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.
The existence of God is quite controversial issue. God has different names in the world, and a lot of people, strongly believe in his existence. While, on the other hand, there are also people who don’t believe in his existence. In their discussion entitled “Does God Exist?” William Lane Craig, who is the supporter of the idea of existence of God, debates with Austin Dacey, who is an atheist, on the idea of existence of God. They provide the strong arguments and their debates are quite interesting, and innovative (not similar to those arguments, we usually read about in book). These are the fresh views on the question of existence and non-existence of God.
Back in 1200s, St. Thomas Aquinas has provided "five ways" to prove for the existence of God, which I am persuaded by, and hopefully others would see the same 'light' in this argument--unfortunately, it does not provide sufficient answers regarding the 'nature of God' (Bailey and Martin, 2011, 37). All five arguments share the "form of logic called syllogism," "initial premise, starting from the empirical facts," and the existence of "transcendent cause" to everything (Bailey and Martin, 2011, 25). Here, I will choose the second way, the argument of "efficient cause," which I feel it as the most compelling argument and sums up other arguments to demonstrate for the existence of God. 'God,' here is defined as the God introduced in the Bible of Christianity.
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.
exists and his idea of what a perfect being is, such as God, then God exists.
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...
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?
In the explanation of this argument for the existence of God, Anselm states that God is the greatest being that can be thought and nothing else can be conceived as a greater being than God. For example, when one grasp the idea of God, one thinks of that being as one who has the best properties that could exist in the world such as wisdom, power, knowledge and even the unique essence of existence, and we amplify each attribute to its limits, and as a result we have God. If we can still think of something greater than that, then we have failed to really think of something that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought. This brief explanation of the argument is explained in detail in the following paragraphs.
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.
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.
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.
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