Gaunilo's Ontological Argument

tler Dr. Key History of Philosophy Anselm’s Proslogium is a discourse on the existence of God in the form of a prayer. Notably, in the course of this prayer is the formation of the ontological argument, which evidently, logically validates the existence of God. The ontological argument possesses two distinct components that are mentioned in the Proslogium. Anselm’s first assertion is that everyone at least has a conception of God. He says, “even the fool is convinced that something exits…than which nothing greater can be conceived” (445).

Critical Analyses of St. Anselm’s argument for the Existence of God and Douglas Gasking’s argument for the Non-Existence of God. Arguments against St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God St. Anselm begins with a definition of God, argues that an existent God is superior to a non-existent God and concludes that God must exist in reality, for his non-existence would contradict the definition of God itself. The argument does not seem plausible to an unbiased person, even at the very first reading. It seems as if not all aspects of the question under scrutiny have been considered. The basic assumption, on which the entire argument stands, that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined can seem doubtful to a person who doubts the existence of God, for if one doubts that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived, then he may also be skeptical if any person has thoughts about the same being, whose existence itself is doubtful.

The final argument is the ontological argument. This argument says that God is a necessary being. It says that the universe is a dependent thing

Principally, I believe the first step towards understanding Pascal 's wager is to understand who or what Pascal is arguing against. Pascal states that God is incomprehensible, in fact, "infinitely incomprehensible." Reason cannot decide the matter. He tries to persuade the atheists that wagering on the existence of God is irrational and to imagine the possibility of a finite mind comprehending the infinite. We might then be persuaded by his argument.

Nestorianism, named after Nestorius, was built on the denial that Jesus was fully God and fully human at the same time; his explanation was something like a split personality between the human and the divine nature. The two natures could cannot coexist at the same time, however, they can switch back and forth; although Jesus has both natures inside on him, they could not both at the same time. Eutychianism was named after Eutyches, a man who opposed Nestorianism, who believed that Jesus’ divinity and human nature combined to create a new, third thing. He taught, “Christ’s humanity was so united with his divinity that it was not the same as ours” (Quash and Ward, 41). If Jesus was not able to be both man and God at the same time, he would not have the ability to save us from our sins.

It is interesting how Nash presents this. Nash eloquently presents this book in a way that it is easy to understand these terms. He says that there are three answers to the question “Is Jesus the Only Savior?” Either your answer is “yes period”, “yes but”, or “no.” Nash sets the stage of his argument by pointed out these three beliefs. However, the one of focus in the paper would be the belief of pluralism. In this book Nash highlighted the inconsistency of the pluralistic argument, while he maintains a Christian worldview.

Although, improvements may have been made, Descartes’ argument suffers from the same fallacious reasoning present in Anselm’s argument. Before breaking down the argument it is important to note that Descartes defines God as “a Being supremely perfect” (Meditation 5). He begins the argument with a claim regarding essence: “When I imagine a triangle, although there may nowhere in the world be such a figure outside my thought, or ever have been, there is nevertheless in this figure a certain determinate nature, form, or essence” (Meditation 5). Elaborating upon what was said here, all things, whether they exist or not, have an essence. In this case, a triangle has in it’s essence, the property of three

That is, it seeks to prove its conclusion by work the globe. additionally to a posteriori arguments there's additionally another reasonably argument, AN a priori argument. AN a priori argument seeks to prove its conclusion simply by analyzing ideas victimization the school of reason. as a result of Hume is AN philosopher he doesn't believe that we are able to ever prove any matters of reality employing a priori arguments. However, he withal devotes a chapter of his book to assaultive the foremost renowned a priori argument for the existence of God: the metaphysics argument.

The ability to reinforce the existence of God and the ability to refute arguments of His nonexistence is becoming increasingly necessary in the life of Christian, which is why one has to arm themselves with different argument for the existence of Christ, and two of the best justifications for the existence of God are probable argument and cosmological arguments because they intersect with reasoning found in scientific observation and psychological

In response to the parent analogy, Hume concedes that the Problem of Evil argument does not wholly disprove the existence of God. Though, he does point out that the parent analogy assumes that God exists, which means we require further reasons to believe that he does in order to accept this particular theodicy. He concludes that most "objections seem to be mere fault-finding and trickery; and then we can 't imagine how we could ever give weight to them" (pg. 9). Overall, he decides that the Problem of Evil argument shows it is more logical to believe that God does