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.
Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral
This method is supportive of Descartes’s will to emphasis on doubt and question anything that can be doubted. Thus, he demonstrates the presence of God through a chain of consequences ‘Causal proof’. Because of the law of conservation of matter, the cause must equal the effect, if we have an idea of God than this idea is the effect and God is the cause (Gaarder, 2003). Therefore, the idea we have of God is an innate idea that we did not produce ourselves. Accordingly, he expresses that as a result of his innate thoughts of God, it only makes sense that it be God who "is the reason for this thought".
The greatest possible being must be a necessary being. The existence of a necessary being must be either impossible, merely possible, or necessary. We can conclude, for it cannot be impossible for a necessary being to exist, there is no contradiction in the concept of a necessary being. Nor can it be that a mere possibility the God exists, for such existence would be dependent and happenstance, and such a being could not be God. Therefore, a necessary being necessarily exits, that God does exist (Pojman
Outside itself, the concern must not have any goods to make this “ultimate”. God alone can be the ultimate desire of the human soul because God alone is permanent and absolute according to St. Augustine. Temporary and changing are contracted by the objects of creation. Therefore, essences are identical to God’s existence. The essence points to God as the creator but that created nature does not have its essence within
p. 180). This is because a being who exists only as a mental notion is not so great as a being who exists in reality. Based on these facts and steps, Anselm conclude that Good must exist in reality, as well as an idea in the mind. To vividly understand the argument, it is important to understand the
Belief is not Decision Pascal’s Wager, the argument that an individual who believes in God’s existence is entitled to infinite gains. There are three objections against Pascal article, including “the wrong motivation”, “too many options” and “Belief not a decision”. Among these three reasonable objections, I believe that the strongest one is “Belief not a decision”, because everything needs a reason as people are born as rational creatures. Otherwise, people believe in the existence of God because they trust that God could bring benefits to them. For me, although the objection is reasonable, I still think the Pascal’s response is stronger.
It is with this concept in mind, which brings me to why I think Copleston was more convincing than his debate opponent. In my view, it is Russell who has given the evidence as to why I believe that
The Cosmological Argument argues that the universe had to have been created by something greater, and more powerful than itself, such as God. This argument contends that the first cause of anything has no cause itself. The Teleological Argument asserts that the complex design of the world proves an intelligent, powerful creator. The Moral Argument cites God’s existence as the cause of morality. This argument asserts that humans follow moral laws that must have been created by a law giver.
In the book Heresies and How to Avoid Them by Ben Quash and Michael Ward, several chapters are dedicated to the heresies revolving around who and what Jesus is not. Arianism, docetism, nestorianism, and eutychianism are four heresies explore the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. I will argue these four heresies had an overarching theme of causing the church to struggle with the idea of God’s intimacy and how Jesus delivered us from our sin. I will do this by exploring the unique nature of Jesus Christ. Arianism is named after Arius, a man who believed Jesus was created, instead of eternal like God the Father.
The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist.
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.
Descartes’ first argument for the existence of God In meditations of the first philosophy, Descartes reflects that he is often deceived by his senses. He therefore decides to discard all his pre-conceived notions and start from scratch to find out things that he is absolutely certain about. Descartes begins by showing that he is certain about only one thing, which is that he exists as a thinking thing. The fact that he can doubt his own existence goes on to show that he exists and that he is a thinking thing capable of doubting, imagining, willing etc.
Section 1: question 3 Euthyphro’s Dilemma is a modernized version of the question that Socrates askes in Euthyphro: “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?” This dilemma or argument proves or contradicts that the Divine command theory is wrong. The following argument order was also discussed in class, but this sequence by Jonathan Pearce seemed like a better explanation. (1) 1.