Anselm wanted to understand the object of the belief. He is also not trying to defend his belief against the atheist and neither is he trying to convince the atheist that God exists. The ontological argument differs from other arguments in favour of God as it is an ‘a priori’ deductive argument, a priori meaning that can come to a conclusion by the use of reason and not proof. A deductive argument means that if the premises that are put into the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. Thus, Anselm tends to base his argument on the definitions and terminology used.
Having established the parameters for this essay, I will first assess the plausibility of Anselm’s version of the ontological argument. However, I will argue that this version of the ontological argument is ultimately foiled by both Gaunilo and Kant. This essay will then argue that the modal ontological argument is the most convincing before concluding that while it alone is not convincing, the fact that it merely requires the possibility of God’s existence rather than the actuality of it, means that it makes the existence of God far easier to accept. Anselm’s ontological argument can be viewed as a proof by contradiction - taking God to refer to Anselm’s “being than which nothing greater can be conceived” : (1) God exists in the understanding but not in reality. – premise (2) Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone.
Pascal says that the choice is between several sets of human qualities or characteristics: the true vs. the good, reason vs. will, knowledge vs. happiness, and error vs. misery. He theorizes that the believer who turns out to be correct in his belief will have true good, agreement with rea... ... middle of paper ... ... of belief that have been created around the deity by humans. Even if there is a God and belief in Him is founded, there is no way to know if He will or will not bestow rewards upon His followers. Pascal’s theory would make sense if it were based on anything other than religion. Theology depends more on personal motivations than a desire for some unknown reward that may or may not exist.
Since God's nature itself can serve as the standard of goodness, one can simply say that God’s nature is then unchangeable and entirely good, His will is not arbitrary and that His declaration... ... middle of paper ... ...ts of the Bible and do not believe in others. By doing so, one is lead to an entirely different interpretation that strays away from the truth of God’s words. As you can see, the way to approach the Euthyphro Dilemma is to show that it is false and that there is ultimately a better option: God’s nature is the standard of goodness. There are not two options, but three. In all, one should reject both that it is right because God commands it and God commands it because it is right.
To sum up, a perfect God exists. It can be seen that Descartes is only using the premise “all clear and distinct perceptions are true” as a reference for the proof, instead of the only reason for the argument. However, Descartes’s meditations fail to state the reasoning for some of his premises clearly, which makes some of the periodical conclusions hard to understand. For example, Descartes points out that “more reality in an infinite substance than in a finite one”, without showing why (Descartes 31). However, this kind of flaws does not change the fact that the meditations are using circular reference between the premises and conclusions, instead of circular reasoning.
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.
This definition is necessary in order to agree with Anselm’s premise that there exists things in reality which are greater than things that only reside in the understanding. Also, Anselm does not discuss what a perfect being is. He claims that God cannot be perfect if He exists only in the understanding, but what exactly does being perfect mean? Moreover, Anselm would then need to be able to provide evidence of how God would meet this description. Finally, Descartes proof resonates with me more because he acknowledges that humans are imperfect.
In his wager, Pascal states that a rational person would surely choose the option to believe in God. Why would someone not prefer the option that would benefit you in the end ev... ... middle of paper ... ... this religion may not be proven reasonable, but it cannot be deemed unreasonable either. Nevertheless, Pascal’s statement “The Christian God exists or else he does not exist” is in its self a tautology. As a final point, in my opinion one can distinguish what Pascal’s choice appears to be between Christian faith and atheism. I do notice that he attempts to see things from both sides.
Berkeley`s states that everything is an idea and that there has to be a supreme spirit (god) out there that has the ability to put ideas in our mind. Thus, being the one who controls everything that we are able think. The way that I understood Berkeley`s argument is that he believes that the existence of “God” is essential in order to know anything from the external world. Comprehending Berkeley`s argument wasn’t an easy task, but I have come to my personal conclusion that this so called; “Supreme spirit” is not necessary for me to have knowledge about the things that I can observe. Therefore in this paper, I will argue that Berkeley`s response to skepticism is not successful because he thinks that god is the base of knowledge.
He tries to expla... ... middle of paper ... ... Through the philosopher’s arguments covered in this paper, there is legitimate proof for and against the existence of God. In my opinion, a God can only exist if one wants Him to. Although one can always rely on he arguments to help support his views. If one does not truly believe that a God exists he can find another argument to support God’s non-existence.