Ontological arguments in favour of Existence of God: The very first sentence of Ontological arguments describing that ‘God is a being by which no greater being can be imagined it is a conceptual truth’. It is extremely wrong because it can be easily criticised. Let me take a example, suppose “x” is something that describes a physical quantity. Then surely “2x” greater than “x” and “3x” greater than “2x” and so on. That means 2 God is greater than 1 God and 3 God is greater than 2 God and so on.
In this part, according to Neal (1990) “he is not interested in merely the existence of God, but in the sheer necessity of God's existence”. Anselm begins by stating that God cannot be conceived not to exist. He continues by arguing that “that than which a greater cannot be conceived (God)”, cannot be conceived not to exist, as being ‘conceived not to exist’ is ultimately less perfect than being ‘conceived to exist.’ This essentially boils down to the fact that ‘existing’ as a concept is more perfect that ‘not existing’, which leads Anselm to the conclusion that God must exist in reality. The alternative would exist of a being greater than God, who would ascend above God and pass judgement over him, and since God is the most perfect conceivable being, this is impossible. This argument is realised as
Hence, in this case regarding the existence of God, I would agree with Pascal that when it comes to things that which we do not have certainty such as the existence of God who as Pascal said “infinitely incomprehensible” the most reasonable thing to do therefore is to believe since in believing there would be more
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.
Whereas atheism does not poses any objective facts that actually prove that God does not exist. Hypothetically, in terms of endless attempt of understanding the world, people still cannot provide any basis of nonexistence of God due to all the knowledge that mankind has already received has an insignificant part in a scale of infinite information field. Thereby, if God had not had existed, it would have been the biggest mystery for humanity. The second major part of atheism is to answer on what exactly should the human do in order to make sure that God does not exist. An atheistic theory does not give a clear answer to this question.
The essence of perfection may not have existed at all because everyone is the same. Imperfection is defined as the state of being imperfect; absence of perfection. There are ideas that cannot exist without its counterpart. For instance, the idea of light could have not existed if there is darkness. If darkness is the absence of light, we can also define lightness as the absence of darkness.
In fact, the God Aquinas proves is so far off from the God that thesis believe in, it actually makes thesis very uncomfortable. His arguments prove that there must be at least but not limited to one God and not one in particular. His arguments also do not rule out the idea of polytheism or multiple Gods happening at once. Furthermore, his arguments also to not give us any insight into what God or the Gods are like in nature. There would be no way of telling if he or they would be smiteful, forgiving, loving, or actually have any hand into our lives at all past the point of creation according to Aquinas’ third
b.2.1. The Divine Intellect God causes things by His knowledge. Having this question answered by St. Thomas, the argument of which leaned towards the discussion of the divine causality through His knowledge. In the previous discussion, it is concluded that the esse of God is His own act of understanding. With this, it can be said that “He must understand Himself perfectly, which includes a perfect understanding of all that He causes, which is everything.” It is understood, then, that inasmuch as we understand that the perfection of understanding is in God, the understanding of His creatures can be also attributed to Him perfectly.
People are constantly beginning new endeavors to attempt to reach an utopic way of life. These aspirations often give society the opportunity to morph and expand, changing either the way people live, or expectations for the future. Parents raise their children with the hope they will achieve greatness, or at least surpass mediocrity. However, one cannot always account for the inevitable flaws in humanity, such as greed, deception, or lapses in morality. In his work The Idylls of the King, Alfred, Lord Tennyson addresses human error and the innate desire for refinement and the ideal.
The Immutability of God refers to his invariability—“To say that God is immutable is to say that He never differs from Himself. His desire and his purpose for humankind has also been unchanged since the beginning of human life, and what He has promised, He will do. God’s