Anselm's Ontological Argument

However, I do not think this alone can prove that the Divine Command Theory is true. The Divine Command Theory implies that we know what God approves or disapproves of, but really no one knows for sure. So, we must rely on our own understanding

Descartes talks about God as if God is infinite because he radiates out in every direction. Descartes imagines that he himself is perfect and has the perfect qualities of God. This leads him to the discussion of disobeying God and turning into what one wants rather than what God wants. By doing what oneself wills, not what God wills, one is basically implying the he or she sees him or herself as God-like. Descartes believes he is partially God because he is on his way to infinite knowledge, but since he is gaining little by little, he is in a state of potentiality.

While I agree with certain aspects of both theories, I have to dispute both outlooks on the ultimate power of God. John Hick believes that there is no way you can deny the existence of evil, but he believes all evil exists because the all powerful God allows it to. How could a God who is all good allow evil to be present, you ask? Hick’s answer to your question would be; In order to draw us closer to him(GOD). If there were no sorrows, pains, or woes, mankind would not see the need for God’s forgiveness and love.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Hume and Kierkegaard are responding to philosophical mindset which held belief in the existence of God as something that can be rationally proven. In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments, both philosophers take issue with the a posteriori and a priori proof that have been used by philosophers to prove God’s existence. While their critiques of these arguments have much in common, the conclusions they draw from their analysis could not be more different— Hume ultimately denies God’s existence while Kierkegaard upholds it. While a full investigation into Hume’s argument against God’s existence and Kierkegaard’s argument for the necessity of the leap of faith, we can see how their critiques of these rational

Anselm defines God as, “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived”; a being that cannot be surpassed or improved in understanding and existence. He believes that everyone has their own vision of God. Every person performs what they believe to be his will through themselves in their own way. Anselm uses the definition to argue for the existence of God when refers to two different forms of understanding; comprehend an idea of an object and to perceive an object existence.

The Ontological Argument is defined as the argument that God, being described as the most great or perfect, must exist, since a God who exists is greater than a God who does not (Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100250688). It belongs to the Philosophy of Religions and not Theology; there is a difference between Philosophy of Religion and Theology, even though they both take God and religion as their subject. Theology starts with assuming that God exists and aids in figuring out what follows or it sometimes solves philosophical problems that might arise from the belief in God. Theology is slightly more strict and they have limits to their premises, one of those limits is not believing in God. Another

The Agents of Good and Evil There is this belief that the Christian God is good and all-powerful. He has the power to create worlds and beings, yet there is still evil in the world. Both Pierre Bayle and Voltaire address these questions in their works “Paulicians” and Candide (respectively). They both believe the Manichean philosophy as a more rational thought process than the contemporaneous Christian view. This belief is that there is not one, but two gods in the world; a god of good and a god of evil.

At the beginning of the article, Mackie states that the initial issue with God’s existence is that, “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, Paragraph 3). If god is such a pure and good being, then he should be able to combat all evil. The first statement that showcases that God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, then evil cannot possibly exist. The definition of omnipotent is

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. It begins by examining some empirical or metaphysical fact of the universe, from which it then follows that something outside the universe must have caused it to exist.

An Ontological argument is an argument that concludes with accepting the existence of God, from evidence, which is supposed to originate from a source, other than, that of your senses or observation of the world. In other words you come to the conclusion from reason alone. They are formed from nothing but analytical, and necessary premises, to arrive at the conclusion that God exists. A cosmological argument uses a general outline of arguments that makes a conclusion from clear obvious facts about the world, to the existence of an all-knowing being, that is God. Among these original facts, are certain beings, or events in the world that are causally dependent or reliant on the premise, that the universe is depending in that it could have been other than what it is, or why there is something rather than nothing.