If people need to believe that there was an origination for the universe and that the origination involves an eternal entity then you can have several possibilities including these: In them we can see two men who described and defended the same God in two very different ways.
A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Therefore we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity. The Classic Version of the Ontological Argument a. My future child will be a better man if he is honest than if he is not; but who would understand the saying that he will be a better man if he exists than if he does not?
The doctrine that existence is a perfection is remarkably queer. The second version does not rely on the highly problematic claim that existence is a property and hence avoids many of the objections to the classic version.
This latter claim asserts that a being whose existence is necessary is greater than a being whose existence is not necessary. In the West it is taken to be used to support the idea that the universe must have had a creator or a maker or source or origin.
If the deity can be thought of as being uncaused and eternal then so can the energy that makes up the universe be thought of that way-as uncaused and eternal but manifesting in different forms, as dimensions of a universe or in multiple dimensions or branes leading to numerous BIG BANG over time.
What if this universe we know with solar systems and galaxies and dark matter and dark energy is but one of an infinite number of universes with differing amounts of energy and all in a tremendous amount of energy that gives birth to universes constantly over time and each with different amounts of energy and with forces operating differently so that some have formation of matter and others do not?
Hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. Anselm argues in support of 4 by comparing a non-existent God with an existent God.
It is possible that the something that currently exists has always existed. While the claim that x exists clearly entails that x has at least one property, this does not help. A mathematical model of the natural origin of our universe is presented.
Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. I argue that quantum cosmology proposes such an atheistic reason, namely, that the universe exists because it has an unconditional probability of existing based on a functional law of nature.
I conclude that they are unsuccessful, and that the Big Bang theory provides no support for the doctrine of creation ex nihilo.
I argue that quantum cosmology proposes such an atheistic reason, namely, that the universe exists because it has an unconditional probability of existing based on a functional law of nature. The name comes from a Stoic term ekpyrosis meaning conflagration or in Stoic usage "conversion into fire".
They appear to prefer the options that enable them to think of the eternal entity as a being such as themselves so that they can relate to it and even worship it and petition it.
It is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things having their necessity caused by another. Whatever is moved is moved by something, and, since an endless regress is impossible, we must arrive somewhere at something which moved other things without being moved.
This was a form of Pantheism and can be used by some who want to have a deity in any explanation of the universe.
Given that truth cannot be turned into falsehood by argument alone, there must be a singular truth about the existence of God nevertheless. Nevertheless, Aquinas had a second problem with the ontological argument.
A century after Anselm came Aquinas, and in these two thinkers we see the recapitulation of an age old rivalry:In the case of Anselm’s ontological argument, the hypothesis treated in this way is the hypothesis that God does not exist.
Anselm’s argument rests upon the conception of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived”. Anselm: Ontological Argument for God's Existence.
One of the most fascinating arguments for the existence of an all-perfect God is the ontological argument. While there are several different versions of the argument, all purport to show that it is self-contradictory to deny that there exists a greatest possible being.
Ontological, Cosmological, & Teleological Arguments for Existence of God. The ontological argument for the existence of God is the only major a priori case from natural theology that attempts to explain God’s being as necessary.
Unlike Anselm, who was a rationalist, Aquinas will not rely on non-empirical evidence (such as the definition of the term "God" or "perfection") to demonstrate God's existence. St.
Thomas will observe the physical world around him and, moving from effect to cause, will try. Similarly, St. Thomas Aquinas’ arguments are refuted by the atheists who proffer proofs of the evolution theory of Charles Darwin to contradict the existence of God.
According to the atheists, the proofs of St. - Aquinas’ Cosmological Arguments The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, as propounded by Thomas Aquinas, is also known as the Third Way. It is the Third of Five ways in Aquinas's masterpiece, "The Summa" (The Five Ways).Download