I have to admit that Zimmerman’s talk was hard at times for me to comprehend. I would love feedback if I understood his divine argument wrong, because I have had a few discussions about it with my peers and many took away different views from his final argument for a divine being, and in this paper I will explain how I understood his final argument. To come upon the divine being of God, he had to eliminate all the other contingent and necessary options believed by other philosophers and scientists through reasoning. He explained how it wasn’t possible for their to be no answer for the cosmos, nor were any of the contingent explanations of science, philosophy, or an infinite past made any sense.
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. Here it can be appeared, not that religious convictions need discerning backing, but rather that they are emphatically unreasonable, that the few sections of the crucial philosophical convention are conflicting with each other, so that the scholar can keep up his position in general just by a significantly more amazing dismissal of reason than in the previous case.
The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist.
In the second dialogue, Berkeley establishes three premises that lead to the conclusion that there is an infinite mind, or God. In this paper, I will critically analyze Philonous’s argument for the existence of
The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The problem of evil provides the strongest argument against the existence of God, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to explain the problem of evil, examine the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.
However, one of the arguments is superior ant that is the ontological argument. The Ontological argument is the stronger of the two due to the fact that it is based in pure logic and reasoning. The major premise of the Ontological argument is about what God is. In the Abrahamic tradition God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
An argument from the divine hiddenness states; if there were an omniGod there would be no non-culpable disbelief, there is non-culpable disbelief, therefore there is no omniGod. I intend to look at this argument in further detail and attempt to find evidence on whether or not this argument should be accepted by focusing on the first premise and trying to see if it is accurate, whilst also discussing the plausibility of premise two. Traditional theism holds that god has three Omni qualities this is where the term omiGod derives from. When speaking about a God in this essay I will be referring to a God one who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Meaning he has power, has knowledge and goodness to the highest degree possible.
Anselm famously associated with the “ontological argument” for the existence of God. Anselm, in Proslogion, coined the term “ontological” to describe a branch of philosophy that deals with the notion of “being or existence.” (McGrath & OverDrive, Inc. 2001 p. 181). Proslogion is a work of meditation, not of logical argument.
The ontological argument is an argument based, not on the observation of the universe as cosmology and theological arguments but rather using only the reason. Everything we see today in the universe was created by a God, which created the humans in a predict time and perfect time. The first and most popular form of this argument starts from Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. It begins with the statement that the concept of God is such a being, that nothing greater can be conceived. Since existence is possible, and existence is greater than non-existence, then God must
The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.
1) In the allegory of the cave, Plato’s main goal is to illustrate his view of knowledge. A group of prisoners have been chained in a cave their whole lives and all they have ever been exposed to were shadows on the wall and voices of people walking by. The prisoners in the cave represent humans who only pay attention to the physical aspects of the world (sight and sound). Once one of them escapes and sees the blinding light, all he wants is to retreat back to the cave and return to his prior way of living. This shows that Plato believes enlightenment and education are painful, but the pain is necessary for enlightenment and it is worth it.
In this argument we already assumed that there may be possibility that God exist and finally we reached where we started. So this argument does not give us the exact information about existence of God. There are many objections on this argument but still it is a powerful argument. In my opinion, this argument is not much satisfactory. It describes that existence is greater than imagination.
St. Anselm and Descartes are known for presenting the first ontological arguments on the existence of God. The word ontological is a compound word derived from ‘ont’ which means exists or being and ‘–ology’ which means the study of. Even though Anselm and Descartes’ arguments differ slightly, they both stem from the same reasoning. Unlike the other two arguments on God’s existence (teleological and cosmological), the ontological argument does not seek to use any empirical evidence but rather concentrates on pure reason. The rationale behind this school of thought
PAPER #2 History of philosophy: Philosophy 20B Thomas Aquinas reasons that “God is one” in the Summa theologiae, part one, question eleven, article three. Using three proofs, one on “Gods simplicity,” the second on “the infinity of Gods perfection” and the last based on “the unity of the world.” The following will be Dissecting and providing explanations along with criticism. As well, what it is meant by “God is one”.
St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, first proposed the ontological argument about the existence of God. The Archbishop relies on ontology to prove that God indeed does exist. In this way, the archbishop was able to show God’s existence using His definition. Although the ontology was used for such purposes before Anselm, it is thought that he put it in the most comprehensive manner. The basis of the argument is the use of logic, which means that to prove that God exists one needs not apply experience.