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. And that it just makes a lot more sense than Lennox’s opinion.
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).
(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.
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.
In the early time there were believers of a powerful God, although they thought God was powerful they saw different points of view towards God’s emotions. Bradstreet thought of God as a helpful, kind, and powerful being, Edwards on the other hand saw god as a powerful, harsh, and strict being. To show Bradstreet’s view of God in her last stanza of “upon the burning of our house, july 10th 1666” she states “ A price so vast as in unknown.. Yet be his gift is made thee own; there’s wealth enough, I need no more..”.
It is a human desire to, when overwhelmed by the complexity of the world, to worship something. “Science emancipates us from that desire”, Dawkins
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). Likewise Immanuel Kant opposed the cosmological theory, he also believed that there were limitations to how much we
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
I think therefore I am, translates as I think of God in reality and therefore He is. This introduces the question of whether a universal I can be found. Descartes is able to clarify the true source from which feelings and thoughts can come from, which he says is the I. This
The bible is what helps keeps our faith alive as it contains a rich amount of history that tells us of God’s revelation and the ways how our faith works. Although the bible contains numerous works of different people, it is still a work of God that helps our faith remain constant and grow, as everything written was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In some way, I was able to understand the value also of the other books, as before I did not really take interest of the other books included bible, aside from the likes of the Gospels, Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, and Proverbs. Nevertheless, I realized that the books are all part of the bible as each has a purpose to serve and stands as a testament to the infidelity of mankind, and of God’s unfailing love for
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. Here it can be appeared, not that religious convictions need discerning backing, but rather that they are emphatically unreasonable, that the few sections of the crucial philosophical convention are conflicting with each other, so that the scholar can keep up his position in general just by a significantly more amazing dismissal of reason than in the previous case.
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.
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.
Many philosophers have argued and defined what it means to exist in order to prove or disprove the existence of God. George Berkeley, a Irish philosophers argues for the existence of God. The existence of a great perceiver causing ideas in our minds. On the other hand, David Hume, a Scottish philosopher is a skeptic, he argues to undermine religion, critiquing that religion can have harmful consequences on society. These empiricists argue to establish or dismiss religion because it sets universal notions in which it operates as part of society’s morality.
For this disputation, I had the pleasure of arguing against the topic of be it resolved that you can convince a non-believer to affirm the existence of God using philosophical arguments. As the opposing side, Sarah and I counter argued the following: the argument from motion, the ontological argument, Pascal’s Wager, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument. The argument from motion argues that it is only possible to experience that which exists, and people experience God, therefore God must exist; however it can be counter argued that since faith cannot be demonstrated or experienced, as it is unseen, God cannot exist.