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...
In the article of Existence of God, the article describes the distinction between existence and essence on weather or not God exists or ever existed. The argument resembles more on cosmological arguments of Thomas Aquinas, then the ontological argument of Anselm. The argument persuades the existence of God can be separated from the essence of God, but the argument goes on to argue if God exists or never existed. The argument clearly states that God exists by giving examples, such mountains and valleys, which cannot in anyway be separated from the other. In order for the something to work there has to be purpose behind certain being or thing that works as the purpose of those actions. I agree with the points that this argument is making that everything has purpose behind the action that are happening around us or even besides us. Imagination of a horse with wings, I can as well imagine that, but I cannot prove that a horse that I seen has wings and can fly, but with the existence of God I surely can prove that everything that happened had a purpose for them to happen, and that the prove of God, such as the evolution, living species that appeared on this planet that was once not habitable with had no oxygen, neither atmosphere for living species to survive. There is no proof of how these species appeared, but there is one being that did all of this, and it was mighty God that we all think about, and talk about everyday in our lives. I can imagine a horse with wings, but I cannot prove it that it really has wings; I have the power to imagine. But with the existence of God I can because everything that was created has purpose behind them, and that is exactly the evolution.
The question of God’s existence has been debated through the history of man, with every philosopher from Socrates to Immanuel Kant weighing in on the debate. So great has this topic become that numerous proofs have been invented and utilized to prove or disprove God’s existence. Yet no answer still has been reached, leaving me to wonder if any answer at all is possible. So I will try in this paper to see if it is possible to philosophically prove God’s existence.
Whether god exists or not has been in discussion for thousands of years, and an important discussion. Whether it is rational to believe in god or not is another story, like believing in god itself, this topic has brought many discussions. It is one thing to discuss whether god is real or not and it is a complete other to discuss whether it is rational to believe in god or not. I believe that while there may not be any convincing evidence or arguments that God does exist, I do still believe that it is still rational to believe that god does exist. I think this because, believing in God is not simply just believing that he exists, but believing that it can bring good to our lives, we otherwise would not have. It teaches us to have a moral responsibility not only to others, but ourselves. It is obvious that many people do believe in god, but many of us choose to do so for reasons other than just believing in God. I do believe that just because there is no evidence, that does not mean God doesn’t exist. Like I said, God brings more to our lives than just a belief, but an ability to achieve a better one. And even if God is just an imaginary figure, he is an imaginary figure that brings hope and goodness to our lives, which we can never discount.
The ontological argument for God also has merits that are invalid. One such is a point made by Kant, that the second portion of Descartes' proof is inaccurate because existence is not necessarily a property, as Descartes uses it as (Thomson 30). Another philosopher, Gassendi, said in his work Objections, "something which does not exist is neither perfect nor imperfect" (qtd Thomson 30). This would imply that existence is not perfection and God needn't exist.
As before, the argument includes a premise asserting that God is a being than which a greater cannot be conceived. But this version of the argument, unlike the first, does not rely on the claim that existence is a perfection, instead it relies on the claim that necessary existence is a perfection. This latter claim asserts that a being whose existence is necessary is greater than a being whose existence is not necessary. Otherwise put, then the second key claim is that a being whose non-existence is logically impossible is greater than a being whose non-existence is logically possible. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily
God’s existence does not require proof by scientific, mathematical, or philosophical arguments. His existence is not a ‘discovery’ to be made by the scientific method or a mathematical theorem to be proven. Simply said, mere common sense bears witness to God’s
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.
The very perception of an absolute perfect being means God has to be in existence, this is the usual ontological, or a priori, argument. St. Anselm was the first person to articulate this argument in the 10th century and argued that because of the idea that people have of an absolute perfect being, which he defined as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" , it ought to exist. Pros logion, one of St. Anselm’s essays he interpreted God as an actuality who retains all possible perfection. But if this existence "existed" simply as an idea in our cognizance, then it wouldn’t be as perfect as, if it actually existed, something that would thus oppose our classification of God, a being who is thought to be absolutely perfect. Therefore, God must exist. Gaunilo of Marmoutiers tore apart Anselm's idea by requesting people to perceive an island "more excellent" than any other island, enlightening the faults in this kind of argumentation. This type of a priori argument i.e. pure deduction is wholly imperfect, often superfluous, and completely fails to take empirical proof ...
Many theologies take/ give the existence of God a lot of importance due to their beliefs, and faith. However, some philosophers and theologians thought it is important that to demonstrate the existence of God to those who says that there is no God. The St. Anselm’s ontological Argument is a priori argument for the Existence of God. Anselm’s Ontological Argument had been known as the first Ontological Argument which had been proposed in 1078 by Anselm of Canterbury in his book Proslogion. Although Anselm didn’t gave his Ontological Argument a name immediately; however, the name Proslogium was given several centuries later by Kant. Anselm as a philosopher his aim on his ontological Argument is to refute the fools who say or who don’t believe in their heart there is a God. Anselm’s purposes on his argument are to prove that God’s exits by using philosophical logic and reason.