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.
Descartes also offers some doubt into the belief that God exists, for he claims that, “I can attach existence to God, even though no God exists” (44). He raises the idea that his thoughts do not entail existence, however, he claims that existence is inseparable from God because he cannot think of God as anything other than existence. As a result, he concludes that, “the necessity of the thing itself, namely the existence of God, forces me to think this” (44). Here, it seems to me that Descartes is implying the second half of the Cartesian circle, that God existence forces him to think that is distinctly and clearly
For me, although the objection is reasonable, I still think the Pascal’s response is stronger. Belief is not decision, because people can not just decided to believe something, they believe in something for a logical and rational reasons. In other words, believe in God by making a decision that people get infinite gains in life is a bet, because this method is not useful to let
Such proofs include teleological and ontological. A proof is an unquestionable, factual statement that directs an argument to the final product and is based on a level of scientific factualness. The existence of the world is no guarantee for believing in the existence of a certain being (God). The cosmological and design only offer points and arguments towards the existence of God, but the
It is Philo who reveals the unmendable gaps in the design argument against its main supporter, Cleanthes. However, Philo does not disprove God’s existence in his efforts to criticise the design argument. This is evident because Philo himself states his belief. By revealing the falsity of proving God’s existence through the argument from design, the reader of can conclude that the questions of God’s existence cannot be answered through human experience and reasoning. In Part II of Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume introduces the idea of argument from design through Cleanthes, who states,
In his essay "The Will to Believe" William James tells us that his purpose is to present "a justification of faith, a defense of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religious matters, in spite of the fact that our merely logical intellect may not have been coerced." Page2. I found his arguments also persuasive because he suggests the existence of God cannot be solve by our intellectual means. James argues that intellectual activity is motivated by two goals: to shun error and believe truth. The choice to believe or not is alive, forced and momentous.
These arguments intend to determine God’s existence mostly through logic and non-aligned to experience. Anselm’s argument is founded on the belief that God exists in the mind, and thus it is probable for God to exist in reality. According to this claim, something that exists in the mind and can also possibly exist in reality is something greater than it is (Malcolm, 1960). In this case, Anselm contends that God cannot only exist in the mind, but it is possible that he also exists in reality since God is the greatest possible thing. However, there are some other philosophers, including Immanuel Kant, who object this argument, disputing facts about the existence of God.
The superdominace argument from Pascal 's wager essentially states that we cannot be sure whether God exists, so we have to wager on a side because reason cannot help in our decision on God 's existence, but he supports believing in God. While the argument from expectation states "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing" (Pascal 53). Pascal essentially says that when faced with God 's existence believing that he exists gives you two outcomes these are "you gain all" and "you lose nothing"(Pascal 53). Much less not believing in God can have the outcome of misery or simply status quo. To put it briefly, Pascal suggests one should wager on whether God exists on their own accord.
Deeper than that, how did any of us thinking substances come about this idea of God? Descartes argues that “this idea is innate in me, just as the idea of myself is innate in me.” In other words, the idea of God is one that was not drawn from the senses, meaning it cannot possibly be an adventitious idea. The idea of God also is one that Descartes, or any finite, thinking thing, could have come up with because. This is due to the fact that God is such an infallible, eternal being, there is no possible way that any of us imperfect substances could have made it up because that would mean that a cause can have an effect that is greater in objective reality. This all sums to the conclusion that God is neither a fabricated idea either.