The nature of God
The factual nature of God (given that He exists as the First Cause) is at all times argued by most Christians. Moreover numerous questions arise on the nature of God. We all know that, at some point we will actually die; yet, we consistently refuse the causes operating within ourselves that looks into the real result of what comes after a person loses his or her life. It is far simpler for humankind to agree that, they will depart to a secure home in Heaven and will be pardoned all their sins by a supreme being, rather than to query on the existence of the extremely all-powerful being. Luckily, some of us usually query this existence and the development of humankind; in addition to, the spiritual lessons obtained from our mothers and fathers, community and religion. This essay investigates the two logical justifications for and against the nature of God; in accordance to opinions of some exceptional researchers and philosophers. Through two classical arguments for God; the ontological argument and the teleological argument, I will show that there is no adequate evidence or extensive justifications for the true nature of God.
According to the ontological argument, God usually represents one superior, sacred, all-powerful being, the heavenly oneness of greatest truth and spiritual benefits. St. Anselm of Canterbury designed the ontological argument by saying that, even a dupe can comprehend or appreciate the concept of an all-powerful being of which nothing superior can be created. Anselm constantly stated that a dupe articulates that the nature of this being is only in his thoughts and in the brain of other people other than in actuality. With words like perfect, necessary and existent, which are built into its d...
... middle of paper ...
...world. Our ideas do not determine the actual nature of God. Regrettably, it is shatteringly obvious to me that the nature of God centered on sightless trust is no longer an appropriate custom to adhere to. Throughout my analysis, I had expected to discover some way of proof to keep the direction of trust in God drilled into me by my religion. Sadly, this was not the case; the ontological and teleological arguments never connected the perceived world with a supreme God. On one hand, the teleological argument developed misguided results from analogies of scientific statements and materialists offered solutions, which may be rationally legitimate. On the other hand, the ontological argument was unsuccessful since it was misleading due to terms that could not broaden into truth. Therefore, there is no adequate evidence or extensive justifications for the nature of God.
To begin, Anselm’s ontological proof functions from the essence of God to God’s existence. The argument
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
The Question of God is divided into two parts. The first part, titled: “What Should We Believe” seeks to answer the first half of the questio...
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...
Throughout the world, most people believe in some type of god or gods, and the majority of them understand God as all-good, all-knowing (omniscient), and all-powerful (omnipotent). However, there is a major objection to the latter belief: the “problem of evil” (P.O.E.) argument. According to this theory, God’s existence is unlikely, if not illogical, because a good, omniscient, and omnipotent being would not allow unnecessary suffering, of which there are enormous amounts.
If God did not exist, he would not be the greatest being imaginable. He is the greatest thing imaginable. Therefore, he does exist. From this argument, God’s existence is viewed. as necessary (Ayer. A. J. 1973).
There are often many mixed views when discussing God’s existence. In Anselm’s works “The Proslogion” and “Anselm’s Reply to Gaunilo” and Gaunilo’s work the “Reply on Behalf of the Fool”, both of their philosophies on the matter are imparted. Anselm’s logic regarding God is correct as he sustains his argument even when it confronted with criticisms and it is comprehensible.
...nature, presenting the power to co-create with that godly intelligence as a universal essence. When evaluating the critical components of using teleology as a means by which to verify God's existence, it is significant to also look at oneself as but a minute component in the overall structure. "From this it is quite clear that, notwithstanding the supreme goodness of God, the nature of man, inasmuch as it is composed of mind and body, cannot be otherwise than sometimes a source of deception" (Descartes PG). Also important to remember is that in agreement with the teleological argument, one's subconscious mind has the obligation to manifest whatever the conscious mind puts its attention upon. God is an entity of His own inventive creation; thus, His existence is a certainty for the very reason that it was His labors that enabled all other entities to exist, as well.
One’s worldview is usually dependant on how the particular individual interprets life and its occurrences. Additionally, if one believes something to be so, it will be so to them. It’s all a matter of perception. However, which perspective is truly accurate: Agnosticism, Theism, or Deism? These three worldviews have been the subject of countless debates throughout history and that have yet to be concluded. The purpose of this philosophical essay is to suggest that theism is likely to be considered the correct worldview.
The argument to side with in this paper is that of Anselm’s “Proslogian” where he argues for the existence of God in a less complex way as compared to the Monologian. Inevitably, the Proslogian received criticism from other notable philosophers, some of which will be addressed in this paper as well. Once the fool understands that than which nothing greater can be thought, he will comprehend the existence of God. The divine attributes of God will also be discussed to aid in the fool’s understanding of God’s existence. The premises of the ontological argument are as follows:
In this paper I will argue that Anselm 's ontological argument for the existence of God is so adequate for establishing the necessary existence of the greatest Conceivable Being. In order to accomplish this, I will argue that Anselm 's premises are sound, and that his conclusion rightfully follows his premises. I will support Anselm 's argument by representing that objections to Anselm 's argument are unsuccessful. My focus will be on Gaunilo 's objection to Anselm 's argument. Basically, Gauinilo 's objection is that Anselm 's argument can be transformed to prove the existence of any idea just by using the definition that the concept is bigger than all different concepts which can be conceived, this will be disproven.
Throughout the pages, Tillich provides an alternative ontological examination of the necessity in a belief of the Ultimate. The emblematic apologetic approach, as articulated in the works of St. Anselm, William of Ockham, and Duns Scotus, is destabilized by Tillich’s radical exposition that: If God is being – viz., the highest being-in-itself – then God cannot be the “Creator”. Consequently, God must be
Dr. William Lane Craig supports the idea of existence of God. He gives six major arguments, in order to defend his position. The first argument is quite fare, Craig says that God is the best reason of existence of everything. He gives the idea, that the debates between all the people, cannot reach the compromise, because the best explanation of the reasons of existence of everything is God, and nothing can be explained without taking Him into consideration. The second argument of Craig is from a cosmological point of view: he says that the existence of the universe is the best proof of the existence of God. Because, the process of the creation of the universe is so ideally harmonious, that it seems impossible to appear accidentally. The third argument is about the fine tuning of the universe. The universe is designed in such a way that people always have aim of life, and the life of people and the nature are interconnected. The fourth argument of Dr. Craig is about the morality: God is the best explanation of the existence of the morality and moral values in people’s lives. The...
William Paley and David Hume’s argument over God’s existence is known as the teleological argument, or the argument from design. Arguments from design are arguments concerning God or some type of creator’s existence based on the ideas of order or purpose in universe. Hume takes on the approach of arguing against the argument of design, while Paley argues for it. Although Hume and Paley both provide very strong arguments, a conclusion will be drawn at the end to distinguish which philosophiser holds a stronger position. Throughout this essay I will be examining arguments with reference to their work from Paley’s “The Watch and the Watchmaker” and Hume’s “The Critique of the Teleological Argument”.
The concept of God can be a difficult one to grasp especially in today's world - a world in which anyone that believes in God is trying to define exactly what God is. To even attempt to grasp such a concept, one must first recognize his own beliefs in respect to the following questions: Is God our creator? Is God omnipotent (all-powerful) or omniscient (all-knowing) or both? Does God care? Is God with us? Does God interfere with life on earth? These questions should be asked and carefully answered if one should truly wish to identify his specific beliefs in God's existence and persistence.