Critical Analyses of St. Anselm’s argument for the Existence of God and Douglas Gasking’s argument for the Non-Existence of God. Arguments against St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God St. Anselm begins with a definition of God, argues that an existent God is superior to a non-existent God and concludes that God must exist in reality, for his non-existence would contradict the definition of God itself. The argument does not seem plausible to an unbiased person, even at the very first reading. It seems as if not all aspects of the question under scrutiny have been considered. The basic assumption, on which the entire argument stands, that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined can seem doubtful to a person who doubts the existence of God, for if one doubts that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived, then he may also be skeptical if any person has thoughts about the same being, whose existence itself is doubtful.
Some of the greatest opponents to the cosmological argument include Hume, Kant and Russell. Hume questions the notion of causation within his philosophical work. In “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion,” assumptions and speculations of how the world was founded are classified as not true empirical evidence. Hume believed that although everything in the universe had a cause we could not explain how the universe was caused. (Hume, 1779).
Moreover, the way it provides proof solely through the ideas of contrivance and necessity, leaves one dissatisfied with regards to divine understanding. While the aforementioned theories are unreliable, St Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs of God’s existence are quite the opposite. His arguments, from motion, causation, necessity, gradation and design, are doubtless the most convincing with regards to understanding the nature of ultimate reality. This is due to the amount of supporting evidence it puts forth, the way it is all-encompassing with regards to religion, and the way it allows one to see God from multiple different perspectives. Through Aquinas’ five proofs one can ultimately come to know the truth about the existence of a divine
McCloskey (1968) suggests that the arguments given are why theists believe in God but states that these arguments do not support a belief in God (p. 65). We cannot “prove” with absolute certainty that God exists. God, and His sovereignty are far greater than what our minds could ever comprehend. The thought that God is the best explanation for life and our being is important in maintaining the belief that God does exist. Just because there is no “absolute proof,” does not mean that God does not exist.
The Ontological argument was part of the Philosophy of Religion and therefore needed a proof, somewhat of a logical, sound argument. This argument was in fact the most bold, daring, and bewildering argument in the history of Western philosophy. Anselm’s claim that God must exist because the concept of God exists certainly angered a few philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas while other philosophers like Immanuel Kant tried to disprove such an argument; simply because it was absurd to them. However much absurd this argument may be, it truly was such a beautiful type of reasoning in the eyes of all philosophers. Anselm’s ontological argument started off by stating that the most perfect “thing” that one could possible think of is God and that there is nothing higher.
Introduction When considering the various applications of David Hume’s moral philosophy, his discussion on the morality of suicide has a great effect on the discussion of ethics and morality more than two-hundred and fifty years later. Our modern Western society is reevaluating its moral code from the ground up year by year in various social issues, which means that it is also becoming unclear what actions are morally permissible. Thus, a critical analysis of Hume’s argument for the moral permissibility of suicide is rather timely. In his essay on suicide, Hume refutes a three-part claim of Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic philosopher and theologian. This essay shows that Hume believes that suicide can be defined as the killing of self that is intended to remove misery and which may or may not be morally justified.
Hume's claim against miracles is that it does not matter how strong the evidence for a miracle it may be it is rather more rational to reject the miracle than to believe in it. Hume states that there are two ways in order to decide to believe a piece of evidence. The reliability of a witness is the first factor. A witness can be dishonest or be ignorant about a situation which would make their claims worth little. So Humes says to take in consideration how reliable the witness is.
As to the reference of ancient texts, Harris is arguing that people choose to be blind to the flaws in these writings, some have not read them completely or blindly rely on the word of authority such as a priest. He points out that there is a great amount of unreason in the world of religion and that relying on authority may be dangerous; how do we know that what the Pope preaches is reliable
Saint Anselm came up with the ontological argument that only a fool would believe that God does not exist. An ontological argument is hand in hand with a Platonic a priori where there is a strong attempt made to prove that God exists by the concept of his existence. Saint Anselm’s argument is that even someone thick minded, or has a low IQ can state that there is a God, and for this to be possible, God must exist. He backs his argument up by comparing what is imagined up in the mind and what is in reality. Reality is existence, and imagining something up is nonexistent.
As humans, are unable to understand an incomprehensible and powerful being, especially because "He has no affinity to us"(Pascal's 4), so Blackburn questions the premise of Pascal's argument, where it seems as if his set up assumes something about God. Blackburn's most important point raised is the case of false options, referring to the outcomes presented in Pascal's