That means that for the teleological argument to even begin with a sure foot, intelligence must be the source of all other sources of order. An assumption like that renders the argument weak already. Another weakness Hume points out through Philo is that this argument is incredibly human centric. The argument that indirectly tries to prove that man was made in God’s own image does the contrary.
p. 180). This is because a being who exists only as a mental notion is not so great as a being who exists in reality. Based on these facts and steps, Anselm conclude that Good must exist in reality, as well as an idea in the mind. To vividly understand the argument, it is important to understand the
This method is supportive of Descartes’s will to emphasis on doubt and question anything that can be doubted. Thus, he demonstrates the presence of God through a chain of consequences ‘Causal proof’. Because of the law of conservation of matter, the cause must equal the effect, if we have an idea of God than this idea is the effect and God is the cause (Gaarder, 2003). Therefore, the idea we have of God is an innate idea that we did not produce ourselves. Accordingly, he expresses that as a result of his innate thoughts of God, it only makes sense that it be God who "is the reason for this thought".
Writers of the earlier and later Middle Ages connected conscience with the power to distinguish good from evil and identified it as "synderesis". St. Augustine viewed conscience as an innate ability that exhibits the moral law of God, thus, God-given. Augustine believed the capacity of reason to be considerably larger that it truly is. In accordance with Aristotle, the reason is innate and universal and, in turn, requires to be implemented in order to come to a recognition of right and
Overall, the rational is but an attempt to define the undefinable. To understand Otto’s rejection of the rational, the rational must be understood. “Rational,” in The Idea of the Holy, refers to the conceptualization of religion and the divine itself. Otto’s basic definition of the rational stems from the establishment and application of concepts evidenced in “they can be grasped by the intellect; they can be analyzed by thought; they even admit of definition. An object that can thus be thought conceptually may be termed rational” (Otto, 1).
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.
Personally, I believe the conclusion of the transcendental argument for the existence of God. In my opinion, Immanuel Kant is more credible because he created the argument and supported it using many examples, whereas Michael Martin only found errors with the TAG. I agree with Kant because this theory is a cause and effect, meaning that God’s existence caused human reason. In Critique of Pure Reason, Kant states that logic originates from an individual’s belief in God. If someone believes that God created the world, then He is the reason why the laws of logic exist.
The philosophical arguments: 1. Cosmological Argument (Psalm 19:1-6) Naturalistic argument in which the existence of God is deduced or inferred as highly probable from facts concerning causation, change, or motion. (Plato and then Aristotle were associated with this argument) William Lane Craig is a contemporary defender of this argument.
The ontological argument, formulated by Anselm in his book proslogion, is written from a faith seeking understanding perspective; ontology meaning exploring the concept of all types of existence, typically Gods’. The argument is an a priori argument, this meaning that it is based on logic and is therefore deductive and an analytical argument. Therefore called the ontological argument. The ontological argument explores the existence of a necessary God. Furthermore, the argument is strong due to its key ideas, which are supported by intellectual philosophers such as Anselm, Descartes and two modern philosophers; Malcom and Plantinga.
The Romantics believe self reliance and individualism must outweigh external authority, and self reliance should also outweigh blind conformity to custom and tradition. Romantics hold the belief that spontaneous feelings and intuition are superior to deliberate intellectualism and rationality. Transcendentalism was also a belief of the Romantics. The third and final aspect of Romanticism cites transcendentalism.
Descartes asserts that something cannot come from nothing and that the effect of a cause has to have at least as much reality as the cause itself. Thus, something that is more perfect/real cannot come from something less perfect. He uses the terms formal and objective reality to talk about this idea. According to Descartes, formal reality is the amount of reality that a thing has by the virtue of existing as it is. Formal reality can be infinite, finite or modal with the descending degrees of reality in that order.
Saint Anselm is known as one of the most important Christian philosophers of his time and still today. He is best known for his ontological argument regarding God’s existence and is consistently referenced for his work regarding the nature of God, redemption, freedom, and sin. Anselm believes God to be something “…that which nothing greater can be conceived” (Anselm, 40). He finds support and uses personal and commonsense logic to support his main ideas. His argument is broken up into several topics that reference the concept of just considering the idea of God, His true existence, considering the impossibility of God’s nonexistence, and a few others.
The question of god’s existence has been at the forefront of people’s minds for the majority of known history. The reasons this question arises varies from person to person, but holds in common the human craving for knowledge. Because of this there have been many proofs which set out to prove god’s existence of which the most accessible is the ontological argument for the existence of god. The aim is to envision a god which depends on nothing else but itself for existence. The ontological argument seeks to move from the definition of god to the actualization of god’s being.