For centuries the question if God exists has been argued throughout the thoughts and minds of many philosophers and other thinkers. Aristotle, Kant, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm are some of the many philosophers that have taken a toll with their arguments on the existence of God. There has been a vast number of theories and arguments that have been formulated in support of God’s existence. The most often talked about and more commonly known are the cosmological, teleological, the ontological, and the moral arguments. Although they’re all really well made and established arguments, none do the best job at proving the existence of God.
The cosmological argument is brought up by the idea that if the universe exists, it must have been caused
…show more content…
in Oppy). It is better or greater to exist in reality than in the mind, therefore God must exist (Oppy). If not he wouldn’t be the greatest being (Oppy).
This argument was questioned by a monk named Gaunilo who challenged the premise that what exists in the mind, must also exist in reality (Oppy). Anselm responded to Gaunilo by creating a different aspect of the argument using the idea of God being a necessary being: his argument consisted of three things (Oppy). First, God is by definition, a necessary being. Second, existence is logically necessary to the concept of a necessary being (Oppy). Third, since God is a necessary being, he must exist (Oppy).
Another counter argument was brought up by Immanuel Kant and various others. Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, challenged the idea that existence is a perfection and argued that “the unconditional necessity of a judgement does not form the absolute necessity of a thing” (qtd. in Oppy). In addition, the ontological argument has been rejected by Thomas Aquinas for two reasons (Oppy). The first reason is that “...not everyone who hears the word ‘God’ understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body” (qtd. in Oppy). The second reason is that “... it does not therefore follow that he understands what the word signifies exists actually,
…show more content…
All of these arguments have contradictions and critiques that make none of them ideally the best. The cosmological argument basically states that a series of causes cannot infinitely regress back without a cause which is itself uncaused (Honderich 179). Similarly, contingent objects require an explanation which is to be found in a necessary object (Rowe). An argument against this question is if an uncaused cause can really make sense or if an infinite regress is actually not possible (Rowe). The teleological argument or the argument from design suggest that a divine creator is claimed to have formed the order of the universe (Ratzsch and Koperski). The watchmaker analogy is a great example for this argument. Basically, a person finds a watch in the middle of a field and concludes that the way it is created is because it serves a purpose (Rowe). Supporters of this state that the purpose of the watch is similar to that of the universe, although the complexity of the universe is much more than that of the watch (Ratzsch and Koperski). Also, the complexity of the universe can make one conclude that a superior being must have created it (Ratzsch and Koperski). Critics of this argument find it odd how one could go from a simple watch to the universe that is much more complex than anything a human has made (Rowe). Many can also question how the creator wasn’t
To begin, Anselm’s ontological proof functions from the essence of God to God’s existence. The argument
First off, The Cosmological Argument was developed by St. Thomas Aquinas in 1274 through his work entitled Summa Theologica (otherwise known as Five Ways). Its purpose was to prove God’s existence through sensory perception. In Part One, Article Three of Prima Pars, Aquinas states that in order to debate, one must become involved in the opposing argument, then afterwards argue their view. In this case, one must look at both the argument for God’s existence (Theism) and for God’s non-existence (Atheism) in order to truly understand the argument that they are arguing for or against. The cosmological argument is divided into three parts, each containing varying sub-arguments:
The Ontological Argument, which argues from a definition of God’s being to his existence, is the first type of argument we are going to examine. Since this argument was founded by Saint Anslem, we will be examining his writings. Saint Anslem starts by defining God as an all-perfect being, or rather as a being containing all conceivable perfections. Now if in addition of possessing all conceivable perfections t...
To conclude, Anselm’s ontological argument is based purely on reason. Therefore, you must already believe in the idea of God existing in order to accept this argument. This is the a priori aspect of this argument. However, as this argument uses your own logic alone, it does pose contradicting issues which Gaunilo’s critique highlighted. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that Anselm’s version of the Ontological argument was based on mind’s logic, rather than revelation as it is very difficult to construct a concept without your environment having an effect on your findings.
Does God exist? Since the appearance of mankind on the earth and up until today--would probably continue in the future--this question brought people to think, reason, and come up with the evidence, to present the best satisfactory answer.
If God did not exist, he would not be the greatest being imaginable. He is the greatest thing imaginable. Therefore, he does exist. From this argument, God’s existence is viewed. as necessary (Ayer. A. J. 1973).
There are many theories to why a God might exist, but the Ontological argument tells us that a God is a necessary truth based on the self-contradictory or denying the existence of God. They use the proposition of the concept of God to argue the implied existence of God. This is to suppose that God is by definition the greatest thing imaginable and that to imagine something greater which can also exist is impossible. They use the general rule of positive and negative existential claims to try and prove the existence of God. they do this in a number of ways, with the classic version of the ontological argument being the most recognized, the reductio ad absurdum ("reduction of absurdity") of the ontological argument and the modal versions of the argument. It explains that nothing can exist in the imagination alone, it must also exist in reality to truly exist, and they have decided that there has to be such a being that exists in the imagination and in reality that noting greater can exist. I do not find this argument to be true in stating the fact that God must exist in reality, al...
exists and his idea of what a perfect being is, such as God, then God exists.
In this paper, I will examine the ontological argument of Anselm for the existence of God. Anselm defines God as “that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought,” which means, at least for Anselm, that God must exist because he is the greatest being that can be conceived. Furthermore, he argues that all people, whether or not they believe in the existence of God, at least understand his definition, including the fool who denies that God exist. Anselm, in addition to that, describes two main differences between understanding the definition of God, and understanding God to exist.
The cosmological argument is the existence of God, arguing that the possibility of each existing and the domain collected of such elements in this universe. The inquiry is that 'for what reason does anything exist? Why as opposed to nothing? In this paper, I will explain for what reason does everything need cause? Why is God thought to be the principal cause?
The Design Argument For The Existence Of God This argument is also called the teleological argument, it argues that the universe did not come around by mere chance, but some one or something designed it. This thing was God. This argument is a prosteriori because the observation of the natural world is taken into the mind to conclude that there is a designer. The belief that the universe was designed by God was triggered by things like the four seasons; summer, spring, autumn and winter, that change through the year.
There are four major arguments for the existence of God; teleological, cosmological, ontological and morals. None of which do a convincing job of God’s existence. Every argument is going to have a counter, one always being stronger. The most devastating of the arguments is the ontological argument. Taking two things that are based on believing and imagining and putting them together to prove each other’s existence isn’t proving anything. For God to exist he has to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. All three of these core qualities have contradictories. An omnipotent God would be able to create an absolutely immovable object, yet be able to move it ( “How to Prove that God Doesn’t Exist”. Comments), so, therefore, it is not absolutely
In the words of Anselm, "Therefore, Lord, not only are You that than which nothing greater can be conceived but you are also something greater than can be conceived. Indeed, since it is possible to be conceived to be something of this kind, if you are not this very thing, something can be conceived greater than You, which cannot be done. " Anselm suggested a proof for God's existence, however, for God to be God there must be more to Him than that He simply 'exists'.
...nough to support the idea of God’s existence, I consider the debate to have no winner, because, the arguments of Dr. Dacey are also strong enough to prove his position. However, in these debates the double answer is not possible, because in reality the existence of God can be true of untrue, without anything in between. In my opinion, God exists, and I strongly believe in His existence. I consider the question “Does God Exist?” to be the issue of faith, and there cannot be true or false arguments, because all the people are willing to decide, whether they believe in existence of God, or not. It is the inner choice of everybody, and sooner or later we will all find out the truth.
The teleological. The first three ‘ways’ are different variations of the cosmological. argument. The syll The Cosmological argument is developed around a distinction between that which has a necessary existence and that, which is contingent. A thing that has necessary existence must exist in all possible worlds.