St. Anselm’s argument is based on the superiority of an existent God over a non-existent God. But as Kant argues, existence is more of a description of the real world, whether a thing exists in it or not, rather than the property of an object. Hence
This philosophical study will define the more rational argument of Thomas Nagel’s atheist perspective on the non-existence of God. In contrast to this view, Swinburne’s “theodicy” defines the “reason” in which God provides free will for human beings to choose between good and evil acts. Therefore, in Swineburne’s point of view, God exists because God allows good and evil to exist in the world, which attempts to validate theism through a perceived rational process under an omnipotent God. However, Nagel proposes that not only should a person not believe in God as an atheist, but that they should seek to argue that God does not exist at all. Nagel defines the inadequacies of religious paradigms, which create unscientific and illogical views that
As before, God is all good and all powerful. God would determine that murdering someone would be an error in the faculty of judgement of the man, which was given to him by God. However, this is where Descartes’ rebuttal differs. Descartes would acknowledge that the man made an error in his faculty of judgement, but would say that this man is not protected from making errors. Coupled with that, Descartes’ would claim that this man’s error has actually occurred to make the universe a perfect place, even if the man’s life is not perfect.
This argument says that everything must have a cause, but in the end says that God has no cause. It is contradictory. It does not actually say that God exists, but that we can call the unknown cause of everything god. The word god can be the name for some energy that caused the Big Bang. The final argument is the ontological argument.
Aquinas claimed that God exists because of the causal nature of possibility and necessity. He thought that a thing in nature either exists or does not exist. If it is possible for something to not exist, he said, then it did not exist at some point in the past. Aquinas then claimed that it is impossible to follow an infinite chain of creation of existence, as the origin must eventually be reached. Therefore, at some time there was only one existing thing – the cause of existence for all other existing things.
He points out that the Bible cannot be taken literally because sometimes it can be interpreted in different ways. The Bible was written for the common people and illiterate to understand, and to prove his point he mentions that the Bible gives God a body like ours while theologies believe God has no such features. He moves to his main point about who has the authority to determine what is true and untrue. He argues that what is scientifically proven will to understand the Bible true meaning. Galileo believes in the Bible and that God has supreme authority over the world, but he sees religion and science as two different things.
Belief is not Decision Pascal’s Wager, the argument that an individual who believes in God’s existence is entitled to infinite gains. There are three objections against Pascal article, including “the wrong motivation”, “too many options” and “Belief not a decision”. Among these three reasonable objections, I believe that the strongest one is “Belief not a decision”, because everything needs a reason as people are born as rational creatures. Otherwise, people believe in the existence of God because they trust that God could bring benefits to them. For me, although the objection is reasonable, I still think the Pascal’s response is stronger.
The Modal Ontological Argument by Alvin Plantinga uses modal logic using possibility and necessity to show that it is rational to believe in God. However, the argument is not a proof of the existence of a being who is a maximally great being as it’s not to prove or establish a conclusion but for it to be rational to accept the central premise and the conclusion (Oppy, Graham, "Ontological Arguments"). Premise one says it is possible that God exists. Possible, meaning he is Metaphysically possible as there are other reasons for Gods possibility than strictly logical and being that the Ontological argument is Metaphysical. Some of those reasons come from those claiming Gods existence is impossible which requires coherent proof of his nonexistence.
The Cartesian Circle is an objection to Descartes’ proof of God’s existence as it begs the question. In his proof, Descartes starts off with his two premises, his idea of God and the principle, which states that the cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality, which leads to a conclusion that God exists. Descartes’ conclusion then adds on to say that God is not a deceiver that will then follow to develop the General Rule, which states that if we have a clear and distinct perception of something, we would be certain of it. According to critics, Descartes is able to use the principle as his premise because Descartes relies on the General Rule in order to be certain of it. Using the two premises,
The cosmological argument is a philosophical argument which is in favour of the existence of God. It is both a posteriori and inductive argument. This means that the argument is based on the evidence in the world around and the argument itself can only persuade the audience reading it as it is only a inductive argument not a deductive argument which means that not all of the facts said in the argument may not be true. In the case of the cosmological argument, the argument has been formed to persuade us of the existence of God. The argument is also based on the concept of causation which is also known as the law of cause and effect
One of the many famous arguments proving God’s existence by a seventeenth-century famed philosopher Anselm. 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.
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.
An Ontological argument is an argument that concludes with accepting the existence of God, from evidence, which is supposed to originate from a source, other than, that of your senses or observation of the world. In other words you come to the conclusion from reason alone. They are formed from nothing but analytical, and necessary premises, to arrive at the conclusion that God exists. A cosmological argument uses a general outline of arguments that makes a conclusion from clear obvious facts about the world, to the existence of an all-knowing being, that is God. Among these original facts, are certain beings, or events in the world that are causally dependent or reliant on the premise, that the universe is depending in that it could have been other than what it is, or why there is something rather than nothing.
He argues myth takes place in the individual’s own reading and interpretation of the passage. Myth’s value lies within the conveyance of how to experience God and His actions within a sacred and empirical dimension. Myth is a synonym for the real while not being verifiable. Furthermore, individual ideas, needs, and experiences are not needed in order to validate the empirical. Myth’s appropriation is used as a guide for sacred space.
This is its biggest weakness, in order for it to succeed someone has to presuppose that God exists. Another weakness is based on whether or not existence is an actual property of something like its size, weight, or color. If existence isn’t considered a property then it fails, but if it is then it succeeds. Then there is the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument looks to the world to prove God’s existence rather than pure definitions.