Existence of God Save The existence of God is a subject of debate in the philosophy of religion and popular culture. In philosophical terms, the question of the existence of God involves the disciplines of epistemology the nature and scope of knowledge and ontology study of the nature of beingexistenceor reality and the theory of value since some definitions of God include "perfection".
Overview[ edit ] A common modern version of the omnipotence paradox is expressed in the question: The being can either create a stone it cannot lift, or it cannot create a stone it cannot lift.
If the being can create a stone that it cannot lift, then it seems that it can cease to be omnipotent. If the being cannot create a stone it cannot lift, then it seems it is already not omnipotent. The dilemma of omnipotence is similar to another classic paradox—the irresistible force paradox: What would happen if an irresistible force were to meet an immovable object?
One response to this paradox is to disallow its formulation, by saying that if a force is irresistible, then by definition there is no immovable object; or conversely, if an immovable object exists, then by definition no force can be irresistible.
But this is not a way out, because an object cannot in principle be immovable if a force exists that can in principle move it, regardless of whether the force and the object actually meet.
Omnipotence Peter Geach describes and rejects four levels of omnipotence. He also defines and defends a lesser notion of the "almightiness" of God. This position was once advocated by Thomas Aquinas. A man could, for example, make a boat that he could not lift.
Here the idea is to exclude actions that are inconsistent for Y to do but might be consistent for others. Again sometimes it looks as if Aquinas takes this position.
This sense, also does not allow the paradox of omnipotence to arise, and unlike definition 3 avoids any temporal worries about whether or not an omnipotent being could change the past. However, Geach criticizes even this sense of omnipotence as misunderstanding the nature of God's promises.
On the other hand, Anselm of Canterbury seems to think that almightiness is one of the things that make God count as omnipotent.
The notion of omnipotence can also be applied to an entity in different ways. An essentially omnipotent being is an entity that is necessarily omnipotent. In contrast, an accidentally omnipotent being is an entity that can be omnipotent for a temporary period of time, and then becomes non-omnipotent.
The omnipotence paradox can be applied to each type of being differently. Omnipotence, they say, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that's possible according to his nature.
The distinction is important. Likewise, God cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being.
God is limited in his actions to his nature. The Bible supports this, they assert, in passages such as Hebrews 6: The paradox can be resolved by simply stipulating that omnipotence does not require that the being have abilities that are logically impossible, but only be able to do anything that conforms to the laws of logic.
A good example of a modern defender of this line of reasoning is George Mavrodes.Moral arguments for God’s existence form a diverse family of arguments that reason from some feature of morality or the moral life to the existence of God, usually understood as a .
We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being. Therefore not every being is a contingent being. 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. In these arguments they claim to demonstrate that all human experience and action (even the condition of unbelief, itself) is a proof for the existence of God, because God's existence is . There must be a necessary being — a being who cannot “not exist” — who brought all the contingent things (including the universe itself) into existence.
That being is God. SUMMARY: In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be. This piece is written in the form of St. Thomas's Summa Theologica. While I illustrate the problem with the Ontological Argument by St. Anselm, I do not disagree with .
The fruits, according to him, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, a supreme being.  A human's karmic acts result in merits and demerits. ^ For the proofs of God's existence by Saint Thomas Aquinas see Quinquae viae.
^ The Existence of God: Readings.