God’s existence has been an ongoing debate probably for centuries. It’s been taken into consideration by many scholar people. Looking at the philosopher’s point of view, it is realized that their arguments is driven from two different disciplines which include the epistemology and the ontology[1]. Knowledge of theory is related to epistemology and ontology reflects on the state of nature in which human beings operates from. Until proven wrong David Hume is a philosopher who has never believed that God exists. He uses quite a few reasons to criticize the five arguments that Thomas Aquinas has used to prove that there is a person called god in world. There is also another philosopher called Immanuel Kant who also in his own opinion does not recognize the existence of God and refutes the ontological argument provided by Aquinas1. Looking at Aquinas’ point of view, it is clear that God exists. His five arguments about the existence of God are the teleological one, qualities of objects in the world, the ability to move the unmoved, the one that argues that nothing results from itself and the cosmological argument.
The idea of evil is the first argument that gives an account that there is no prove that God exists. It is stated from the following three arguments that the existence of God can not be true so the first one states that; evil is their and yet God has the ability to prevent it from happening. The second argument that supports the un existence of God is argued from the point that he is not all loving because he has left evil to occupy the nature of human beings[2]. The third statement that argues out the inexistence of God is that he is not universal because he can not prevent evil and but he has the interest of doing so. This denial of God’s existence is a false one because when looking at the argument by Aquinas, it shows that evil comes as a result inconveniencing nature. This means that evil comes to existence as a result of a certain community lacking a certain valuable good that belongs to their existing creatures hence allowed by nature2 . He continues to argue that evil is something rational and not real therefore can not be compared to what God can be capable of doing so it does not come from a positive source. The relationships of things with one another or persons with one another are what may cause evil exist which in result causes inconveniences amongst themselves. Lack of evil on the universe would make life go unsmooth. No judgments could be done against someone if no wrong is done.
The second argument is given by David Hume who is against the arguments of Aquinas. He is against his cosmological argument that supports God’s existence because he believes that an explanation has to be given on the existence of any creature that is found on earth. He argues that the chain of infinite notion must have the exact cause of what made it come to existence[3]. He says that since one cannot explain the reason why there are creatures on earth the answer would suggest that the chain of casual infinite is as a result of its own cause. He believes that since humans do not understand where the things and objects that are believed to be around their environment they cannot be believed that is exists.
This idea that is presented by Hume is wrong to judge the existence of God because according to what Aquinas argues, he supports the existence of God from the angle of its possiblity3. The presence of God according to Aquinas explains the reason why the uncaused things have some ownership in the universe. He also argues that the earth that had ones no beginning is explained in the notion of possibility or dependence of creatures inside the earth. By using this argument, Aquinas claims that there was a time when nothing in some years back really existed3. If nothing existed, then nothing could result into nothing because nothing can be made out of nothing. So, in order to support and prove the existence of God, he stated that there was and is an existing being that created all the creatures that are found in the universe which needs to support then as its responsibility. A philosopher named Leibniz Gottfried invented a principle called “ Sufficient reason”. Gottfried has some great support on Thomas Aquinas argument that God exists. This principle stated that an actual preposition cannot be in existence if sufficient reasons are not provided to support the allegations being placed at hand. Therefore from these sufficient reasons human beings are able to understand the causes of most of the current things that are in existence and how important they are in the society they are surrounded in. From all this point of argument, it is then that human beings realize the concept of God’s existence as true and that is why it should be supported by many.
Lastly Immanuel Kant disagrees with the ontological concept which was argued by Aquinas saying that an idea existing in the mind of a human being is less than that which exists in their mind and is in a form of a reality. He claims that a person’s prediction does not actually do the same task as that of existence[4]. He argues that it is like taking a substance which has no meaning and adding it up to the other that is of the same category. He defends his concept by saying that God being identified as universal is what people may wish to think so they only predict and yet they can not support the statement that he actually exists. He continues to state that his existence is logically unpredictable because it does not fall under the logical matters that can be predictable and thus be traced to give what existence means4. His argument suggests that one can not believe that some thing is in existence and yet he is not being seen thus what is being seen is what he did and what he intends to do in some years to come. Immanuel Kant claimed that the argument of ontology failed to prove it’s self because something that does not exist has lots of love than one which currently exists.
According to Thomas Aquinas’s argument, it shows that it directly supports the concept that God exists in this concept of ontology. He claims that it is not a must for one to hear God in order to understand that how great he is or seen his body for one to that truly he exists[5]. The only thing that one can do is to understand that people have different quality that may resemble to God. Thomas Aquinas suggests that for one to understand God’s presence he/she should be ready to ignore all his critics’ suggestions and accept that from the one who conceives human beings is greater and exists.
In conclusion according to the arguments that are presented by Thomas Aquinas it is believable that the existence of God is true. It can be viewed from different angles as vied from concepts of God’s existence the first one defending God as not being unable to deal with evil. From his first point he claims that God is real and the existence of evil on earth is as a result of his wish on earth. He is seen as the creator of evil so that human being can understand who they are and whom they want to follow. He claims that evil comes when a certain community is unable to have something good that can relate to nature by human or creatures in it. The second point is all about things happening with a purpose or a reason that makes them exist in their own environment[6]. He further argues that things do not exist on their own but because they were created so that they can be used to support the available creatures in it. God created the universe and everything in it so that they can depend or rely on one another. The universe did not come into existence by itself but there is someone who created it. Finally it can be drawn from his argument that God exists and he is universal. One should not expect to see someone who is greater so that he can identify him as God.
