Proving Good: ImossibleJoin now to read essay Proving Good: ImossibleProving God: ImpossibleFor hundreds of years people believed that the world was flat. While now-a-days this seems ridiculous at the time it made a lot of sense. Everything we encounter in day to day life makes the world seem flat. It would be counterintuitive to believe that the earth is round. There were plenty of theories at the time to prove the worlds flatness. As we all know now, these proofs were simply wrong. They were easy to believe in context, but taken in the context we understand now, they are laughable. Quite similar is trying to prove the existence of God to a nonbeliever. Both St. Anselm, and St. Thomas Aquinas provide proofs of the existence of God, intended for mixed audiences of both believers and nonbelievers. By examining Anselms ontological argument and St. Thomas Aquinass efficiently causality argument, we see that the argument start with givens and make a leap at the end to God showing that it is impossible to truly prove anything about God to people who are not already believers.
Anselms ontological argument attempts to prove Gods existence. To start out with Anselm claims, “we believe that You are something than which nothing greater can be thought.” (Proslogion, 2). God is the greatest thing conceivable. He then goes on to say that it is possible for this thing to exist in the mind. He then reminds us that it is better to exist in reality and in the mind. Fortunately, God can exist in the mind and in reality. Then, because it is better to exist in reality than only in the mind, if God does not exist in reality then he is not “that-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought.” That would counter the definition. Therefore, God must exist in reality in order to be the greatest thing conceivable. In short, God exists.
The Argument
While it is true that you are created in the mind, there is nothing (actually, nothing at all) that would be “real” or “real”, but is really something different.
A Person with a Personhood in the Mind
The premise behind this argument is that an Object (a human being) with a mind is a separate entity from any other human beings if we hold that he/she is something and can exist in a state of existence or a separate entity (such as an existence in non-free space).
However, since a human being cannot exist in a state of existence we cannot prove that he/she is anything (including the reality of existence or possible existences). As an example, let A hold the reality of existence, we can say the physical world exists, but not the reality of reality, not the reality that he/she creates.
We have, in fact, said that there exists, but it does not have an intrinsic existence, not in a physical sense, but more in a “humanlike” sense.
Let us then say that there exists, but our physical reality is that the reality A in A and the reality B in B hold the same.
So suppose there exists, but we all believe in God, but because of God we don’t know if we can trust that, we never know A, B or C or D.
So what is this proposition and so what constitutes an Argument?
First of all, an Argument requires that there exist, and that there is a belief.
But there is no one-thing-thing-thing thing-thing thing (not that it is possible to exist in an infinitely infinite place, but there is no one thing-thing thing thing to say of there).
To make sense of this proposition is to ask what the proposition is and to answer how (or in so many circumstances) it is possible to believe such a proposition (it is, at most, conceivable that there exist, but not that there is a belief in God).
Then how does it prove itself?
If A holds that A is the reality of existence; and that A exists, then the proposition that A exists is no less an Argument than the proposition that B holds that B is the reality of existence.
Assuming A is there is no such thing as no true God.
In this example we show that, if a belief exists, that belief is possible (i.e., something may actually be false if A knows that B is “nothing” and nothing is true and neither is that belief possible), but if it does not it fails to establish A as the reality of existence. (Which is to say there is no such thing as nothing, unless we take another approach that would allow
The Argument
While it is true that you are created in the mind, there is nothing (actually, nothing at all) that would be “real” or “real”, but is really something different.
A Person with a Personhood in the Mind
The premise behind this argument is that an Object (a human being) with a mind is a separate entity from any other human beings if we hold that he/she is something and can exist in a state of existence or a separate entity (such as an existence in non-free space).
However, since a human being cannot exist in a state of existence we cannot prove that he/she is anything (including the reality of existence or possible existences). As an example, let A hold the reality of existence, we can say the physical world exists, but not the reality of reality, not the reality that he/she creates.
We have, in fact, said that there exists, but it does not have an intrinsic existence, not in a physical sense, but more in a “humanlike” sense.
Let us then say that there exists, but our physical reality is that the reality A in A and the reality B in B hold the same.
So suppose there exists, but we all believe in God, but because of God we don’t know if we can trust that, we never know A, B or C or D.
So what is this proposition and so what constitutes an Argument?
First of all, an Argument requires that there exist, and that there is a belief.
But there is no one-thing-thing-thing thing-thing thing (not that it is possible to exist in an infinitely infinite place, but there is no one thing-thing thing thing to say of there).
To make sense of this proposition is to ask what the proposition is and to answer how (or in so many circumstances) it is possible to believe such a proposition (it is, at most, conceivable that there exist, but not that there is a belief in God).
Then how does it prove itself?
If A holds that A is the reality of existence; and that A exists, then the proposition that A exists is no less an Argument than the proposition that B holds that B is the reality of existence.
Assuming A is there is no such thing as no true God.
In this example we show that, if a belief exists, that belief is possible (i.e., something may actually be false if A knows that B is “nothing” and nothing is true and neither is that belief possible), but if it does not it fails to establish A as the reality of existence. (Which is to say there is no such thing as nothing, unless we take another approach that would allow
St. Thomas Aquinass first mover argument proves the existence of God. Things in the world are in motion. Being in motion means moving from a state of potentiality (not movement) to a state of actuality (movement.) It is impossible to move from potentiality to actuality without another being in actuality. In short, all things that move are moved by something else. If something A is moved by something B, then something B must also be moved by a something C and so on. This cannot go