McCloskey (1968) suggests that the arguments given are why theists believe in God but states that these arguments do not support a belief in God (p. 65). We cannot “prove” with absolute certainty that God exists. God, and His sovereignty are far greater than what our minds could ever comprehend. The thought that God is the best explanation for life and our being is important in maintaining the belief that God does exist. Just because there is no “absolute proof,” does not mean that God does not exist.
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. The argument seems to “beg the question”. Moreover, St. Anselm’s idea of existence is not very clear. It is not very clear what a physical object is, what it means to say that a physical object exists and what it means to say that a non-physical object exists. St. Anselm’s argument is based on the superiority of an existent God over a non-existent God.
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.
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".
Hence, in this case regarding the existence of God, I would agree with Pascal that when it comes to things that which we do not have certainty such as the existence of God who as Pascal said “infinitely incomprehensible” the most reasonable thing to do therefore is to believe since in believing there would be more
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins emphasizes on four theses that roughly entail his argument. Science is evidence based whilst faith is blind, If God created everything, who created Him, morality does not depend on a creator, and the Christian religion is perilous to society. His writing forces the reader to ponder the validity of religion. Dawkins adamantly states that religion can either be fully true or false. If proven false, it is the duty the intellectually conscience to refute.
There are lots of people in the world that does not acknowledge God or spirit, so without knowing God, Berkeley is saying that people who do not believe in God does not exist. However, ironically it is these people that do not think God exist. Also, there is a question of is this does this actually exist? How can we prove that God exist? What does he or she looks
124). His other point is that God having a sufficient reason for permitting evil is not the same as having a hallucination. He states that having good reason for the existence of God increases the possibility that He has a reason for permitting gratuitous suffering (p. 124). He also counters the claim that there is no evidence to suggest that God is all-good and all-powerful. He refers to his moral argument—wherein without the existence of God, objective moral values would also cease to exist, but objective moral values do exist and thus God also must exist—to make the claim that God is all-good (p. 125).
“Imagine There’s No Heaven” is an article in which Salman Rushdie, the author, presents an atheistic view where religion is pointless, and a higher being is non-existent. Like most, he questions how humans came into existence, and how the world will end, but rather than using a religious approach, he uses a scientific approach in which his answers are explained by science. His message is that religion has created boundaries for humans to not be able to be themselves. He continues to express that religion acts as a prison for many and as a way to gain power over the few,also to keep us from reaching our potential. He speaks of the deconstruction of religion because it makes people’s need to believe in something for an emotional increase.
Saint Anselm came up with the ontological argument that only a fool would believe that God does not exist. An ontological argument is hand in hand with a Platonic a priori where there is a strong attempt made to prove that God exists by the concept of his existence. Saint Anselm’s argument is that even someone thick minded, or has a low IQ can state that there is a God, and for this to be possible, God must exist. He backs his argument up by comparing what is imagined up in the mind and what is in reality. Reality is existence, and imagining something up is nonexistent.