The debate of the existence of a Greatest Conceivable Being, in religious terms a god, has raged for centuries, costing many people their lives and many more their time attempting to configure a flawless proof of its existence; yet today we are no closer to a definite conclusion than we were five-thousand years ago at the beginning of recorded history. That being said, many great minds have put forth compelling arguments both theistic and atheistic in an attempt to answer what may be the greatest question ever asked: “Does a Greatest Conceivable Being exist”. Before any arguments are presented we need to define what a Greatest Conceivable Being is. The Greatest Conceivable Being has all possible perfections particularly omnipotence, being all …show more content…
This argument is built off of the definition of a greatest conceivable being, in that in order to be the Greatest Conceivable Being it must have all the conceivable perfections. Anselm argues that existence is a perfection, as something imagined becomes more perfect if it in fact exists. For example, suppose you have an ideal date, a person who is in every way perfect, however unfortunately for you they do not exist (Green 43). Wouldn’t that person be more perfect if they existed? A monk named Gaunilo famously criticized this argument by stating by the same logic one would be able to create the “greatest conceivable island” or any item that would be the “greatest conceivable” of its kind. Guanilo effectively showed that one could use the argument to prove the existence of non-existent things. Anselm defended and strengthened his argument however by demonstrating the difference between the quantitative properties of the “greatest conceivable island” proposed by Guanilo and the qualitative properties that apply to a greatest conceivable being. In other words, since a greatest conceivable island is a tangible thing its possible to imagine something larger or grander, while the power of a greatest conceivable being has maximums that cannot be exceeded (Himma). …show more content…
The problem of evil is as it sounds: how could an omnibenevolent and omnipotent being allow for people to undergo suffering, sadness, and hardship. These conditions are seemingly under the influence of the greatest conceivable being, and should be able to be removed by him if he chose. Thus since evil exists, and since the greatest conceivable being has to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent it is not possible that both evil and a greatest conceivable being could coexist. This argument is very compelling, yet is not completely sound. There have been many criticisms of this theory, the strongest being the concept that there cannot be mountains without valleys (Green 56). This criticism argues that it is not possible to experience joy without having some understanding of pain. One can also not demonstrate certain admirable qualities like forgiveness or compassion without being wronged or having experienced some evil. It is impossible to imagine a universe in which evil in some form does not exist. Typically when one refers to greatest conceivable being’s omnipotence they mean that the greatest conceivable being is able to do all things that are possible in a universe. One can then infer that because we cannot imagine a universe without pain or evil, it
8- McDermid, Douglas. "God's Existence." PHIL 1000H-B Lecture 9. Trent University, Peterborough. 21 Nov. 2013. Lecture.
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.
Firstly, “God is that then which nothing greater can be conceived” and secondly, “Something that exists in reality (in re) is bound to be greater than something that exists in the imagination (in intellectu). This leads to the conclusion, that as God is “the greatest conceivable thing”.it is only logical that God exists “both in reality and thought”. Anselm’s essential claim was that existence was a “predicate of God” which means a quality of God’s nature. As God is the “greatest conceivable thing”, He must be great in any way possible. This argument can be understood more simply through the illustration of the painter that Anselm used.
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.
There is evil. 3. So, God does not exist”. Since there is evil, then that means God does not exist. So there is no loving and powerful God. However, if there is a God then he is not all loving and powerful. Daniel Howard-Snyder states in his article “God, Evil, And Suffering,”: “We would have to say God lacks power and knowledge to such an extent that He can 't prevent evil. And there lies the trouble. For how could God have enough power and knowledge to create and sustain the physical universe if He can 't even prevent evil? How could He be the providential governor of the world if He is unable to do what even we frequently do, namely prevent evil?” (5). This statement argues that God is not all powerful because he is unable to prevent evil in the world. Daniel Howard-Snyder then argues that: “Would a perfectly good being always prevent evil as far as he can? Suppose he had a reason to permit evil, a reason that was compatible with his never doing wrong and his being perfect in love, what I 'll call a justifying reason. For example, suppose that if he prevented evil completely, then we would miss out on a greater good, a good whose goodness was so great that it far surpassed the badness of evil. In that case, he might not prevent evil as far as he can, for he would have a justifying reason to permit it” (5). Even if God had a reason to allow evil, he who is all loving and powerful would want the least amount of people to suffer and feel pain. Since God knows
To defend the lord’s existence, he begins by presenting the argument that God is “something that than which nothing greater can be though” (432). This is apparent as God trumps all things that exist in this world as He is the creator therefore, the greatest of all. Certainly, if He is greater than what can be thought, then for the same reason He must
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).
Over the years, there have been various interpretations given on what Descartes really meant in his ontological argument. However, most of given interpretations only examines the simple meaning of existence but Descartes arguments looks at existence in relation to the perfection of God. In short, what Descartes is claiming is that there is no any other way that he can examine the context of G...
A wonderful description of the nature of God’s existence that includes the absolute possession of characteristics that have to be uniquely God was said, “First, God must exist necessarily, which means that God’s existence differs from ours by not being dependent on anything or anyone else, or such as to be taken from him or lost in any way. God has always existed, will always exist and could not do otherwise than to exist. Also, whatever attributes God possesses, he possesses necessarily” (Wood, J., 2010, p. 191).
In the construction of the Large Hardon Collider, physicists seek and hope to unlock the mysteries of the universe by analyzing the attributes of the most miniscule particles known to man. In the same way, theologians have argued back and forth over the course of human history with regards to the divine attributes of God, seeking and hoping to unlock the mysteries of the metaphysical universe. Although these many attributes, for example omnipresence, could be debated and dissected ad nauseum, it is within the scope of this research paper to focus but on one of them. Of these many divine attributes of God, nothing strikes me as more intriguing than that of God’s omnipotence. It is intriguing to me because the exploration of this subject not only promises an exhilarating exercise in the human faculties of logic, it also offers an explanation into the practical, such as that of the existence of evil, which we live amidst every day. So with both of these elements in hand, I am going to take on the task of digging deeper into the divine attribute of omnipotence in hopes of revealing more of the glory of God, and simultaneously bringing greater humility to the human thinker. In order to gain a better understanding on the subject of divine omnipotence, I am going to analyze four aspects of it. First, I am going to build a working definition of what we mean when we say that God is omnipotent. Second, I am going to discuss the relationship between divine omnipotence and logic. Third, I am going to discuss the relationship between God’s omnipotence and God’s timelessness. Last, I am going to analyze God’s omnipotence in relation to the existence of evil in the world. Through the analysis of these four topics in relation to om...
It is perhaps the most difficult intellectual challenge to a Christian how God and evil can both exist. Many of the greatest minds of the Christian church and intellects such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas spent their entire lives trying to solve this problem, and were unsuccessful (Erickson, 2009, p.439). However, this dilemma is not only an intellectual challenge, but it is emotional. Man feels it, lives it. Failing to identify the religious form of the problem of evil will appear insensitive; failure to address the theological form will seem intellectually insulting. This conundrum will never be completely met during our earthly life, but there are many biblical and philosophical resources that help mitigate it.
In the words of Anselm, "Therefore, Lord, not only are You that than which nothing greater can be conceived but you are also something greater than can be conceived. Indeed, since it is possible to be conceived to be something of this kind, if you are not this very thing, something can be conceived greater than You, which cannot be done. " Anselm suggested a proof for God's existence, however, for God to be God there must be more to Him than that He simply 'exists'.
In Anselm’s Ontological Argument, he is trying to prove that God exists. He used two preconditions to prove this argument. The first precondition is the important idea of this argument, he said that because the greatest things not only exist in the mind, but it also exists in the reality. The second precondition is that there is nothing greater than God can be conceived. So the conclusion for this argument is that God exists. In this paper, I am going to critique the Anselm’s ontological arguments for God exists. I believe that his argument is based on concepts that he defined, and he used those concepts which he thought was true to prove that the God exists.
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.
The Problem of Evil is an argument that highlights the contradiction between the existence of evil and the existence of God. The Problem of Evil basically states that if a perfect being like God existed, then existence of evil should not and is impossible to co-exist with, because such an almighty, all-power God would not allow it to. It is apparent to some people that the existence of evil and suffering itself in our world is the biggest challenge against the belief in the perfect being, higher power, known as God. I believe the Problem of Evil is the best and justifiable argument against the existence of God, because if God was truly all-powerful and omnipotent then he would not allow there to be any evil or suffering. It is the most apparent