason for this criticism is that there are infinite numbers, but numbers are not concrete they are abstract entities (Ibid). The Cosmological argument applies to those that need to be brought into existence such a temporal entities; persons and events (Pojman, 11). Samuel Clark, an eighteen century philosopher, explains the reason and need for the existence of God based on his argument of contingency (Ibid). The contingency argument states every being that exists is either contingent or necessary and not every being can be contingent so there exists a necessary being upon which the contingent beings depend. Therefore, a necessary being on which all contingent beings exist is what we mean by God so God exists (Ibid).
Both independent beings and dependant being must coexist based on the Cosmological Argument. If every being were independent then every being could exist in and of itself, but humanity, for example, cannot exists in and of itself. Humanity must rely on external sources to maintain existence i.e. food and water. Moreover, human beings cannot come into existence in and of themselves; they must rely on someone to cause them to come into existence such as the fertility of a fetus in their mother’s womb and her existence from her mother’s womb etc. Furthermore, humanity deteriorates and death is a certainty, therefore, we are mortal beings unable to exist in and of ourselves. Although, humanity is dependant beings this is not proof that every being is dependant either. If everything that exists was a dependant being than the dependence of existence becomes infinite which means there never existed a first being causing an infinite dependency consistently relying on something else to exist. If everything was dependant the first dependent would inevitably be required to be an independent being in order to start the casual series. Thus, every person cannot be dependant and therefore, both dependant and independent beings must coexist. An addition to this argument is found in Kalam’s Cosmological Argument.
Kalam’s Cosmological Argument
If our universe never had a beginning, an actual infinite series of past events has occurred and an actual series of events in time is impossible, therefore, our universe has a beginning (Rowe, 33). Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, and therefore, the universe has a cause (Craig, 36). The Kalam’s Cosmological Argument seeks to demonstrate the existence of a Sufficient Reason or First Cause (Craig, 33).
Kalam’s Cosmological Argument is also a solid argument because if the universe never had a beginning and an infinite series of past events has occurred, therefore, the series of event is infinite, but that does not make sense because it is impossible. Since every event must lead to a beginning, the possibility that the universe always existed and did not have a creator is absurd. By understanding the previous argument between dependant and independent beings is helpful at this point because one might argument that if everything has a beginning then God cannot be an infinite being because Kalam’s Cosmological Argument states that an infinite series is impossible, however, God does not apply to this because he is an independent being that exist in and of himself and does not need or rely on anything else to exist. Therefore, Kalam’s Cosmological Argument applies to those dependent beings such as a universe that must rely on a series of events to exist; therefore, an infinite series of events is impossible thus proving that the universe must have a beginning. This argument does not prove that God is the Creator of the universe, but it does prove that the universe must have a beginning.
Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas provides an excellent explanation about the first mover. Aquinas states that it is impossible for something to be the mover and moved in the same and with respect to the same thing; therefore, something cannot move itself causing everything that is moved to be moved by another (Aquinas, 12-13). However, as Aquinas acknowledges, there cannot be an infinite mover causing those that exist to be moved. Otherwise, the dependence of a mover would be endless causing again impossibility.
Newton’s law of motion states that anything in motion must be set into motion and is put into motion by something else. However, this theory would eliminate the existence of God because there is something that had to set him into motion. An infinite series of motion would mean there was always something before the motion and something before that motion to set it into motion. Logically, there must be a stopping point of motion being set into motion; therefore, God is exempt from Newton’s law. God is exempt because he is not a dependent being, but an independent being which means God does not contradict the law of motion because there must be a first mover and the first mover is God.
Since God always was and always has been and does not need anything to exist and did not need anything to ‘come into existence’ concludes that everything excluding God is subject to the law of motion described by Newton. Moreover, thus allowing Aquinas’ first mover theory to support the existence of God because God is not moved by anything therefore does not contradict the theory (Aquinas, 13). Since every being is either a dependent being or a self existing being, but not every being can be a dependent being, therefore, there exists a self existent being (Rowe, 21).
