Which would mean that this person was greater than God. But nothing can be greater than God. Hence it is not true that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. In conclusion, the formulation of the argument from a metaphysical assumption and both philosophical and theological argument takes its false standpoint that builds up an entire edifice on assumptions that weren’t questioned back in Anselms’ day. Anselm then could not question whether “being” was continuous or discontinuous across cultures which philosophers developed much later.
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.
Ontological arguments are a priori, which show that God exists without appealing to a sense experience. These ontological arguments argue about what God is to where he is from. St. Anselm, the creator of the ontological argument, based his theory on that we cannot think of anything greater than God. Therefor God must exist, why you might ask? If the greatest thing that we can conceive does not exist than we can still conceive the greatest thing that does exist, and that would be God.
But substance of another nature could have nothing in common with God (by Prop. ii. ), and therefore would be unable either to cause or to destroy his existence. "As, then, a reason or cause which would annul the divine existence cannot be drawn from anything external to the divine nature, such cause must perforce, if God does not exist, be drawn from God's own nature, which would involve a contradiction. To make such an affirmation about a being absolutely infinite and supremely perfect, is absurd; therefore, neither in the nature of God, nor externally to his nature, can a cause or reason be assigned which would annul his existence.
Namely, what follows from this argument is that humans in reality are not free because every action that they will is necessary, thus already pre-determined by God. What Augustine does not realize is that his argument actually proves that humans have no knowledge of being determined—but they are determined! Therefore, as I shall point out, God could have created a determined world, without evil, where beings act freely not knowing that they in fact are determined. I would like now to turn to my first ch... ... middle of paper ... ...y in question is able to do anything that it chooses to do. The second point is that the idea that God cannot create a world with free beings that never choose to do evil is contradictory if we consider the existence of Heaven, which allegedly is an evil-free place where beings are free to exercise their will and apparently never choose to do evil.
Even when I do imagine God there is no strict correlation between that objective reality and any formal reality involving God. If God did exist it would seem that he would not have formal reality because, due to his infinite nature, he would transcend such a reality. God’s domain would be the objective where infinitude is a likely possibility not the formal where infinitude is a definite impossibility.
If there were no first mover then it would have been impossible to start motion. God is not a ‘specific’ mover, the title of God simple belongs to the being that is the first mover. Going off this argument, another questi... ... middle of paper ... ...than it is about God. It ruins the flow that St. Thomas previously establishes. The proof talks about goodness, truth, and nobility, which on there own are not proofs that God exists; they are morals.
Though these arguments Aquinas states his belief that God is the greatest of all things. While this is the same notion that Anselm has, Anselm does not hat the wit to back it up logically. In fact, the deeper you dig into Anselm, the more confusing and illogical it gets. Aquinas makes a great logical argument that is not terrible confusing. So, while they both had the same idea of God, only Aquinas was able to back it up.
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.
Philosophers, whether they are atheists, or believers have always been eager to discuss the existence of God. Some philosophers, such as St Thomas Aquinas, and St Anselm, believe that we have proven that God exists through our senses, logic, and experience. Others such as Soren Kierkegaard, and Holbach, feel that we will never have the answer to this question due to our human limitations, and reason. The believer tends to rely on faith for his belief, and claim they do not need proof in order to believe in the God's existence. The atheist however, tends to lean more towards common sense and reason, such as science, or the theory of evolution for an answer.