god's existence-final paper.docx

7/29/2019 God's Existence-final paper.docx

1/23

1

Introduction

God is the Supreme Being who is to be worshiped and served (Dt. 6:4-5), and who, in the

monotheistic tradition, is acknowledge as the personal, eternal, immutable, all-knowing and all

powerful creator.1 In this definition of God, many people are asking, Does God really exist?

If He is existing what is the proof of His existence?

In our modern times, many believers are challenged to proof Gods existence. They are

challenged by atheists with theirbelief of atheism. Atheism is the denial of Gods existence, in

theory or in practice. The many forms of atheism range from tolerant indifference to the

particular concept of God being rejected and the socio-ecclesiastical setting for the conflict. For

a time it is possible to withhold assent to God, but to bracket off consistently the question of

Gods existence is irresponsible and blameworthy.2

I, as a believer, would like to expose to you the proof of existence of God according to

some different philosophers that studied, think and meditate in order to prove that God is really

exist.

From ancient time until modern times, the existence of God is a big issue that is why

there are philosophers in ancient and modern time made their arguments in order that many

unbelievers believe what is true.

1OCollins Gerald, SJ and Farrugia Edward, G., SJ, A Concise Dictionary of Theology, p. 97

2Ibid, p. 21


2/23

2

Chapter I: St. Augustine of Hippos Proof of Gods Existence

At first, St. Augustine considered that the existence of God should simply be taken for

granted. It was regarded as a matter so self-evident that a proof of God's existence would be

entirely superfluous. He subsequently proposed an ontological argument to prove his case.3

Augustine began by proving that human reason exists, something with which no one

could argue. He then asked his listener to accept that if he can prove there is something greater

than human reason, that it must be God. This was a weak point in his argument and, unless the

listener agreed, Augustine could not continue.4

Augustine would then point out the mathematical truth that seven plus three equals ten,

arguing that this is true, whether or not human reason exists. Therefore there is something out

there, some truth, which is greater than human reason. The statement is true, not because we say

it is, but because it is a truth that exists in this world and that truth must come from somewhere.

Since this truth is greater than human reason, and does not depend on us to be true, there must be

a God.5

St. Augustine's Argument for the Existence of God

In order to prove anything, we must first start with a foundation that is accepted as truth.

Augustine begins with the platform that we exist. We cannot argue this because if we do it is

proving ourselves wrong. The mere fact that we can argue is a proof of our existence. Next he

asks us if we are alive. We must also agree to this because in order to agree or to not agree we

3http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_Augustine%27s_proof_of_God%27s_existence

4Ibid

5http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_Augustine%27s_proof_of_God%27s_existence


3/23

3

must be alive. Now he asks us if we understand these two steps to be true. If we do, then he has

proven his next step, we have reason. For without reason, we could not understand these two

basic concepts.6

He then puts all of existence in a hierarchy. The lowest form of existence is illustrated by

a rock. It exists, and this is all it does. It has no concept of life, or even of it's own existence. One

step up on Augustine's hierarchy is a tree. It is both alive, and it exists. It does not have

understanding, nor does it have mobility. A dog is next on his list. A dog exists, lives, and is

sensate. It can feel, taste, smell, hear, and touch. It has an understanding of life, and of survival.

It has what he calls an inner animal sense. It can chose whether or not to eat a certain item, it can

move freely, and respond freely, whereas nothing below a dog in the hierarchy can do any of

that. Still higher than the dog, is the human, we exists, have life, are sensate, and have one thing

that all the others lack, one things that sets us apart from all the others, we have reason. We are

capable of understanding, and choosing. It alone gives us more power than any other being on

this earth.7

This is where Augustine takes a jump. The pupil must now accept that if he can prove

there is something greater than human reason, that it must be God. If, and only if the pupil

accepts can the argument continue. If the pupil accepts, Augustine will point out the

mathematical truth that seven plus three equals ten. He argues that this is true, whether or not we

exist. It is not ten because we want it to be, because it should be, because it's supposed to be,

because it could be, because it might be, it is because it is. And that fact alone demonstrates that

there is something out there, some truth, which is greater than human reason. It is true, not

because we, as humans, say it is, but because it is a truth that exists in this world and that truth

6http://www.essortment.com/st-augustines-argument-existence-god-32679.html

7Ibid


4/23

4

must come from somewhere. Since this truth is greater than human reason, and does not depend

on us, the greatest being in the hierarchy, to be true, then there must be a God.8

I think that this proof is very rational, and it makes a lot of sense. One thing I do not like

about this proof is that it devalues God to a mathematical equation. There is also lots of room for

people to argue that just because there is mathematical truth, there does not mean that there is a

God. I can also understand how some people would have trouble understanding that God is math.

If this proof is taken literally, then it is dependent much on faith to show that God is the truth of

mathematics. I think that in order for a person to believe this argument, they already need to have

some basis of a belief in God as a perfect being, otherwise there is a misconception that God is

merely the truth of mathematics. For those who already have faith, this is a good proof to back

up that faith.9

8http://www.essortment.com/st-augustines-argument-existence-god-32679.html

9Ibid


5/23

5

Chapter II: Ontological Argument of St. Anselm of Canterbury

The ontological argument was first proposed by Anselm of Canterbury (10331109) in

chapter 2 of the Proslogion, even though he did not directly use the expression. He argued that

there are necessary beingsthings that cannot not existand contingent beingsthings that

may or may not exist, but whose existence is not necessary. He starts with his famous definition,

or necessary assumption about the nature of God: "Now we believe that [the Lord] is something

than which nothing greater can be imagined."10

Then Anselm asks: does God exist? In sum, he concludes that, whether one believes in

God or not, she cannot avoid at least having the notion of that greatest possible being in her

mind. Now Anselm introduces another assumption: "And certainly that than which a greater

cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding

alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater."11

It would therefore be contradictory to assume that the greatest possible being exists in the

understanding alone, because then, it would always be possible to imagine an even greater

beingthat which actually exists.12

From that contradiction, Anselm draws his conclusion: "There exists, therefore, beyond

doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined,,both in the understanding and in

reality."13

In his Proslogon 3, Anselm made another a priori argument for God, this time based on

the idea of necessary existence. He claimed that if God is that than which nothing greater can be

conceived, it is better to be necessary than contingent. Therefore God must be necessary.14

10http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/God,_Arguments_for_the_Existence_of_God

11Ibid

12Ibid

13Ibid


6/23

6

Chapter III: St. Thomas Aquinas Proof of Gods Existence

Five Ways Proof Of Gods Existence

First Way: Motion

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is

certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that

is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something

which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually

existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into

actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through

something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in

potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at

the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things.

What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same

time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the

thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself.

Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also

moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But

this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of

this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of

what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from

14Ibid


7/23

7

the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by

nothing and this all men know as God.15

The Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e.,

if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

5. Therefore nothing can move itself.

6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and

this everyone understands to be God.

Second Way: Causality

The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that

there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself,

since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes

can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause

of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the

effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if

the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect,

15http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.asp


8/23

8

nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient

cause which all calls God.16

Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

2. Nothing exists prior to itself.

3. Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

6. The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then

there would be no things existing now.

7. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives

the name of God.

Third Way: Contingency

The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find

that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be

destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for

all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will

not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things

would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does

not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would

be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is

admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily



9/23

9

existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has

not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of

causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence

there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a

cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things which all

call God.17

Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reduction Argument)

1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being

and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.

3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently

existing contingent beings into existence.

7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent

being.

9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its

existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as

God.



10/23

10

Fourth Way: Hierarchy of Being

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a

greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms

spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest,

just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists

therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest

being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk.

II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own

kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same

book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence

of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever and this we call God.18

Argument from Gradation of Being

1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

2. Predications of degree require reference to the uttermost case (e.g., a thing is said to be

hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).

3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.

4. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being,

goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

Fifth Way: Finality

The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack

reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that

they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is



11/23

11

the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a

purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless

directed by someone knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore

there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan

and this we call God.19

Argument from Design

1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

2. Most natural things lack knowledge.

3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks

intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.

4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their

end; and this being we call God.



12/23

12

Chapter IV: Immanuel Kants Arguments for the Existence of

God: Pre-Critical Period

Kant's most focused treatment of these arguments for the existence of God can be found

in The One Possible Basis for a Demonstration of the Existence of God. He classifies arguments

for God under just two headings, one that moves to the affirmation of God from a rational

concept of the possible, the second that moves from experiential concepts of existent things. The

ontological argument, as well as the argument Kant himself poses in this work as the only valid

one, fall under the first heading. The cosmological and the physico-theological arguments fall

under the second heading.

20

With respect to the positions about the validity and value of theoretical arguments for the

existence of God that Kant later espouses and which are considered his definitive views, there

are three features worth noting from this earlier work:

First, he has already formulated a central feature of the main objection that he will raise

against the ontological argument in the Critique of Pure Reason, namely, that existence is not a

predicate. Kant's objection is directed against rationalist accounts that took the judgment

Something exists to predicate a property i.e., existence that is included in the concept

of that thing. (An example of a property so predicated would be extension as a property of the

concept physical object.) Fundamental to the ontological argument is the view that existence

is necessarily a property of the concept of God. This then functions as the decisive consideration

for the conclusion that God must exist. Against this, Kant argues that in no caseeven that of

God can we predicate existence to be a property that is included in the concept of any

object. He illustrates this by pointing out that the difference between the one-hundred dollars in

my pocket and the one hundred dollars I imagine to be in my pocket is not a difference in the

20http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/#3.1


13/23

13

concept of one hundred dollars. To say that something exists even in the case of God

is not to predicate a property that its concept lacks if the thing did not exist. 21

Second, at this earlier stage of his philosophical development he holds, in contrast to the

position he takes in his critical philosophy, that there can be a theoretical argument that validly

leads to the conclusion that God exists; of note about the argument he proposes, moreover, is that

it falls under the same heading under which he has classified the ontological argument, namely

an argument that starts from a concept of the possible.22

Third, he groups the cosmological and physico-theological arguments under a single

heading as cosmological, inasmuch as he sees each making an inference to God from our

experience of things as they exist in the world, but he already differentiates them from one

another in terms of their relative cogency and persuasive power. One line of argument which he

will designate in his later terminology as the cosmological argument moves in terms of a

concept of causality to its conclusion that there must be a first necessary being. As in his later

criticism of this argument in the first Critique, he sees it ultimately resting upon the same

conceptual considerations that function within the ontological argument, most notably the claim

that existence is a predicate. The other which he will designate is his later terminology as the

physico-theological argument moves from observations of order and harmony in the world to

its conclusion that there must be a wise creator of that order. This argument he also finds lacking

in strict probative force; he nonetheless considers it an important marker of the dynamics of

human reason to seek an explanatory totality, even though it does not thereby provide a sure

demonstrative route to an affirmation of God.23

21http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/#3.1

22Ibid

23Ibid


14/23

14

Chapter V: Karl Rahners ProofofGods Existence

The density of Rahner's work is rooted in the subject matter itself. God, Rahner insisted,

is notand cannotbe an object for thought the way the things of our world are. But a person

can know God by attending to the movement of knowing itself toward its objects, which reveals

that human thinking always reaches beyond its immediate objects toward a further horizon. The

movement of knowing, and the ultimate "goal" toward which it reaches, can be grasped only

indirectly (or "transcendentally") as one's thinking turns back on itself reflexively. Rahner

identified the elusive and final "term" of this dynamism of knowing with God, and argued that

the same kind of movement toward God as "unobjectifiable" horizon is entailed in freedom and

love.24

By conceiving God, who always exceeds human reach, as the horizon of the movement

of knowing, freedom, and love, Rahner emphasized that God is a mysterya reality who is

known and loved, but only reflexively and indirectly, as the ever-receding horizon of the human

spirit. God remains a mystery in this sense even in self-communication to humanity through

Jesus and the Holy Spirit. With this participation of God in an earthly history of human

interconnectedness, something of God is anticipatedknown reflexively and indirectlyat least

implicitly whenever we know, choose, or love a specific being, particularly a neighbor in need.

Conversely, God is implicitly rejected in every refusal of truth, freedom, and love.25

Because it is often the good of a neighbor or the world, rather than God or Jesus which is

directly affirmed or refused, it is quite possible that the one deciding will be unconscious or even

deny that the act is a response to God. In either case, however, one turns toward or away from

24http://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Rahner-Karl.html#ixzz28yDTbPEz

25Ibid


15/23

15

God and Jesus in turning one's mind and heart freely toward or away from the realities of the

world.26

Death as a personal and spiritual phenomenon is not identical with the cessation of

biological processes. For example, illness or medication can limit personal freedom well before

the onset of clinically defined death. Moreover, insofar as all the engagements of one's life

anticipate death, Rahner maintained that every moment of life participates in death. Hence he

disputed the notion of death as a final decision if this is understood to be an occurrence only at

the last moment.27

The Christian tradition has emphasized the definitive and perduring character of personal

existence by affirming the soul's survival after death. Rahner warned that this way of conceiving

of death can be misleading if one imagines that the separation of soul and body, entails a denial

of their intrinsic unity. The contemporary appreciation of the bodily constitution of human reality

was anticipated by the scholastic doctrine of the soul as the "form" of the body and thus

intrinsically, not merely accidentally, related to it. Personal identity is shaped by one's embodied

and historical engagement with the material world. So the culmination of freedom in death must

entail some sort of connection with that embodiment. Rahner's notion of God as mystery, beyond

objectification in space and time, provides a framework for affirming a definitive unity with God

that does not imagine the unity as a place or as a continuation of temporal existence. In the early

essays, Rahner addressed the problem of conceiving the connection to embodiment, particularly

in the "intermediate state" before the resurrection of the dead on judgment day, with the

hypothesis that death initiates a deeper and more comprehensive "pancosmic" relationship to the

material universe. In later essays, he recognized that it was not necessary to postulate an


27Ibid


16/23

16

intermediate state with notions such as purgatory if one adopts Gisbert Greshake's conception of

"resurrection in death," through which bodily reality is interiorized and transformed into an

abiding perfection of the person's unity with God and with a transformed creation.28

The Christian doctrine of death as the consequence and punishment of sin underscores its

ambiguous duality and obscurity. If the integrity of human life were not wounded by sinfulness,

perhaps death would be experienced as a peaceful culmination of each person's acceptance of

God's self-communication in historical existence. But death can be a manifestation of a definitive

"no" to truth and love, and so to God, the fullness of truth and love. Ironically, this results in a

loss of self as well because it is unity with God's self-communication that makes definitive

human fulfillment possible. In the "no," death becomes a manifestation of futile self-absorption

and emptiness, and as such punishment of sin. Moreover, everyone experiences death as the

manifestation of that possibility. As a consequence of sin, people experience death as a threat,

loss, and limit, which impacts every moment of life. Because of this duality and ambiguity, even

a "yes" to God involves surrender. Just as God's self-communication to humanity entailed

fleshing out the divine in the humanity of Jesus, including surrender in death on the cross, so

death-to-self is paradoxically intrinsic to each person's confrontation with biological death.29


29Ibid


17/23

17

Chapter VI: Doctrine of the Catholic Church on the Existence of

God

The Possibility of the Natural Knowledge of God in the Light of Supernatural

Revelation

Dogma

God our creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason

from created things. (De fide.)

The Vatican Council defined: Sine quis dixerit, Deum unum et verum, creatorem et

Dominum nostrum per ea, quae facta sunt, naturali rationis humanae lumine certo cognosci no

pose, A. A. If anybody says that the one true God, Our Creator and Lord cannot be known

certainty in the light of human reason by those things which have been made, anathema sit D

1806; cf. 1785, 1391.30

The Vatican definition stresses the following points: a) The object of our knowing is the

one true God, our Creator and Lord, therefore an extra-mundane, personal God. b) The subject

principle of knowledge is natural reason in the condition of fallen nature. c) The means of

knowledge are created things. d) The knowledge is from its nature and manner a knowledge of

certitude. e) Such knowledge of God is possible, but it is not the only way of knowing Him.31

Scriptural Proof

According to the testimony of Holy Writ, the existence of God can be known:

a) from nature: Wis. 13, 1-9. V. 5: For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the

creator of them may be seen. Rom. 1, 20: For the invisible things of Him from the creation of

30Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 13

31Ibid


18/23

18

the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power and

His divinity also: so that they are inexcusable. The knowledge of God witnessed to in these two

passages is natural, certain, immediate and easily achieved knowledge.32

b) From conscience: Rom. 2, 14 et seq: For when the Gentiles, who know not the (Mosaic) law

do by nature these things that are of the law; these, having not the law, are a law to themselves.

Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts. The heathens (that is) know naturally,

without supernatural revelation, the essential content of the Old Testament law. In their hearts a

law has been written whose binding power indicates a Supreme Lawgiver.33

c) From history: Acts 14, 14-16; 17, 26-29. St. Paul, in his discourses at Lystra and at the

Areopagus in Athens, shows that God reveals Himself in beneficent works also to the heathens,

and that it is easy to find Him, as He is near to each of us: For in him we live, and move and

are (17-28)34

Proof from Tradition

The Fathers, in referring to the assertions of Holy Scripture, stress the possibility and the

facility of the natural knowledge of God. Cf. Tertullian, Apol. 17: O testimony of the soul,

which by its nature Christian. (O testimonium animae naturaliter Christianae). The Greek

Fathers preffered the psychological proofs which flow from inner experience. Cf. Theophilus of

Antioch, ad Autolycum 1 4-5: God has called everything into existence from nothing, so that

His greatness might be known and understood through His works. Just as the soul in man is not

seen, as it is invisible, but is known but He is observed and known through the movement of the

body, so God cannot be seen with human eyes; but he is observed and known through


33Ibid, pp. 13-14

34Ibid, p. 14


19/23

19

providence and His works. Just as one at the sight of a well-equipped ship which sweeps over

the sea and steers towards a harbor, becomes aware that there is a helmsman on her, who directs

her, so also one must be aware that God is the director of everything, even though He is not seen

with bodily eyes, as He cannot be apprehended by them. Cf. St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer, II, 9, I;

St. John Chrysostom, in ep. Ad Rom. Hom. 3, 2 (to I, 19).35

Innate Idea of God

Taking their stand on the authority of the Fathers, many Catholic theologians, for

example, Ludwig Thomassinus, Heinrich Klee, Anton Staudenmaier, Johannes von Huhn, taught

that the idea of God is not acquired by deductive thinking from the world of experience, but is

innate in man (idea innata). Certainly many of the Fathers, for example, St. Justin (Apol. II, 6)

and St. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. V. 14, 133, 7) characterized the knowledge of the

existence of God as automatic not learned automatically learned implanted self-taught: or

as a gift of the soul (animae dos: Tertullian, Adv. Marc I, 10). St. Damascus says: The

knowledge of the existence of God is implanted (by Him) in all in their nature (De fide orth. II).

But as the same Fathers teach that we must win the knowledge of God from the contemplation of

Nature, therefore, according to their conception, what is innate is not the idea of God as such, but

the ability easily and to a certain extent spontaneously to know the existence of God from His

works. Cf. St. Thomas, In Boethium De Trinitate, q. I. a 3 ad 6: eus cognition nobis innata dicitur

esse, in quantum per principia nobis innata de facili percipere possumus Deum esse. The

knowledge of Him is said to be innate in us in so far as we can easily know the existence of God

by means of principles which are innate in us.36


36Ibid


20/23

20

Chapter VII: A Meditation Argument by

Sem. Marwil B. De Roxas on the Existence of God

As a son of God, I meditate on Him. First and foremost, I believed that He is existing,

He is alive and He is always there.

I live in a, somehow, quite place, the seminary. As I four years of my staying here, I

prove that there is God. My proofs are:

1. Every day is a proof, an ordinary miracle.2. Why I have life? Why there is everything in the world? It is simply because of God.3. The problems that I encounter in my life, including the problem in the family, friends and

relatives as well the problem in financial. I solve it with the help and mercy of God.

4. I committed every day. I am consistent in committing sin but every day also I receivedthe grace from Him.

5. Through prayer, I talked to Him and every moment in my life, I believed that He iswatching me through my guardian that He sent for me.

6. And many other experience because every day I experience the presence of God becauseHe is eternal presence.

Gods existence is not a matter of proving but it is a matter of faith, a faith that He gave

to me. What you believe is what your life is.


21/23

21

Summary (Table Presentation)

Proofof Gods Existence

Name Goes back to Developed by Central point Basic argument

Anthropological

ArgumentAugustine Eternal truth

The unchanging

validity of truth

and norms canhave its ground

only in some really

existing truth and

normGod

OntologicalArgument

Anselm(Proslogion)

Concept of aperfect being

God is thegreatest thing

conceivable. As

such, God must

exist, for otherwisesomething greater

would be

conceivable (that

which is greater in

our understanding

and in reality)

Cosmological

Argument

(Five ways quinque viae)

First way

Aristotlesmetaphysics 12

Thomas Aquinas

(STh 1, q. 2, a. 3)Motion

From the

movement of thethings in the world

an unmoved prime

mover is inferred.

Second wayAristotles

metaphysics 2Causality

The dependentcauses that we see

require the

existence of an

uncaused first

cause, since an

infinite regress(regressus in

infinitum) is not

possible.

Third way Plato, Avicenna Contingency

Nonnecessary

being is possible

only if it owes itsexistence to

necessary being.

Fourth way

Plato, Augustine,

Anselm

(Monologion)

Hierarchy of being

Truth, goodness,

beauty, etc. are

realized in the

world to varying

degrees. But then

there must be a


22/23

22

highest, perfect

being that is the

cause of these

levels of being.

Fifth way Plato, Stoicism Finality

From the

experienced

functionality andpurposiveness in

the world the

existence of a

supreme, ordering

mind must beinferred.

Coincidenceexplains nothing.

Ethico-theological

(deontological)

Argument

Kant, NewmanPractical reason/

conscience

To our moral

actions and/or the

promptings of our

conscience asupreme moral

authority mustcorrespond.

Without the

harmonizing force

that can be

guaranteed only byGod, the physical

and moral world-

orders would be

contradictory.

Transcendental

ArgumentK. Rahner

God as condition

of the possibility

of conscious

human existence

Humans alwaysfind themselves

oriented toward an

absolute. Their

existence is

meaningful only if

that exists as the

perpetual Mystery.


23/23

23

Bibliography

Books

OCollins Gerald, SJ and Farrugia Edward, G., SJ, A Concise Dictionary of Theology,Paulist Press, New York/ Mahwah, N.J., 2000

Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.,

Rockford, Illinois 61105

Website

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_Augustine%27s_proof_of_God%27s_existence

http://www.essortment.com/st-augustines-argument-existence-god-32679.html

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/God,_Arguments_for_the_Existence_of_G

od

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.asp

http://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Rahner-Karl.html#ixzz28yDTbPEz

http://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Rahner-Karl.html#ixzz28yDTbPEz
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_Augustine%27s_proof_of_God%27s_existencehttp://www.essortment.com/st-augustines-argument-existence-god-32679.htmlhttp://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/God,_Arguments_for_the_Existence_of_Godhttp://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/God,_Arguments_for_the_Existence_of_Godhttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.asphttp://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Rahner-Karl.html#ixzz28yDTbPEzhttp://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Rahner-Karl.html#ixzz28yDTbPEzhttp://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Rahner-Karl.html#ixzz28yDTbPEzhttp://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Rahner-Karl.html#ixzz28yDTbPEzhttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.asphttp://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/God,_Arguments_for_the_Existence_of_Godhttp://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/God,_Arguments_for_the_Existence_of_Godhttp://www.essortment.com/st-augustines-argument-existence-god-32679.htmlhttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_Augustine%27s_proof_of_God%27s_existence

god's existence-final paper.docx

Documents