In this part, according to Neal (1990) “he is not interested in merely the existence of God, but in the sheer necessity of God's existence”. Anselm begins by stating that God cannot be conceived not to exist. He continues by arguing that “that than which a greater cannot be conceived (God)”, cannot be conceived not to exist, as being ‘conceived not to exist’ is ultimately less perfect than being ‘conceived to exist.’ This essentially boils down to the fact that ‘existing’ as a concept is more perfect that ‘not existing’, which leads Anselm to the conclusion that God must exist in reality. The alternative would exist of a being greater than God, who would ascend above God and pass judgement over him, and since God is the most perfect conceivable being, this is impossible. This argument is realised as
His argument is known as reductio ad absurdum, which demonstrates through a contradiction that God exists. Anselm delivered the first known ontological argument in a prayer. He claimed, 1) God exists in the understanding, 2) good might have existed in reality, 3) if something exists only in the understanding, then it is possible for it to be greater, 4) suppose God exists only in the understanding, 5) God might have been greater than it is, and 6) the greatest possible being could have been greater. There is a contradiction between #4 and #6. Guanilo counters Anselm’s argument by demonstrating that one could substitute different words with God and make absurd claims.
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.
God 's existence has been a continuous debate certainly for centuries. The issue of God 's existence is debatable because of the different kind of controversies that can be raised from an "Atheist as being the non-believer of God" and a "Theist who is the believer of God". An atheist can raise different objections on the order of the universe by claiming that the science is a reason behind the perfection of the universe. In Aquinas 's fifth argument, he claims that the order of the universe cannot be explained by chance, but only by design and purpose. To explain this order of the universe he concludes that, there is an intelligent being whom we call "God".
Then we look at the second argument of Aquinas, The Argument of Causation- everything that is caused has to be caused by something else, there cannot be an infinite number of causes, and same as argument number one that must mean there is a God since all effects have causes. The Argument from Contingency asks if everything already exists contingently has a reason to do so, does the universe exists for a reason and if the universe has a reason for its existence that that reason must be God. The Aquinas fourth argument the Argument from Degrees Aquinas says in order to compare two things in the terms of good or bad, we must have something to compare it to, this would have to be an absolutely perfect thing aka God. Aquinas’ fifth and final argument is The Teleological Argument- According to Aristotle, everything has a purpose or Telos. If everything in the natural world has purpose, there must be someone who created that purpose,
John Stuart Mill wrote that we cannot call God good for he is a perfect being and the word ‘good’ is a word that describes the highest form of human morality. I believe this statement to be true in a sense. Good is a term that has a relative meaning when describing things. Good is from a perspective of the individual. In this paper I will be arguing that the word ‘good’ in the phrase “God is good” is in relation to the opinion of the person describing God, and that it cannot be known to our reality if God is objectively good.
The premises from the meditation that claim god doesn’t exist are weak and invalid, and fail to give enough evidence to support the thought that god does not exists, which would conclude that God does exist. The argument for God’s existence is that God is a perfect being, he is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, and supremely powerful. Descartes goes on to talk about how God exists because he can conceive of him as better than himself (AD 40). God is perfect and perfect at everything, and was the first thing that sent everything into motion (AD 45). God is the ultimate cause.
Pascal believed in heaven as possible infinite gain, however Descartes believed that the nature and existence of an external world as something that cannot be fully known or understood. Pascal also believed that the belief in God as the only reasonable choice, when Descartes believed that God should always be held true. Their beliefs still back up this objection though. If nothing is known about the external world, or the external world is infinite gain, there is still no absolute certainty in which side of the wager to choose, therefore betting on God as true is still the most reasonable
Then we look at the second argument of Aquinas, The Argument of Causation- everything that is caused has to be caused by something else, there cannot be an infinite number of causes, and same as argument number one that must mean there is a God since all effects have causes. The Argument from Contingency asks if everything already exists contingently has a reason to do so, does the universe exists for a reason and if the universe has a reason for its existence that that reason must be God. Aquinas’ fourth argument is the Argument from Degrees Aquinas says in order to compare two things in terms of good or bad, we must have something to compare it to, this would have to be an absolutely perfect thing aka God. Aquinas’ fifth and final argument is The Teleological Argument- According to Aristotle, everything has a purpose or Telos. If everything in the natural world has purpose, there must be someone who created that
“I think, Therefore I am” This quote by Descartes prove that the person exists by his ability of thinking.  Descartes prove the existing of human being through doubting and thinking and he explains his claim by stating that when the person doubt his existence or think about his existence then he exists.  Moreover, Descartes imposes an ontological argument to prove gods existence which states that: god is a perfect being and since it is more perfect to exist than not this implies that god exists.  He also introduce another more complex argument for god existence which differ between two types of reality. Formal reality is the reality that anything has in feature of existing and it comes with three types: finite, infinite, and mode.
From this it is then reasonable to conclude that this causality was set in motion by a supreme being which is God. This argument answers the question of whether or not there is a God far better than the intelligent design arguments of William Paley. For, Paley’s argument easily invalidated by modern science because it argues that simply because there are complex features that can’t be explained by nature and that there are further complex forms in the universe then there must be a God who created the
One of the many famous arguments proving God’s existence by a seventeenth-century famed philosopher Anselm. Anselm’s reasoning was that, if a being existed only in the mind but not in reality, then a greater being was conceivable (a being which exists both in the mind and in reality). Since God is an infinitely great being, therefore, God must exist. Anselm logically proved that God existed by our understanding aside from reality and our understanding combined with reality. Another argument is the cosmological arguments.
This belief is that there is not one, but two gods in the world; a god of good and a god of evil. I myself believe in a world of balance and like the two authors listed above, accept this as more rational thought than a single omnipotent god. My reasoning is that without evil, there is no concept of good, and vice versa. I will briefly
Can we know whether God exists, or doesn 't exist, just by looking at the definition of ‘God’? Why, or why not? The question being asked here is whether a priori (or non-empirical) definitions are enough to prove the existence of God. Within this essay, I aim to prove that just because a definition exists in theory, it does not mean that they necessarily exist in our world, and that arguments providing a definition do not prove God’s existence. I will focus on Anselm’s argument to prove this, as I believe this is the most interesting and influential definition argument with reference to the question.