Existence of God “self-evident”?

1. Is the existence of God “self-evident”? Write about the debate between Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas
   Aquinas about the “ontological proof” of God’s existence.
2. In Question 2, Article 3 of the Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas entertains arguments (Objections 1 & 2)
   that God doesn’t exist because of the existence of evil and because he seems superfluous to natural order.
   Explain and consider these arguments as well as Thomas’ refutation of them at the end of Article 3. Is Aquinas
   right to conclude that God can exist even though evil exists and even though nature can apparently be
   explained without him?
3. Use the arguments for the existence of the deity by Anselm and Thomas Aquinas to consider what they do
   or do not mean with the word, “God.” To what extent does the “God of the Philosophers” emerging from these
   discussions differ from the way most people understand God? To what extent might this difference change our
   understanding of religion or, alternatively, make such philosophy irrelevant?
4. How defensible is the “design” argument (in Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica) today? Consider Richard
   Dawkins refutation of this argument in the chapter we read from his book, The God Delusion.
5. Has Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) succeeded in proving that God does not exist? If so, how? If not,
   where does his proof break down?
6. Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) suggests that we have to choose between a belief in God and a belief
   in modern science. Is he right in this?
7. For Richard Dawkins, the only reason for belief in God is to explain the existence of natural complexity: his
   entire argument hinges upon this as a premise. Is that premise correct? If not, what other role might belief in
   God play? Be sure to structure your reconstruction of Dawkins' argument so as to isolate this premise.

Sample Solution