This being is what we call “God”” (Leib slide 2). I believe that Ockham’s Razor cannot be pitted against this argument because the Razor already explains that the belief of one supreme being is a lot simpler than the belief of many. Anslem’s argument is trying to prove the existence of “one” supreme being, which already complies with Ockham’s Razor. Aquinas’s Cosmological Argument of God’s existence on the other hand is way too complex. He states that efficient causes are the reason for God’s existence.
We can say that god exists by thinking about god. As we know that for sided god triangle triangle is impossible, in the same manner non-existence of god is also impossible. If we think god is perfect and superior than everything we know then anything greater than god can’t be imagined. If we think god as not
God can exist without existence, God is everything but God is nothing, God is the highest parameter of something and also God has no parameters. We don’t have control on God and also we don’t have evidence in favour and in unfavoured of god we can only do that we can assume God or don’t. Everyone has his/her own definition of God. Did we analyse whole universe if so then did we understand outside the universe? If not then how we can say God physically not
One of the weaknesses of the Aquinas argument is that Aquinas contradicts himself when he rejects the possibility that the universe is unlimited. Then he argues that God has no end. It also states that everything is conditional, but God is unconditional. (Aquinas
“Well, now, how is that grace which is not gratuitously conferred? How can it be grace, if it is given in payment of a debt? 4 How can that be true which the apostle says, “It is not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast (Eph.2:8, 9)…. What greater gift, or even what similar gift could grace itself bestow on any man, if he has already without grace been able to make himself one spirit with the Lord by no other power than that of his own free will ”. Ultimately, what is so powerful around Augustine’s take on evil is that he continuously sought God’s will in the process and looked for reason in the midst.
If you agree that the faculty of judgment comes from God, and that God is a non-deceiver then you would also believe that the end would be impossible for the faculty of judgment to to be wrong. Is it even possible for anything from God not be the truth or
John 14:6 says, "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. '" Philosophically, it is impossible for religions with mutually exclusive doctrines to be equally valid. Where we find contradiction, we must find errors. Either Christ was wrong or He was right when He claimed to be the only path to God.
Anselm’s “Ontological Argument” The general idea of the ontological argument is based on the notion that the concept of God as the greatest being implies that God exists—if not, there could be something greater, namely an existent greatest being—but this being would be God. The structure of the Ontological Argument can be outlined as follows (The argument is based on Anselm 's Proslogion 2): 1. We conceive of God as a being than which no greater can be conceived. 2. This being than which no greater can be conceived either exists in the mind alone or both in the mind and in reality.
Another one of Anselm’s ideas was the divine nature of God. Since God is the greatest thing that one can imagine, He therefore exists and is omnipotent. This also concludes that God “must be just, self-existent, invulnerable to suffering, merciful, timelessly eternal, non-physical, non-composite, and so forth. For if he lacked any of these qualities, he would be less than the greatest conceivable being, which is impossible” (Saint Anselm). There isn’t much of standard for how one would be considered the highest or greatest since everyone has different ideals and sees the world differently.
It does not make any religious claim nor theological claim. Christian experience of God existing in threefold form is a topic of high philosophical interest. In a broader perspective, there seems to have two extreme approaches towards the Trinity: neglecting the trinity arguing that it is self contradictory doctrine (as a result rejection) and avoiding any rational understanding of it stating that it is a mystery
Decision are not made in advance. Therefore, free will is possible under an omniscient God. Response to Objections While Lewis made a valid argument in defense of Theological Fatalism, he has failed to recognize that predestination, in any form, still warrants that one’s actions will be predetermined. Opponents of Lewis’ argument would argue that even though god exists in an timeless realm, we still can not act out of free will. The argument is as follows: God timelessly knows that I will do C. If god timelessly knows that I will do C,then C is now-necessary.
But he notes that this need not convince anyone that there is no reason for believing in God:the theologian can, if he wishes, accept this criticism. He can admit that no rational proof of God’s existence is possible. And he can still retain all that is essential to his position, by holding that God’s existence is known in some other, non-rational way.”Mackie’s aim is to show that philosophy is not only capable of criticizing arguments for God’s existence, but also showing that God does not exist, thus closing off the position of the theologian
However he does not. For some, this is undeniable proof that God cannot exist or at least not in the way that he is traditionally characterised. One solution is to let go of one or more of the traits usually associated with God and accept that He may not be all good. Natural disasters are completely unpreventable by humans because they are an essential part of how our planet functions so surely an omnibenevolent God, who supposedly designed the universe, would not have made such suffering necessary. Furthermore, the God that is portrayed in the Bible does not appear to be omnibenevolent at all as seen in the line ‘I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all
First being theism which states that god does exist. Secondly, there is atheism which states that god does not exist. Lastly, there is agnosticism which states that it’s unclear that god does or does not exist. You would think if you don’t have enough evidence for god’s existence, it would be a good idea to go with the argument of agnosticism. However, there is sufficient evidence to prove that argument unsound.
I would personally not say that if something exists that it is changed as to how it was before, whereas a trait such as colour changes the objects form. Referring back to Kant’s argument, he therefore suggests that if existence is not a trait (or existing in reality is better than not), then it is not possible to compare an existing God with a non existing God, because they are completely different concepts [Schonfeld 2000: 297]. Furthermore, Kant goes on to offer further criticism through stating God’s