There have been an innumerable amount of arguments for the existence of God for hundreds of years. Some have become much more popular due to their merit, and their ability to stay relevant through changing times. Two arguments in particular that have been discussed for a very long time are the ontological and cosmological arguments. Each were proposed in the period of the high middle ages by members of the Roman Catholic Church. They each have been used extensively by many since their introduction. However, one of the arguments is superior ant that is the ontological argument. The Ontological argument is the stronger of the two due to the fact that it is based in pure logic and reasoning.
Faith is the root of many actions and thereby reactions in our society, and world today. These religious practices must go through many trials and questionings from the always cynical, ever searching individuals. Due to the questioning of God’s existence, St. Thomas Aquinas and Anselm devised three arguments as was of explanation for His existence. Ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments are put forth to hopefully one day prove God’s existence. We are a people who crave for simplicity, there is nothing simple about the devout in their faith, we will look to find simpler explanations, or Ockham’s razor, for the three arguments put forth by Aquinas and Anselm.
sense for him to be the reason we are born to then die leaving a question mark to our existence and the world. God exists because there can be none greater that can be thought. The ontological argument begins with the claim that God, by definition, is infinitely great. Thus, no entity can surpass God’s greatness. One of the many famous arguments proving God’s existence by a seventeenth-century famed philosopher Anselm.
In this essay, I will set out to prove that Thomas Aquinas’ First Cause Argument does not show that God exists and the conclusion that God exists does not follow from the premises of the first cause argument. I do think that the conclusion is valid and could be sound/or has the potential to be, but the premises fail to provide the basis upon which to reach such a conclusion. Hence, I will be raising some objections to the premises and will try to disprove any counter-arguments that could be raised in its defense. This would be done by examining Aquinas’ First Cause Argument and trying to disprove it whilst countering arguments in its defense.
Anselm says that God is the being which nothing greater can be conceived. This is the base of the argument. He says let’s assume God exists as an idea in the mind, there is a possibility that God exists only in our understanding. On the other hand, one can imagine that God is exists in our understanding as well as in reality. St. Anselm’s theory also says that a being which has all the properties of God and exists also in reality then this would be greater than the being which exists only in our understanding.
The Ontological Argument argues that because God is perfect and unlimited, he must exist, even in nonbelievers; existing is a quality of perfection. The problem of evil is significant because most people base their morality and values on whether or not they
In his book “Discourse on Method,” Descartes gives two ontological proofs of God’s existence. The first proof appears earlier in his book when he doubts himself about not being perfect. Descartes is aware that since he has doubts, he is not perfect, because a perfect being would know everything. However, since he has the notion of what perfection is, it means that there must be a perfect being that exists out there that give him the idea of perfection.
Of the three main styles of arguments for the existence of God – the cosmological, the teleological, and the ontological – the teleological is probably the second strongest of these arguments. The teleological argument is also the only one of these arguments that reasons to its conclusion inductively. This means that, unlike the cosmological and ontological arguments, the acceptance of the premises of the teleological argument does not commit you to the acceptance of its conclusion. It only commits you to a judgement about the probability of the conclusion. The style of reasoning typically adopted by this method is one that starts from a posteriori observations about our reality, and then reasons a priori – typically through analogy – to 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.
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.
This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a Creator that transcends time, which has neither beginning nor
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.