It describes that existence is greater than imagination. That is right but here we are only imagining two situation one is just idea of God and another is idea plus reality. But how can we assume that God exists in reality even we don’t know about God’s existence. It seems just a logic which is self-contradictory. We can also apply this logic to other things, maybe this logic will not work.
The island that Guanilo speaks of, or any other potential substitute for that manner, does not reflect necessary being and is contingent. Only God can be that which nothing greater can be conceived (447). Guanilo’s argument fails to disprove the credibility of the ontological argument because it attempts to replace the concept of God with something that belongs to an entirely distinct category. Anselm’s ontological argument is important because it leaves no gray area concerning spiritual faith. The second portion of the argument asserts that God’s existence is either possible or impossible, and if possible, then He exists necessarily (445).
The customary contentions for the presence of God have been reasonably completely scrutinized by rationalists. Be that as it may, the scholar can, in the event that he wishes, acknowledge this feedback. He can concede that no discerning confirmation of God 's presence is conceivable. Also, he can in any case hold all that is key to his position, by holding that God 's presence is known in some other, non-judicious way. I think, notwithstanding, that an all the more telling feedback can be made by method for the convention issue of shrewdness.
Kierkegaard believes that the existence of God could not be proven by reasons. However, he did not think that it was rational to believe in God, but to have faith in God. In Kierkegaard reading I disagree in his perspective because I believe that a person should have faith to believe in God and his existence. I also disagree in how he believes in faith of God, but not in God itself. Even thought, he said God’s existence can’t be proven, yet he still said “God’s existence I mean that I propose to prove that the unknown, which exist is God” (page 421).
The ontological argument is one of the three main arguments for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. This argument is designed to appeal to rational rather than non-rational reasons for the existence of God. Rational reasoning can be identified through the use of reason, logic, argumentation, and our shared observations of the world, whereas non-rational reasoning is characterized by subjective religious experience. However, the ontological argument does not appeal to the logic consisting of our shared observations of the world because it focuses on the reflection of our own idea of God, therefore validating the cosmological argument to be a priori since none of it’s premises require empirical support. St. Anselm of Canterbury provided a renowned version of the cosmological argument around 1080 AD that establishes the existence of God by reflecting on our idea of Him.
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.
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
The Meditator mirrors that he couldn't imagine his will similar to any more prominent or great. In any case, then in the meantime the Meditator presumes that his will is generally as awesome as God's will which is impeccable and boundless, and attests it can't be the wellspring of lapse. Also, since his comprehension, or brains, was made by God, it can never not be right either. In addition, the acumen is the workforce that comprehends and considers, as well as faculties and envisions. All these are worth unbiased acts in themselves.
What all this point to is the lack of godliness in man. Man, continuously falls short of God’s demand for absolute perfection. So the measurement of man’s perfection based on intelligence, wealth, culture, religious performance or educational prowess is missing the point. The divine standard set by God is that man has fallen short and has missed the mark. Therefore, it would not be prudent to imagine that you have done your best because God will challenge you with the words from Matthew 6:27.
He says that it is really not possible to change ones mind on their philosophy such as Aquinas did in this argument. He said that one cannot say that there are certain causes for why things happen, then turn around and say that the universe we live in has a main cause. This was just one of the main critiques of this argument. Along with the past two arguments, there is another argument that deals with God’s
The argument is as follows: God timelessly knows that I will do C. If god timelessly knows that I will do C,then C is now-necessary. If C is now-necessary, then I cannot perform an action that is not C. Therefore, free will is not possible under an omniscient god. ("Foreknowledge and Free Will.”) Defenders of the Argument from Evil have challenged the last premises of the presented by the critics of Theological Fatalism and have shown that free will is not possible under an omniscient god. Conclusion In conclusion, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good God cannot coexist with evil. Therefore, seeing that evil still exists in this world in terms of natural disaster and human suffering, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good God cannot