Saint Anselm delivered the strongest ontological argument for God through conceptual analysis. The ontological argument is a deductive argument that is an analytical statement that can be constructed by definition(s). He argues that one thing is necessary to exist, and that thing is God. God is a necessary being. His argument is known as reductio ad absurdum, which demonstrates through a contradiction that God exists.
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
When looking through the logic of philosophers from the medieval period of Philosophy and their unconvincing logic, we first look at Anselm. Anselm wanted to prove God existed, Anselm argues that you can prove the existence of God through metaphysic metaphysical analysis, for example: Think of the most perfect being possible. If you can picture the most perfect being in your mind, then it is possible that it exists only in your mind as an example of Plato’s Theory of Forms. Anselm’s argument fails because anything you can imagine can come popping out of your mind if you wished it to be so, If anyone were to sit down and imagine the perfect God or the perfect island, would that perfect God or island even exist outside of their mind, would that
First Corinthians 8:6 states, “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom all things… and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by Him”. This verse backs up one of the main claims of this God being the Prime leader. The idea of the “God of the gaps”. Easily counter’s this claim. This idea is based on the fact that Scientists are quick to give credit to God in areas where scientists are not able to find answers.
In John Locke’s, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke develops an argument for the existence of God. In the the following paper, I shall first reconstruct Lockes’ argument for his claim of God’s existence. I shall then identify what I take to be the weakest premise of the argument and explain why I find it in need of justification. The following is a reconstruction of Lockes’ argument: 1) Man has a clear perception of his own being 2) If man knows his own being, then man knows that bare nothing cannot produce a being 3) Therefore, man knows that bare nothing cannot produce a being (from 1 and 2) 4) If bare nothing cannot produce a being, then there has been an eternal being 5) Therefore, there is an eternal (infinite) being
Aquinas’ First Cause argument is one of a number of Cosmological arguments that aim to prove the existence of God. A Cosmological argument is based on observation and entails the insistence of Gods necessary existence in order to explain the existence of the Universe. The Fist Cause Argument uses the cause and effect of material objects going back into the past in order to find the first cause. It comes to the conclusion of the first cause being an uncaused cause which is said to be the traditional Christian, all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful, God. 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 aim of writing this paper is to explain Descartes argument of the existence of the material world. I will walk through different stages in order to explain each idea stated by Descartes. In order to prove the existence of such a world Descartes passed through two moves: the first is by showing that material objects could only be the cause for the existence by excluding out the possible alternatives. The second move is to consider the nature of material objects and show that such attributes could only be possessed by real existent bodies. In this paper I will examine both moves by explaining them and finally I will end my paper through logical conclusion about the existence of the material world.
When looking through the logic of philosophers from the medieval period of Philosophy and their unconvincing logic, we first look at Anselm. Anselm wanted to prove God existed, Anselm argues that you can prove the existence of God through metaphysic metaphysical analysis for example: Think of the most perfect being possible. If you can picture the most perfect being in your mind, then it is possible that it exists only in your mind as an example of Plato’s Theory of Forms. I think Anselm’s argument fails because anything you can imagine can come popping out of your mind if you wished it to be so, If I were too sit down and imagine the perfect God or the perfect island, would that perfect God or island even exist outside of my mind, would that
1) This essay aims to firstly analyse and explain Descartes’s God argument in Meditations three, specifically on the idea that perfection precedes imperfection. Then I will introduce possible oppositions to his view and attempt to defend it from his position. Lastly, I will provide my own view pertaining to his argument. Firstly, the idea of perfection here is an assumption of God’s trait that also relates to being infinite. In Descartes’s time, God is deemed to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
This paper argues that the notion of Substance propounded by Baruch Spinoza can be studied and put forward to a panentheistic, expressive structure of Trinities, in which each triad of concepts is unified into a single idiosyncratic divine nature of God. By dissecting the expressionism in Spinoza’s writings, which is at variance with the philosophy of his predecessors (Descartes, Aquinas and Scotus), one can map out his thinking in analytic and synthetic logic to understand his revolutionary rationalist ontology in Ethics that impacted Europe in the seventeenth century. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. A solemn prayer always begins and ends with this invariably enthralling phrase which, incontrovertibly, reverberates