Mavrodes explains that if god is omnipotent, then the stone question is a contradiction in and of itself. His reasoning makes logical sense because if one agrees that god is an all powerful entity, then there is no realm in which god can create something that he cannot lift. As Mavrodes articulates, the crux of the question is its built in attempt to imply that god is not omnipotent. And, if one believes that God is not omnipotent, then it follows that of course god would not be able to lift the stone, or would not be able to create a stone heavy enough to lift thus rendering him non-omnipotent. And, if one believes that god is omnipotent, then this question is irrelevant because this question is a contradiction.
However, his claims can be refuted on the basis that, when one says that “no greater God can be conceived”, then one would only be talking about God. The word God is what you call a being that is above all understanding. Secondly, the lack of complete understanding of a God that is greater than any other is the basis of Anselm’s argument. In other words, one needs not understand how it is that no other greater God exists, because it is not possible to do that. It is the concept of understanding that such a being exists that is important.
(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. I will be discussing three objections to Anselm’s argument which I will reply to, namely: “the perfect island” objection by Gaunilo; “existence is not a predicate” objection by Immanuel Kant and Aquinas objection “not everyone has the same concept of God”. I agree that that Anselm’s ontological argument does indeed show that God exists. The ontological
Therefore, because we certainly do see movement, there must be a first efficient cause 7. A first efficient cause is only achievable by God (Premise), therefore God exists. Notice how this entire argument only has two premises, being that everything has a cause, and God is the only thing able to be the first efficient cause. This leaves the argument in a very strong position as the first premise seems true enough by tradition, and there is no alternative to God in the second premise. If we are under the belief then that the argument is inherently valid and that we can take the premises on their word, then the conclusion is sound and God must
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
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 traditional claim of all Cosmological Arguments is defined as “something outside the universe is responsible to explain the existence of the universe” (PowerPoint 380). In the “causal argument,” or the First Cause Argument on the cosmological argument, “something” outside of the universe that is supposed to inform us about the existence of the universe is argued to be explained as God. As the first cause argument goes into depth and with the help of Thomas Aquinas, it is easy to see how God is responsible for explaining the existence of the universe around us. Within the first cause argument on the cosmological argument the following premises and conclusions are discussed: Premise 1: There exists things that are caused. Meaning that
Born in 1949, the Christian philosopher and theologian, William Craig is most known for his defense of the Kalam cosmological argument. The Kalam cosmological argument is rooted in Islamic theologians of the Ilm al-Kalam tradition. The Ilm al-Kalam also known as Islamic natural theology attempts to justify the belief in God by constructing arguments for God’s existence. The main specificity of the Kalam is that it relies on the premise that the universe began to exist. Craig’s main argument is against the possibility of existence of actual infinities he believes there is always a cause of existence.
The word ‘cosmological’ practically explains what the argument is about. The first part of the word ‘Cosmos’ relates to the world or the universe, therefore, it means that the Cosmological Argument is one talking about the come bouts of the world/universe around us, and it also argues for the existence of God. This argument looks at the universe around us and it seeks explanations for the reason it exists. The Cosmological Argument attempts to prove that God exists. This is done by showing that there cannot
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.
One of the many famous arguments proving God’s existence by a seventeenth-century famed philosopher Anselm. 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.
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.
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. The cosmological argument looks to the world to prove God’s existence rather than pure definitions.