Secondly, the lack of complete understanding of a God that is greater than any other is the basis of Anselm’s argument. In other words, one needs not understand how it is that no other greater God exists, because it is not possible to do that. It is the concept of understanding that such a being exists that is important. As long as it is possible to have such a state, then the definition given by Anselm is
With regards to the cosmological argument I am of the belief that Article Three of Question Two entitled “Whether God exists?” best summaries Aquinas’ opinions. Aquinas first outlines two objections of those who argue that God does not exist may raise. The first objection outlines that if God is an “infinite goodness” then there would be no evil, however evil is present in the world so God does not exist. I agree that this is a fair criticism because God is hailed as omnipotent and omnipresent, yet evil often prevails in the world.
1. God is said to be omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Many arguments have attempted to prove the existence of God and in my opinion, none of the arguments succeed in actually proving the existence of such a god. However, there is one argument that, if it worked, would be the best in proving the existence of God which is Saint Thomas Aquinas’s argument. Aquinas tries to prove God’s existence in five ways with the first being the argument from motion.
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.
Because, if gods omnipotent then there is no stone too heavy for him to lift. Thus, depending upon what one believes about god, the answer to this paradox is different. All in all, the paradox of the stone is an interesting though experiment in debating gods omnipotence. The roots to Aquinas were key in the creation of this argument. Mavrodes did a great job of responding to this argument in an argument that elaborated that there is no logical discrepancy with god lifting a stone and gods
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins emphasizes on four theses that roughly entail his argument. Science is evidence based whilst faith is blind, If God created everything, who created Him, morality does not depend on a creator, and the Christian religion is perilous to society. His writing forces the reader to ponder the validity of religion. Dawkins adamantly states that religion can either be fully true or false. If proven false, it is the duty the intellectually conscience to refute.
Socrates is treating Euthyphro as the teacher, when in fact Socrates is teaching Euthyphro. It seems like Euthyphro is not thinking along the right line at all. Let’s take into account the Divine command theory, which says that the moral action is the one of God says is moral and if God prohibits it then it’s not moral. This theory is widely held to be refuted by Euthyphro argument. Euthyphro, the argument, gives two alternatives to the divine command theory that either morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
Hume and Kierkegaard are responding to philosophical mindset which held belief in the existence of God as something that can be rationally proven. In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments, both philosophers take issue with the a posteriori and a priori proof that have been used by philosophers to prove God’s existence. While their critiques of these arguments have much in common, the conclusions they draw from their analysis could not be more different— Hume ultimately denies God’s existence while Kierkegaard upholds it. While a full investigation into Hume’s argument against God’s existence and Kierkegaard’s argument for the necessity of the leap of faith, we can see how their critiques of these rational
The objection against premise three states: “There can be an infinite series of numbers; why can’t there be an infinite series of past causes (PowerPoint 384)?” Thomas Aquinas is a famous philosopher who is well known for his theological writings. Here, Aquinas steps in to defend this premise saying that “if there were an infinite regress of causes, we could not have gotten to the present moment because we would have had to go through an infinite series to get here, and it is impossible to go through an infinite series (PowerPoint, 384).” William Lane Craig then comes in and discusses the claim of premise three and Aquinas’ defence and states that, “the idea of an actual infinite number of anything leads to contradictions. Both Thomas Aquinas and William Lane Craig’s defence claims help show that premise three is true, proving that the first half of the first cause argument is a sound
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.
Advertising for Aquinas: How confusion of Intelligent Design and the Fifth Way cast doubt on the existence of God Whether there is a God or not is a question that has vexed the minds of people and philosophers a like. It would make sense then that many philosophers over the years have investigated and tried to answer this question, and have proposed many solutions to it. One way that they have tried to prove the existence of God is through teleological arguments, or arguments that explain the purpose or directive goal of something. One of the best examples of a teleological argument is given by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Fifth Way for the existence of God.
The ontological argument is one of the three main arguments for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. This argument is designed to appeal to rational rather than non-rational reasons for the existence of God. Rational reasoning can be identified through the use of reason, logic, argumentation, and our shared observations of the world, whereas non-rational reasoning is characterized by subjective religious experience. However, the ontological argument does not appeal to the logic consisting of our shared observations of the world because it focuses on the reflection of our own idea of God, therefore validating the cosmological argument to be a priori since none of it’s premises require empirical support. St. Anselm of Canterbury provided a renowned version of the cosmological argument around 1080 AD that establishes the existence of God by reflecting on our idea of Him.
that there exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or lesser evil. ”(Rowe 370) In that case, the theists counterargument is as solid as that of the atheists’. With the G.E. Moore shift, the theists are able to argue for God’s existence without denying the premise presented by the atheists.
This is its biggest weakness, in order for it to succeed someone has to presuppose that God exists. Another weakness is based on whether or not existence is an actual property of something like its size, weight, or color. If existence isn’t considered a property then it fails, but if it is then it succeeds. Then there is the cosmological argument.
His speech is not simply aided by the frightful connotations held with each word, but by the objective nature of his statements. Edwards speaks not from personal view, but from the view of a spiteful God forced to gaze upon the state of His creation. The omission of phrases such as “I believe” or other personal statements places the central focus upon God rather than Edwards himself. Despite his reputation as a gifted, educated minister, an audience of anxious colonists is likely to fear God in a manner which cannot be held towards a mere human being. By speaking instead for God Himself when Edwards declares, “Men’s hands cannot be strong when God rises up”, a superstitious audience is left petrified with distress.