Some of the greatest opponents to the cosmological argument include Hume, Kant and Russell. Hume questions the notion of causation within his philosophical work. In “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion,” assumptions and speculations of how the world was founded are classified as not true empirical evidence. Hume believed that although everything in the universe had a cause we could not explain how the universe was caused. (Hume, 1779).
This logical incompatibility between evil and God’s actuality can be made evident in two additional principles provided by Mackie. These are if something is omnipotent, it can do anything and if something is omnibenevolent it will eliminate as much evil as possible. Mackie claims God’s omnipotent characteristic is dependent on him being all powerful. If God is omnipotent than the subjection to limitations, such as the inevitability of evil, should not arise. This first premise is in relation to the second and third because if God is all powerful, wholly good and in existence, the product of his work, our world, should be a reflection of his being.
Thomas Aquinas is the second critique of Anselm’s position. Take note that Aquinas assumed that the existence of God is obvious. He supported cosmological argument to prove that God exists. The cosmological argument uses the physical things that exist in the universe to demonstrate God’s existence. In his criticism of Anselm’s argument, Aquinas disagrees with the use of the word “God” and argues only some who hear the word “God” understands what it means (Himma, 4).
Does the Ontological Argument successfully show that God exists? Anselm 's ontological argument is a philosophical argument which aims to prove God 's existence. The ontological argument is an argument for God’s existence based on reason alone. According to this argument, there is no need to go out looking for physical evidence of God’s existence; we can work out that he exists just by thinking about it. (Anon., 2004) Anselm’s argument is a reductio argument, it seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that an absurd result would follow from its denial.
In Proslogium St. Anselm presents his argument for the existence of God, an argument that has thus far withstood the test of time and many criticisms, one of which I will discuss here. Anselm works his way from the “fool’s” assumption that God does not exist, or at least does not exist in reality, through his premises that existence is greater than understanding alone and that a being with God’s properties and existence can be conceived of, to the conclusion that because God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived and God can exist in understanding, God must exist in reality. Gaunilo, a fellow monk, gives his criticism of Anselm’s argument in the form of a reductio ad absurdum argument. Gaunilo attempts to show Anselm’s argument to be false by taking a parody of Anselm’s argument to an extreme and absurd conclusion, that being the existence of the Perfect Island from the same reasoning as the existence of God. I then present a reply that I believe to be in accordance with something Anselm might have responded to Gaunilo with.
Question No. 10 Answer: Anselm guaranteed his ontological argument as confirmation of the existence of God, whom he depicted as that being for which no more noteworthy can be imagined. A god that does not exist can 't be that than which no more noteworthy can be considered, as existence would make it more prominent. Hence, as per St. Anselm, the concept of God essentially entails His existence. He denies Gaunilo a Godless epistemology.
Dawkins replied to Lennox on his accusation that the principles of going from simple to complex is the belief of the atheist. By saying that if things were to go from simple to complex they would need explaining why. Lennox says that it makes a lot more sense to believe, that there is an eternal Logos and that the universe and its laws is derivative including the human mind form the Logos, it makes perfectly sense. More sense than to accept that the universe is just a simple fact. Dawkins replies that it makes a hell of a lot more sense to start with something simpler than to start with something more complex.
Firstly, it is formidable since he is able to give the atheist the most charitable assumption that “God exists only in the understanding”, and then go on to show its contradiction and reduce it to absurdity. Furthermore, the defense for Anselm’s argument is a strong one. With the infinity argument, Anselm can solidify his claim that his argument is an exclusive argument for “sui generis” entities. Of course, skeptics would have us agree that two such entities may not prove that all such entities can seamlessly pass Anselm’s argument. However, with the infinity argument, we are one step closer to understanding how Anselm’s argument truly works.
Leibniz keeps that an all things are good, powerful God had made the world and that, consequently, the world necessity be faultless. When human existences observe something as incorrect or evil, it is simply because they do not know the final good that the so known as evil is destined to help. Alike Candide, Pangloss is not a realistic character; to some extent, he is a one-sided, overstated image of a certain substantial of philosopher whose character is close from his philosophy. Pangloss Supporter of optimism. He upholds that the whole thing happens for the best and for adequate