His argument is known as reductio ad absurdum, which demonstrates through a contradiction that God exists. Anselm delivered the first known ontological argument in a prayer. He claimed, 1) God exists in the understanding, 2) good might have existed in reality, 3) if something exists only in the understanding, then it is possible for it to be greater, 4) suppose God exists only in the understanding, 5) God might have been greater than it is, and 6) the greatest possible being could have been greater. There is a contradiction between #4 and #6. Guanilo counters Anselm’s argument by demonstrating that one could substitute different words with God and make absurd claims.
His main argument replies to Anselm’s assumption of the fact that existing in reality is greater than existing in the intellect. This is called the ‘lost island’ argument. This argument follows Anselm’s set up of the Ontological argument in Proslogion two. Gaunilo begins his argument by stating that there is a perfect island somewhere, and no greater island can be conceived. This Island easily exists in the intellect, but when Gaunilo would be asked to accept that this island exists in reality, without a doubt, Gaunilo would think them the fool.
To prove this, first, I will describe the arguments of the Aristotelian stance the belief of God’s omnipotence, which I oppose, and then present an argument based on Van Inwagen’s description of the causal chain. A criticism for this will be presented that further
Then we look at the second argument of Aquinas, The Argument of Causation- everything that is caused has to be caused by something else, there cannot be an infinite number of causes, and same as argument number one that must mean there is a God since all effects have causes. The Argument from Contingency asks if everything already exists contingently has a reason to do so, does the universe exists for a reason and if the universe has a reason for its existence that that reason must be God. The Aquinas fourth argument the Argument from Degrees Aquinas says in order to compare two things in the terms of good or bad, we must have something to compare it to, this would have to be an absolutely perfect thing aka God. Aquinas’ fifth and final argument is The Teleological Argument- According to Aristotle, everything has a purpose or Telos. If everything in the natural world has purpose, there must be someone who created that purpose,
John Stuart Mill wrote that we cannot call God good for he is a perfect being and the word ‘good’ is a word that describes the highest form of human morality. I believe this statement to be true in a sense. Good is a term that has a relative meaning when describing things. Good is from a perspective of the individual. In this paper I will be arguing that the word ‘good’ in the phrase “God is good” is in relation to the opinion of the person describing God, and that it cannot be known to our reality if God is objectively good.
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
There are a number of arguments and objections to the First Cause but I will argue the success of the objection ‘God is More’ objection which objects to the conclusion of the argument that states that the Christian version of God ,with its attached attributes, exists. The second objection is the ‘Immaterial-Material Causation’ objection which questioned how an immaterial being can be able to cause material existence. The prove of the success of these arguments will therefore weaken the success of The First Cause argument. The First Cause argument states that “for anything at exists, there must have been something else that caused its existence in the past. There cannot be an infinite chain of effects and their causes, going back infinitely into the past.
Then we look at the second argument of Aquinas, The Argument of Causation- everything that is caused has to be caused by something else, there cannot be an infinite number of causes, and same as argument number one that must mean there is a God since all effects have causes. The Argument from Contingency asks if everything already exists contingently has a reason to do so, does the universe exists for a reason and if the universe has a reason for its existence that that reason must be God. Aquinas’ fourth argument is the Argument from Degrees Aquinas says in order to compare two things in terms of good or bad, we must have something to compare it to, this would have to be an absolutely perfect thing aka God. Aquinas’ fifth and final argument is The Teleological Argument- According to Aristotle, everything has a purpose or Telos. If everything in the natural world has purpose, there must be someone who created that
In this essay, I will show that Immanuel Kant is wrong to think that the only good without limitation is the good will. My first step in defending this thesis will be to review Kant’s argument about how the good will is intrinsically good. I will then try to undermine his view by showing it supports implausible claims. For example, the premise of Kant’s claim is that good will is unconditioned. However, the good will may depend on outside factors to bring about good in a person.
Having asserted with absolute certainty his existence, Descartes attempted to remove the basis for doubting, a deceiving God, by first classifying in the Third Meditation which category of thoughts would be susceptible to doubt. Descartes divided thoughts into three categories: imagery, volitions and judgments, of which the third category could be most erroneous since judgment could lead to false ideas, a problem which could be resolved by considering them different modes of thoughts. These ideas could be further divided into three categories - innate, produced by one or adventitious. The last category was of particular importance: in term of representation, these ideas conveyed different degree of objective reality with omnipotent deities
The customary contentions for the presence of God have been reasonably completely scrutinized by rationalists. Be that as it may, the scholar can, in the event that he wishes, acknowledge this feedback. He can concede that no discerning confirmation of God 's presence is conceivable. Also, he can in any case hold all that is key to his position, by holding that God 's presence is known in some other, non-judicious way. I think, notwithstanding, that an all the more telling feedback can be made by method for the convention issue of shrewdness.
Hello Sir I have a question about the connection between God’s existence and morality. The Euthyphro dilemma summarizes Kant’s argument. Our motivation to obey God’s commands are either moral or not. If moral then the moral motivation to obey God precedes God’s command. In which case, introducing God adds nothing.
Another argument to follow is the moral argument. The moral argument for the existence of God refers to the claim that God is needed to provide a coherent ontological foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties. This argument is based on two premises. Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not
The cosmological argument looks to the world to prove God’s existence rather than pure definitions. The proponent of the cosmological argument was St. Thomas Aquinas, a theologian in the eleventh century CE (Solomon). He proposed that everything that exists must have a cause, and that the cause was God (Aquinas). Aquinas’ first point was based off of motion, that nothing can be both the mover and moved. An item sitting in place has the potential to be moving, but cannot move unless something that is already moving imparts motion to it
The argument is as follows: God timelessly knows that I will do C. If god timelessly knows that I will do C,then C is now-necessary. If C is now-necessary, then I cannot perform an action that is not C. Therefore, free will is not possible under an omniscient god. ("Foreknowledge and Free Will.”) Defenders of the Argument from Evil have challenged the last premises of the presented by the critics of Theological Fatalism and have shown that free will is not possible under an omniscient god. Conclusion In conclusion, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good God cannot coexist with evil. Therefore, seeing that evil still exists in this world in terms of natural disaster and human suffering, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good God cannot