Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The ontological argument for god's existence
Strength and weaknesses of cosmological argument
Arguments against the ontological argument
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The ontological argument for god's existence
1. The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is based on the principle of cause and effect. What this basically means is that the universe was the effect of a cause, which was God. One of the oldest and most well known advocates of the Cosmological Argument was Thomas Aquinas who outlines his argument for the existence of God in his article entitled The Five Ways. The first way in his argument is deals with motion. Aquinas says that in order for something to be in motion something had to move it because it is impossible for something to move without the presence of some sort of outside force upon it. Therefore the world around us, nature, and our very existence could not have been put into motion without the influence of the “unmoved mover”, as it is called in the book, who we know to be God.
Aquinas’ second way to prove that God exists is by stating that nothing can be the cause of itself. For example, I am not the cause of myself. I would not be in existence today if it were not for my parents having a baby and naming it Chris. This is true for everything around us: trees, buildings, cars, planes, etc, none of these can be the cause of themselves. They all must be created or manufactured from seeds, humans, and machines in order for them to exist as they do today. The next way comes from possibility and necessity. First is possibility which means that it is possible for everything in the world to at some point in time not exist, thus meaning that there was a time when nothing existed and since something cannot come from nothing it is necessary for something to have always existed. However as Aquinas previously stated this necessary being cannot be the cause of itself plus there cannot be a time at which it did not exist therefore this being must have always existed and be God.
In his fourth way Aquinas bases the existence of God on the gradation of things such as things being the greatest or the smallest, the hottest or the coldest. Aquinas says that there must be a cause of this and it is God. The last way that Aquinas proves God comes from the governance of the world. Aquinas says that things in the world lack knowledge and yet they still work their way towards an end, but he says that it is impossible for something to lack knowledge and work its way to an end. Due to this fact Aquinas determines that there must be some intelli...
... middle of paper ...
...that logic to explain God to him he would laugh in his face.
Although these arguments may prove their point in a construed way there are some who believe the Ontological Argument to be impossible, one of these being Kant. Kant believes that the argument fails right off the bat by basing everything on the idea that God does exist. Kant believes that it is wrong to assume that God has all of these magnificent characteristics that Anselm believes Him to have. Kant questions how Anselm proves this.
My view of these arguments and the Ontological argument as a whole is that it is a weak argument. If I had to choose sides between Anselm or Gaunilo and Kant I think I would choose Gaunilo and Kant because they do a better job of arguing their point. If I were questioning the existence of God and had Anselm’s argument to read and then Kant’s to read I would probably end up ton believing that God existed. One reason being that you cannot understand Anselm’s argument and two he does not prove anything but the fact that God is a supreme being than which no greater can be conceived. It is because of this why I believe the Ontological argument to be a bad way to prove God to anyone.
... water crisis will have a long term affect on those who are consuming this water on a daily basis. Lead attack the brain and can cause coma and possibly death. Children who survive lead poisoning are left with serious health issues such as metal defects and leave a child mentally unstable. Even at lower levels of exposure symptoms such as behavioural changes such as reduced attention span, reduced intelligence quotient (IQ). Children with smaller amount of lead exposure also showed increased anti social behaviour, it also reduces educational attainment. These side effect of high lead exposure can leave children scarred for life. The water crisis in Flint Michigan car scar children for life. This could all be resolved if they could come to an agreement and replace the water pipes, allowing for cleaner and healthier water to be accessible to citizens in Flint Michigan.
Examining the two works against each other as if it were a debate makes it a bit clearer to compare. Aquinas, reveals his argument under the groundwork that there are essentially two methods of understanding the truth. One being that it can be surmised through reason an logic, and the other being via inner faith. On the surface at this point it could be argued that this ontological determination a bit less convoluted than Anselm, yet I tend to think it could be a bit more confusing. This is what leads him to the claim that the existence of God can be proven by reason alone or “a priori”. Stemming from this belief he formulated his Five Proofs or what he called the “Quinquae Viae”. The first of which is fairly simple based on the fact that something in motion had to have been moved. Agreeing that something set it in motion therefor there must have been a...
This is why the Flint water crisis is so critical today. Because young children are being exposed to lead and they should actually be screened from the lead. The pipelines with lead in the water system and the whole community of Flint, not being able to drink water out of the facet as well as not being able to
Anselm’s argument can be summarized as, “1. God does not exist. (assumption) 2. By “God,” I mean that, than which no greater can be conceived (NGC). 3. So NGC does not exist. (from 1 and 2) 4. So NGC has being only in my understanding, not also in reality. (from 2 and 3) 5. If NGC were to exist in reality, as well as in my understanding, it would be greater. (from the meaning of “greater”) 6. But then, NGC is not NGC. (from 4 and 5) 7. So, NGC cannot exist only in my understanding. (from 6) 8. So NGC must exist also in reality. (from 5 and 7) 9. So God exists. (from 2 and 8) 10. So God does not exist and God exists. (from 1 to 9) 11. So Premise 1 cannot be true. (by 1 through 10 and the principle of reduction ad absurdum) 12. So God exists. (from 11)” (262). This quote demonstrates how Anselms ontological proof is “God is that, than which no greater can be conceived” in understanding and reality by stating that a contradiction would be made if God didn’t exist in both (262). Aquinas cosmological proof stated that the existence of God could be confirmed in five ways, The Argument- “from Change”, “Efficient Causality”,
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:
Ronald Reagan, our 40th president, although successfully gained a political occupation, he was considerably impacted in his life by his dad who was an alcoholic. Although in the future becoming president
St. Thomas Aquinas presents five arguments to demonstrate the existence of God. However, this paper focuses on the fifth argument. The fifth argument is regarded as the Teleological Argument and states that things that lack intelligence act for some end or purpose. While the fifth argument satisfies God’s existence for Aquinas, some contemporary readers would argue that Aquinas neglects the laws of physics. Others argue that Aquinas allows a loophole in his argument so that the Catholic conception of God is not the only intelligent designer.
The Proof of the Existence of God There are many arguments that try to prove the existence of God. In this essay I will look at the ontological argument, the cosmological. argument, empirical arguments such as the avoidance of error and the argument from the design of the. There are many criticisms of each of these that would say the existence of God can’t be proven that are perhaps.
Many philosophers, including Elliott Sober, have criticized Anselm for his reply to Gaunilo, as well as Gaunilo's attempt to show the Ontological Argument is not deductively valid. Gaunilo says that there must be something wrong with the argument, but he does not point out where the mistake is. It is necessary to do so because Anselm's argument does look valid. Indeed, Anselm says that the Ontological Argument is deductively valid because of the difference between God and an island. "This seems implausible, since deductive validity doesn't depend on an argument's subject matter, only on its form, and the two arguments have the same logical form" (87).
While I do agree with some of Aquinas’ claims. Such as the idea that nothing comes from nothing. I believe something has to happen to become. It could be the efficient cause, causing the world to start. Although still having the question what made such a cause to effect everything in the
He continues by saying that for any change to occur there must have been a previous cause that existed in reality and if one was to trace this line of causes and effects all the way back there must be a first cause that began the chain. But there cannot be anything worldly like that because anything natural must have an impetus already in reality to transform it from potentiality to reality. The only explanation, in Aquinas' e... ... middle of paper ... ... s a cause except God.
Anslem is a philosopher who used the ontological way of thinking to explain God's existence. The ontological thought process shows the existence and being of a thing. Anselm's argument is that God is "this being that so truly exists that it cannot be even thought not to exist" (p. 860). The thoughts and ideas that are in your mind correspond to what exists. However, if you think about things that don't exist it is not as good. The things that exist are real and God's creation, and to understand this existance is even better. God is one who always exists and makes existence possible. In Anselm's argument he states God " of all things exist to the highest degree"(p. 860). He is saying God is the supreme being and is treated as a primary idea. In addition, Anslem describes God as " truthful, happy and whatever it is better to be than not to be-for it is better to be just rather than unjust, and happy rather that unhappy"(861). This means that God represents everything that is good and real. However, we cant subject God to our thinking because he is greater than our thinking and stands apart from it. Anselm's ontological argument is how he explains God as a necessary cause.
The ontological argument argues that if you understand what it means to talk about God, you will see His existence is necessarily true. Anselm defined God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived', hence God must exist. Anselm also believed that even atheist had a definition for God even just to disregard his existence; hence God exists in the mind. Anselm said this is so because that which exists in reality is greater than that which exists purely in the mind.
whereas a thing that is contingent may go out of existence. The method Aquinas uses is to set up the opposite position, then prove. it to be wrong. Therefore, the cosmological argument begins by accepting the premise that all things are contingent. If all things are contingent, i.e., if all things can go out of existence and do not.
The first argument is the ‘Ontological Argument’. Unlike the other two claims, this one is not based on evidence. ‘The Design argument’ depends on the nature around us and ‘The Cosmological argument’ is based on scientific evidence, the cause and effect. However, the ontological argument by St. Anselm (1033-1109), which is described as non-experiential or a priori in character, states that if God exists then he should be perfect and it is an imperfection not to exist, therefore, since God is perfect He exists. St. Anselm said that “God is a being than that which nothing greater can be conceive...