Analysis Of Saint Anselm's Ontological Argument

Assuming the deeds of God are evident in the world, all they would demonstrate is the existence of the concept of God, but they could say nothing about the particular character of God; they could not establish God in the sense of a proper noun {should I have already introduced this concept}. By definition though, there is an absolute relationship between the works of God and the concept of God, and so Kierkegaard explores whether through this means we can at least establish proof for the concept of

I have always just accepted that whatever God commands is the morally right action and have never really thought about the arguments against it. After realizing that there are so many arguments against it, this has led me to disagree with the Divine Command Theory. Because there are a vast variety of religions in this world, there are multiple different God or gods that people believe in. Just because I have a set religion and God that I believe in does not mean that someone else’s view is wrong. Also, how can we know for sure what God’s commands are?

This tries to prove God’s existence by saying that all natural things were created for a purpose by an intelligent designer; this is much like Paley’s Teleological Argument. This argument does not work because it does not prove that the intelligent designer of natural things must be God. Overall, Aquinas’s argument fails to fulfil its only purpose: prove that God exists. If an argument cannot prove that God is all knowing, all good, and all powerful, then it does not prove the existence of a god at all. Another main reason why this argument and many other arguments for God’s existence does not work is because of the problem of evil.

In Proslogium St. Anselm presents his argument for the existence of God, an argument that has thus far withstood the test of time and many criticisms, one of which I will discuss here. Anselm works his way from the “fool’s” assumption that God does not exist, or at least does not exist in reality, through his premises that existence is greater than understanding alone and that a being with God’s properties and existence can be conceived of, to the conclusion that because God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived and God can exist in understanding, God must exist in reality. Gaunilo, a fellow monk, gives his criticism of Anselm’s argument in the form of a reductio ad absurdum argument. Gaunilo attempts to show Anselm’s argument to be false by taking a parody of Anselm’s argument to an extreme and absurd conclusion, that being the existence of the Perfect Island from the same reasoning as the existence of God. I then present a reply that I believe to be in accordance with something Anselm might have responded to Gaunilo with.

According to John Cottingham, who is an English philosopher, argues there is absolutely nothing to rationalize since religion is “all about one's feeling of absolute dependence and commitment” ("Religious Faith [...]”). In an interview, he says: “It is problematic if you think the only model for reasonable belief is a scientifically based on impartial assessment from evidence.

Mavrodes explains that if god is omnipotent, then the stone question is a contradiction in and of itself. His reasoning makes logical sense because if one agrees that god is an all powerful entity, then there is no realm in which god can create something that he cannot lift. As Mavrodes articulates, the crux of the question is its built in attempt to imply that god is not omnipotent. And, if one believes that God is not omnipotent, then it follows that of course god would not be able to lift the stone, or would not be able to create a stone heavy enough to lift thus rendering him non-omnipotent. And, if one believes that god is omnipotent, then this question is irrelevant because this question is a contradiction.

He tried to show the existence of all kinds of non-existent things. He uses an example of an island, that is perfect in his mind but it doesn 't exist,. He starts off by assuming that the island is the greatest thing in the mind and nothing can conceive it, in other words he

Does the Ontological Argument successfully show that God exists? Anselm 's ontological argument is a philosophical argument which aims to prove God 's existence. The ontological argument is an argument for God’s existence based on reason alone. According to this argument, there is no need to go out looking for physical evidence of God’s existence; we can work out that he exists just by thinking about it. (Anon., 2004) Anselm’s argument is a reductio argument, it seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that an absurd result would follow from its denial.

Descartes talks about God as if God is infinite because he radiates out in every direction. Descartes imagines that he himself is perfect and has the perfect qualities of God. This leads him to the discussion of disobeying God and turning into what one wants rather than what God wants. By doing what oneself wills, not what God wills, one is basically implying the he or she sees him or herself as God-like. Descartes believes he is partially God because he is on his way to infinite knowledge, but since he is gaining little by little, he is in a state of potentiality.

Christian theologian William Lane Craig argues that without the existence God, a person’s life is devoid of meaning, purpose, and value. He claims that since God provides these, he allows humans to lead a satisfying and productive existence. Craig also states that without God, we are without guidance, meaningless, and in despair. In disagreement with atheist philosophers, Craig concludes that it is impossible to live a fufilling life without God. In this paper, I will examine each argument, and provide insight related to the strengths and weaknesses of his claims.

The customary contentions for the presence of God have been reasonably completely scrutinized by rationalists. Be that as it may, the scholar can, in the event that he wishes, acknowledge this feedback. He can concede that no discerning confirmation of God 's presence is conceivable. Also, he can in any case hold all that is key to his position, by holding that God 's presence is known in some other, non-judicious way. I think, notwithstanding, that an all the more telling feedback can be made by method for the convention issue of shrewdness.