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 argument seems to “beg the question”. Moreover, St. Anselm’s idea of existence is not very clear. It is not very clear what a physical object is, what it means to say that a physical object exists and what it means to say that a non-physical object exists. St. Anselm’s argument is based on the superiority of an existent God over a non-existent God.
To explain this order of the universe he concludes that, there is an intelligent being whom we call "God". As being a theist, I find Aquinas 's fifth argument significant because the universe is in a perfect order: the cycles of life and death, the seasons of the year, and the mysteries of the human body can 't be just simply explained by science. This order and balance is not unplanned or random. The world and everything in it has been created with a perfect plan by all knowing and all powerful "God". Despite of Aquinas 's fifth argument being one of the most prominent argument for the existence of God, there are some limitations to the fifth argument.
Same in the case of belief, Pascal’ s view is that people who believes in God’s existence is entitled to infinite gains. Under this situation people choose to believe in god because they can gains infinite benefits but not keep their logical mind. Thus, people's thinking is not always keep
This logical incompatibility between evil and God’s actuality can be made evident in two additional principles provided by Mackie. These are if something is omnipotent, it can do anything and if something is omnibenevolent it will eliminate as much evil as possible. Mackie claims God’s omnipotent characteristic is dependent on him being all powerful. If God is omnipotent than the subjection to limitations, such as the inevitability of evil, should not arise. This first premise is in relation to the second and third because if God is all powerful, wholly good and in existence, the product of his work, our world, should be a reflection of his being.
These arguments intend to determine God’s existence mostly through logic and non-aligned to experience. Anselm’s argument is founded on the belief that God exists in the mind, and thus it is probable for God to exist in reality. According to this claim, something that exists in the mind and can also possibly exist in reality is something greater than it is (Malcolm, 1960). In this case, Anselm contends that God cannot only exist in the mind, but it is possible that he also exists in reality since God is the greatest possible thing. However, there are some other philosophers, including Immanuel Kant, who object this argument, disputing facts about the existence of God.
As a result, ethics would be crumbling without foundation as good and evil is not justified and accounted for. Professor John Lennox clearly shows here that it is not possible for atheist to derive their ethics from anywhere else besides God, the absolute moral giver. The fact that we have a common set of morality across humankind is in itself evidence that we are moral beings made in the image of our
Perfection implies that there cannot be something which is greater than perfection or being flawless. It is supposed that God exists as an idea in the mind. If we suppose the fact that God exists in reality then the ' reality ' becomes an additional feature which the non-existing God doesn 't have and which can be imagined for a being (suppose X )who has one more extra feature than the God. So the God becomes imperfect as we can imagine a being X who is greater than God by a feature other than what the God have. So it questions the premises on which the fact "no greater than God can be conceived" was
This semester has been full of great readings from many different philosophers, with many different points of views. There was coverage of burning questions that every human being has, regarding the existence of God and his nature, the relationship between evil and miracles, what determines morality, and also the relationship between faith and reason. Going through all of these topics I found that there is always two different sides for each argument. We see Anselm and Aquinas butting heads on the topic of God’s existence. Aquinas also has a tussle with Maimonides on the nature of God.
Before I start my points in this argument, let me introduce myself to you. I am neither an atheist nor a Catholic, but a Born Again Christian. I have a religion, but at the same time doubt the existence of God. I do not totally refute the idea of God in our lives, but I really wonder if He exists and by the use of reasoning and evidences, I will present to you my stand about His existence. I will start my points in this argument by, first, opposing the evidences and reasons why we should believe that God exists and second, by pointing one of many reasons why we should believe that God does not exist.
If God were omnipotent, God would have the capacity to do something. Furthermore, if God were ethically flawless, then unquestionably God would want to do something about all the evil and suffering. But, yet there are still countless instances of evil that fills our world. Concluding, since God does not prevent or eliminate all unnecessary suffering, logically, God does not exist. Hume concludes that if you want to make sense of all the evil randomness of the universe with the sense of God’s attributes, “You must prove these pure, unmixed, and uncontrollable attributes from the present mixed and confused phenomena, and from these alone.