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.
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.
Therefore, God must exist so that the definition would be true. Anselm’s argument is based on this known definition of the concept of God alone. Descartes’ argument for the existence of God is based on his foundation of knowledge, logic. Humans have the idea in their minds of infinite perfection. Humans also have the idea of themselves as inferior to this idea as imperfect.
Despite of Aquinas 's fifth argument being one of the most prominent argument for the existence of God, there are some limitations to the fifth argument. The expected limitations especially from the atheists can be applied to this argument due to its nature in the fact that it’s inductive, meaning we can never be 100% certain of its correctness. One example that can be used by an
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.
Ontological argument by St. Anselm in favour of God’s existence: The ontological argument of the existence of the God is entirely based upon the fact of contradicting the non-existence of God. The original statement on which St. Anselm’s ontological argument of God is based upon is that "God is that than which no greater can be conceived." The statement means that there cannot be a being which can be greater than God and there cannot be a being which can be imagined greater than a God as God is treated as an ultimate perfect being that can be imagined. One of the prominent feature that God has is perfection i.e., something can’t be called a God unless it’s completely perfect. Perfection implies that there cannot be something which is greater than perfection or being flawless.
The fact is that God transcends our mental capacities and he controls our comprehension in all spheres of life (Noone, 2009). In line with Foreman's Presentation, concerning "Approaching the Question of God's Existence," one can argue that the ideas of McCloskey in interpreting cosmological and teleological arguments are based on a wrong hypothesis. On the Cosmological Argument, the existence of God has been a reality, whether the creator was a being or a thing. The existence of the universe is not enough to validate the existence of God. One can come up with an argument which intends to give an insight on how people understand the creation theory, and where God came from.
However, the true test (or measure) rests when Aristotle’s theory of argumentum absurdum is applied. This principle is not unlike the theory of modus tollens, with a noted exception; argumentum absurdum poses simplified questions to be reasoned, and, at face value, stand to be readily solved by demonstrating an absurd or beyond comprehension result. For example, if we were to say the Earth is flat, then, if you walked in any direction, eventually you would fall off the face of the Earth, and because you would fall off the face of the planet, you would die. The assertion is thus proven untrue; in this case, the Earth cannot be flat as anyone can walk in any direction and not fall off the face of the planet, therefore, they would not die from falling off the face of the
Following, Philo states that he will approve of all the arguments Cleanthes has presented thus far, because at the end of it all, Cleanthes cannot compile a working argument. This is simply, because Philo claims that if a “Deity” has unlimited power, as has been approved, then the “Deity” will not accept any malevolent acts in the world. Thus, having malevolent acts in the world, means that the “Deity can be kind and ultimately powerful, for these inconsistencies are the way man thinks. Philo identifies these key points which is part of his initial point that was made, what was rejected by Cleanthes, however Cleanthes is now forced to accept this, if he wants to maintain the argument that a “Deity” is endless.