1. Saint Thomas Aquinas made the argument of five ways, five cosmological arguments that prove

the existence of god. The five arguments are the uncaused cause, unmoved mover, necessary

being, perfect by virtue, and source of purpose. The unmoved mover argument explains that on

earth and in the universe there is a chain of motion, and therefore every action or movement

can be traced back to something that moved it, something that was moved to move. As

confusing as this cycle may be, we do not know where the entire universe’s existence originated

from, so it must be accredited to an unmoved mover, or god. The uncaused cause explains that

everything that exists has a creator or can be traced back to something or someone that created

it. Nothing HAS to exist; therefore something must have initiated our existence. Every chain of

effect has a cause, but it had to have initiated somewhere, initiated with god. The contingency

argument (necessary being) explains that everything that exists does not have to exist; therefore

everything owes their existence to something else, similar to the uncaused cause argument.

The proof by virtue and source of purpose arguments are relevant but they lean a little towards

the ontological side, as the proof by virtue says that we as humans always compare ourselves to

perfect, however there is no ultimate perfect, unless there is, which leads us to god’s perfection.

The final argument is a source of purpose; as the universe ultimately moves towards a goal.

Humans try to survive, which is a goal, the same goes for several different species and objects,

which leads us to believe that there is a purpose to every being and as a result, every purpose

needs a guide, which is supposed to lead us to god. The first three arguments are solid, they

make sense. However they can lead to even bigger questions which can lead to more

unanswered questions, but this can ultimately relate to our discussion in class, with the use of

infinity and other non-tangible concepts that ultimately lead to a solid purpose for god’s

existence.

2. William Paley argued that if you were to walk in a desert and find a watch, just sitting there, you

would be in shock and awe of the complexity of the watch and the watchmaker. The world’s

complexity can be related to a watchmaker, as it is fascinating and cannot have occurred by

itself. This led us to the discussion of the eye, something so detailed and complex, that it is

impossible for it to have occurred by chance. This sparked an argument for evolution in class, as

through millions of years of existence and chance is the explanation for such a complex and

detailed object. I personally can’t take a firm stance on either, as years of science say one thing

yet years of religion takes another. Although, I do believe that an eye could not have procured

by itself, there had to be a push, a start, which sparked the universe’s entire existence. Where

the spark began, I do not know.

3. Pascal’s wager is divided into four boxes: exist, believe, not exist, and not believe. This gives us

four boxes; The Exist/Believe combo give us virtue, a sense of community, and an infinite reward

(if we’re right). The belief in non-existence can be supported by saying religion stunts

opportunity and results in a religious obligation. The No belief (in religion) but belief in god

results in the possibility of punishment. Not believing in religion and god’s existence, you have

the possibility of eternal punishment if wrong, but only being able to say ‘I was right’ if you were

right. Pascal tries to say that although religion may have some drawbacks, it has rewards that

are tangible, like a sense of community and a life of virtue and morality. Pascal’s wager is looked

at as dumb by some, but it is a ‘last-ditch’ effort to gain the attention of one to religion. This

argument may appeal to some, but be frowned upon by others. Overall, it’s an argument in

regards to what chances you want to take.

4. Anselm of Canterbury argues the ontological argument, saying that belief in god is

fundamentally logical concept embedded in our minds. Anselm begins with the premise that

defines god based on what we think about god, which is that in our minds there is something

that nothing greater can be thought of, which is god. The second premise is that if god exists in

god, he is a concept that must be able to be applied to the real world. Anselm later says that

anything is greater in reality than in thought, therefore because God is a great entity in thought

that can be thought of, god must be better in reality, therefore making him a real thing that

there is no greater entity. As confusing as this sounds, it’s supposed to say that if we can

imagine god, he can and does exist as a real thing. This relates to our discussion of the concept

of infinity, we acknowledge it, but we cannot truly grasp it and understand, this is most likely

the same approach we should take to god and his existence.

5. I believe all of the arguments discussed are strong in their own ways; however they may cater to

other individuals differently. As an open minded person, these arguments strengthened my

belief in a god. Although these arguments may have strengthened my belief in god, I cannot say

they strengthened my belief in religion. Religion and spirituality are two different things, where

spirituality is essentially being free to interpret whatever as you want and to believe as you

please, whereas religion is a structured system that is supposed to lead one into a religious and

spiritual life. The 4th argument from Anselm of Canterbury appeals the most to me, as it relates

to our modern understanding of mathematics the most. In class, we discussed tangents,

hyperbolas, and the concept of infinity, concepts so vast and vague, that our mind is not capable

of understanding. To an extent, it only makes sense that if concepts like infinity, that are not

concrete but are presumed true, can be somewhat tangible and believed, religion and the belief

in god can be parallel. God is something so vast, so massive, that we as humans cannot

understand the purpose of his existence, or even understand his existence in general. The

existence of god is something is so vague, so vast that it is already difficult to define what god is

and what god does. Our solar system can go so far in detail to the tiny atom, however over the

past few decades; we have only scratched the surface of science, technology, and medicine.

Those three fields are so vast and complex, that it will take centuries to take a firm

understanding of our very own solar system. However, when comparing our solar system to the

rest of the universe, it’s most likely a very tiny spectacle that has little purpose. This whole

ideology can be related to the existence of god. God is something so vast, so complicated, that it

only makes sense we acknowledge god and his existence, as we are not capable of fully or even

partially understanding him.