Reality is existence, and imagining something up is nonexistent. In order for us to have understanding and think up our representation of the divine God there must be existence of him. How else would we be able to imagine a perfect holy being that is above all? If there is understanding of this being, the knowledge to imaging this being up had to come from somewhere, and this is how Saint Anselm tries to prove Gods existence.
However, he further explores the concept of God 's existence to find definite evidence which can support his principles and ideologies; a definite certainty. Descartes’s main argument can be seen in the Fifth Mediation as well as some earlier comments in the Third Mediation (New World Encyclopedia, 2016). Moreover, he argues that knowledge derives from the certainty of the existence of one’s own consciousness and the innate ideas it holds. To attain absolute certainty, Descartes uses the methodical doubt. This method is supportive of Descartes’s will to emphasis on doubt and question anything that can be doubted.
To have a goal, or a set of goals in one’s mind is of concern in Tillich’s mind. Outside itself, the concern must not have any goods to make this “ultimate”. God alone can be the ultimate desire of the human soul because God alone is permanent and absolute according to St. Augustine. Temporary and changing are contracted by the objects of creation. Therefore, essences are identical to God’s existence.
The world is classified as an unexpected thing. It is, therefore, clear that the universe has an explanation for its existence. The explanation is a transcendent, personal being who is God. According to a philosopher (Kant, 2014), God exists. The reason being existence is not a predicate.
If God exists and has the capability to be powerful, good, omniscient and omnipotent, why would he let evil be perpetrated? Is a God unable to suppress the evil or does he have no solution to problem of evil? The thesis posited by Mackie that evil exists and there is no God to stop the evil is still relevant to today. We still have wars, incurable diseases and struggles on this planet.
By the grace of God. If we are able to take things and apply what we know with the other information that we are able to ascertain, then we will begin to understand that Clark’s argument is necessary and true. Clark’s Cosmological Argument is often called the first cause argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists. The universe came into existence at a point in the distant past. Nothing can come into existence, though, unless there is something to bring it into existence; nothing comes from nothing.
Through science, it is clear that we have been born with many things that are not essential for our survival. For example, male nipples, our appendix and hair serve no specific purpose to us. Therefore, if god is perfect by definitions, why is the world full of imperfect design? If god was so amazing, he would not have made these superfluous, unnecessary things that we do not need; however he would also not have made these by mistake. Overall, this criticism is proving that a perfect being (God) would not make mistakes so he either is imperfect or does not exist at
The Cosmological Argument argues that the universe had to have been created by something greater, and more powerful than itself, such as God. This argument contends that the first cause of anything has no cause itself. The Teleological Argument asserts that the complex design of the world proves an intelligent, powerful creator. The Moral Argument cites God’s existence as the cause of morality. This argument asserts that humans follow moral laws that must have been created by a law giver.
God must be conceived as being the greatest possible being. The greatest possible being must be a necessary being. The existence of a necessary being must be either impossible, merely possible, or necessary. We can conclude, for it cannot be impossible for a necessary being to exist, there is no contradiction in the concept of a necessary being. Nor can it be that a mere possibility the God exists, for such existence would be dependent and happenstance, and such a being could not be God.