Introduction
The question of whether or not there is a Deity is one that has been asked for
ages and probably still will be asked in years to come. The idea or concept of a
greater power than us humans is conceptual and therefore lacks tangible
evidence . Thus the various arguments that have been derived by various
Philosophers , all claiming that they are able to persuade a non-believer into a
believer . It still remains a very individual and personal decision , as to whether
one chooses to believe or not based on these proofs alone.
I shall discuss two of the proofs which I feel are most profound , and those are
the cosmological and teleological arguments. In as much as these proofs cause
one to think deeply about the concept of God , they are not without fault . I will
also , therefore discuss the common objections to these proofs ,as well as those
of the ontological argument and Pascal's wager. All this in efforts to gain insight
on how well , if so ,or how badly , if not , the proofs are capable of converting
the non-believer into a believer .
St Thomas Aquinas' cosmological argument is the first I shall discuss. In the
Summa Theologica he claims to be able to prove the existence of God in five
ways. He embarks on his quest by posing five premises in which each one
showcases a different way in which God's existence can be proven. In the first
instance, he says " whatever is put in motion is put in motion by another " . That
basically nothing can be in motion unless that motion was initiated by something
else. This idea creates a series of objects passing actuality onto each other. A
chain that ...