Thursday, November 6, 2008
From 11/5: The God Debate
Now that the dust has settled from Wednesday night's debate, what else might be said? Can reason alone arrive at the existence of God or is faith required? If reason is enough, do we start with the idea of God itself (like Anselm) or must we start from our experience of the world around us (like Augustine and Aquinas)? Though we've said a good deal already, this a chance to sound off once more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Perhaps the idea of God is not enough. Many need proof of God to understand and know that He exists. Aquinas believes that just by looking around, you will see the proof of God's existence. There is no way that these things just came into being. There is a first initial cause for everything that happens, and that cause is God. The effects of God prove that he does exist. Although they are not perfect, they can still be created by a perfect being. If everything God created was perfect, there would be no way to distinguish God from the things He created. The things made by God are likened to him. We are like God but he is not like us. He made us in his image but He is the highest good and he is the one who permits evil things and brings good from them.
I still agree with Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs of the existence of God. If we are to prove anything today it must be through the world around us. We cannot prove scientifically that God exists, but Aquinas proves logically that God exists. God exists because there has to be an original cause. There has to be that unmoved mover. God’s creations are not equal in perfectness to God. Effects are not always a great as the cause. Cause and effects do not have to be equal. God is the perfect cause. He created something similar to him, but not him. We are like God, but God is not like us. God created us in his image.
I've learned in my experience never to argue with an agnostic about God, and I think we reached proof of that during our last class. Although I must admit it was much more fun than I thought it would be. I have to say, when I orignally read the texts for that class I remember thinking they were all the same, using nearly the same proofs for God. But seeing the three seperated out made it clear that the philosophers were building on each other's arguments to make it almost impossible to argue against. I think it makes sense that even if you don't believe that we can give certain attributeds to God, it makes logical sense that some higher being must be there. There must be some being out there that is the ultimate 'form' of the good and perfect that we all came from. I especially liked Aquinas's reason for the fact that we are not perfect like God is: we are all parts of a whole, and togther we equal perfection, while God is not parts and therefore is always perfect.
Previous to last week’s debate, I didn’t find anything really intriguing or valuable from Augustine’s, Anselm’s, or Aquinas’ arguments. After analyzing them further in class I was able to agree with at least some of their theories. I believe faith is a big part of the belief in God for most people of religion today. They have no scientific proof and for some reason that is what I was looking for when reading about each philosopher. I was expecting them to try and convert me with legitimate “proof”. In the philosophical sense, Aquinas was able to convince me that his theories are sound. Putting aside any characteristics or images of God, I found that Aquinas’ argument that everything has a cause and effect and the idea of the unmoved mover are valid. I agree that something, whether you call it God or something else, must have started everything we see around us. Something or someone had to have started somewhere. Whether this being still has control over us is material for another possible debate. Overall the debate in last week’s class convinced me that the philosophers we covered are relevant in reading even if you’re not a devoted Christian (like the philosophers were).
Post a Comment