The Ontological Argument/The ‘Catholic’ View
The ontological argument , conceived by St Anselm, claims it is better to exist in reality than understanding so it would be contradictory for God (conceptually the greatest being that can be conceived) to exist only in understanding. Therefore, God exists!
The greatest flaw in this argument as pointed out by Gaunilo in his ‘Perfect Island’ argument, is it invites parody. He argued that it was possible to use the same form as the ontological argument to prove the existence of a perfect island; the island must exist otherwise it is possible to conceive of an island greater than that island than which no greater can be perceived which is logically absurd. If the ontological argument works, then, …show more content…
To see why Pascal’s wager works, imagine yourself being offered 2 pills. One of the pills will make you gloriously rich; the other will not have any effect. Each cost $2, and you are allowed to buy one at random. Is it not better to spend two dollars on a good chance to be a millionaire? We must remember that at the time of Pascal’s writing, scepticism reigned due to the Scientific Revolution. What could the theist say to the ordinary sceptic? Suppose such a typical mind lacked both the gift of faith and the intelligence to prove God's existence; could there be a third ladder out of unbelief into salvation? Pascal’s wager is the lowest ladder, appealing to selfish instincts instead of high moral ones but it works because it gives no middle ground. Pascal theorises that agnosticism is impossible. If Romeo asks Juliet to marry him and she continues to stall by saying, ‘Maybe tomorrow’, eventually Romeo will die and corpses cannot wed and ‘maybe’ becomes ‘no’. Agnosticism cannot continue indefinitely because life doesn’t; eventually we will have to make a choice. This is when Pascal reveals why atheism is a foolish choice; If God doesn’t exist, then there’s nothing to win after death and nothing to lose. But if he does, …show more content…
The main reason this argument convinces is because of the second premise . Imagine completing an infinite task; of course it could not be done. Thus, if the universe never began, it always existed. This means an infinite time would have passed before today and an infinite number of days which parallels the problem of the infinite task. Either the present day has been reached, or the task of getting there wasn’t infinite. So the process was finite and therefore there was a Cause-God, and he exists.
However, it becomes apparent that the Kalam argument does have some limitations. Firstly, the premise that all events have causes is arguable. This premise only makes sense because we’ve applied it to our ordinary lives. As Hume argues, the only way to ensure an everyday principle like causality still works in vastly different conditions is to have direct experience of it, which we cannot so the theory is invalid. Secondly, this argument functions on the basis of a priori judgments where philosophers attempt to reveal God through rational syllogism alone. The argument does not provide any validating evidence which weakens the
Despite that, I know that I’m taking the better “wager” by believing in God. I know this for the reasons stated previously, plus when compared to the alternative, it makes more sense. Who would want to burn forever? The benefits of one are superior to the other, and the consequences are far more severe than the other. This is what Pascal was referring to and I support that belief and ‘’’wager’’ as
I have to admit that Zimmerman’s talk was hard at times for me to comprehend. I would love feedback if I understood his divine argument wrong, because I have had a few discussions about it with my peers and many took away different views from his final argument for a divine being, and in this paper I will explain how I understood his final argument. To come upon the divine being of God, he had to eliminate all the other contingent and necessary options believed by other philosophers and scientists through reasoning. He explained how it wasn’t possible for their to be no answer for the cosmos, nor were any of the contingent explanations of science, philosophy, or an infinite past made any sense.
Anselm famously associated with the “ontological argument” for the existence of God. Anselm, in Proslogion, coined the term “ontological” to describe a branch of philosophy that deals with the notion of “being or existence.” (McGrath & OverDrive, Inc. 2001 p. 181). Proslogion is a work of meditation, not of logical argument.
This premise comes from premise five. If God might have been greater than he is, God must be a being in which a greater is possible. Following Anselm’s reductio ad absurdum argument brings us to the conclusion of the reductio ad absurdum portion in premise seven. The seventh premise is that the being than which none greater is possible, is a being than which a greater is possible. This premise brings us to a contradictory statement which sets up Anselm’s final two premises.
One of Craig’s arguments relates to ultimate meaning. He argues that without God, life has no meaning. Furthermore, if a person simply fades out of existence when he dies, there is no point in doing anything of significance while alive. Craig states, “The universe is doomed to die anyway. In the end it makes no difference whether the universe ever existed or not.
The cosmological argument does not do much more than make a strong case that there some kind of necessary being or beings that created the universe. However, if one were to accept the minimalistic cosmological conclusion, surely he would want to try to find out more about this being and see if he/she/it/they had
The Modal Ontological Argument by Alvin Plantinga uses modal logic using possibility and necessity to show that it is rational to believe in God. However, the argument is not a proof of the existence of a being who is a maximally great being as it’s not to prove or establish a conclusion but for it to be rational to accept the central premise and the conclusion (Oppy, Graham, "Ontological Arguments"). Premise one says it is possible that God exists. Possible, meaning he is Metaphysically possible as there are other reasons for Gods possibility than strictly logical and being that the Ontological argument is Metaphysical.
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.
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.
St. Anselm and Descartes are known for presenting the first ontological arguments on the existence of God. The word ontological is a compound word derived from ‘ont’ which means exists or being and ‘–ology’ which means the study of. Even though Anselm and Descartes’ arguments differ slightly, they both stem from the same reasoning. Unlike the other two arguments on God’s existence (teleological and cosmological), the ontological argument does not seek to use any empirical evidence but rather concentrates on pure reason. The rationale behind this school of thought
In this argument we already assumed that there may be possibility that God exist and finally we reached where we started. So this argument does not give us the exact information about existence of God. There are many objections on this argument but still it is a powerful argument. In my opinion, this argument is not much satisfactory. It describes that existence is greater than imagination.
So the first cause argument proves that God does not exist assuming the first cause argument is sound then there must be some other cause because it is not God. In summary the notion of omnipotent is a miss-name because it implies the potency, power, causality when in fact all that it does is imply logical entailment, it implies that if it wills something you can deduce from the statement that something exists, you do not need a causal step, it is a logical deduction and therefore the first cause argument argues from causes in the world
Faith is unprovable and therefore, from a philosopher’s point of view, unimportant. The study of the nature of being or existence is called “ontology” and various arguments of this study are known as “ontological arguments”. The argument here is whether God’s existence can be supported by reasoning or not. Although