They will try to come up with arguments to show he is real and good. 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.
This confusion needs to be unpacked and a question needs to be answered, so that we can envision a clear picture of the limitations of the gods. Therefore, we must ask if the gods are really all-powerful? There is also a confusion with the word omnipotent, it looks as if a hierarchy is placed on the term omnipotent, but there is a problem with attributing a hierarchical structure to the omnipotent because either you are all-powerful or you are not, there is no degree of all-powerful. We will see that the gods are not omnipotent, but through physical strength along with the manipulation of nature, people, and the gods; destiny is therefore directed according to fate and assisted by the gods. The first thing to be investigated is the limitation of the metaphysical powers that the gods really have.
When discussing the philosophy of God’s plausible existence, several well composed arguments are presented, from Anselm’s Ontological Argument based the definition of God, to the Teleolgical argument grounded in the idea that a complex creation demands an intelligent creator; additionally, many debate that there is no need for a rational explanation as we are required in the nature of belief to take ‘leap of a faith’ regarding the existence of God. While each side offers valuable insight into this dilemma, I would argue that neither fully proves the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God. However, as I will discuss in the rest of the paper, the Teleolgical Argument and Kierkengaard’s faith eliminates dread argument when combined can reasonably provide evidence for the existence of God. Out of the five major opinions for God existence in regards to reason, the Teleolgical argument does the best job of not just proving a God exists but
Descartes also offers some doubt into the belief that God exists, for he claims that, “I can attach existence to God, even though no God exists” (44). He raises the idea that his thoughts do not entail existence, however, he claims that existence is inseparable from God because he cannot think of God as anything other than existence. As a result, he concludes that, “the necessity of the thing itself, namely the existence of God, forces me to think this” (44). Here, it seems to me that Descartes is implying the second half of the Cartesian circle, that God existence forces him to think that is distinctly and clearly
This is because critics may question the origins of God based on Descartes’s claim that perfection precedes imperfection and “something must come from something”. (Bennet 2004, 12) It is important to note that perfection in itself reaches a limit because it is incapable of improving further, thus when God possesses the sum of all possible perfections, it would mean that God does not have potential for anymore improvements. This presents a dilemma for Descartes because if God is already perfect, and perfection is viewed to be a form limit itself, then there must be no being who is more perfect than God himself. However, since everything has a cause, God must have origins as well. This means that God either comes from nothing or something.
Deeper than that, how did any of us thinking substances come about this idea of God? Descartes argues that “this idea is innate in me, just as the idea of myself is innate in me.” In other words, the idea of God is one that was not drawn from the senses, meaning it cannot possibly be an adventitious idea. The idea of God also is one that Descartes, or any finite, thinking thing, could have come up with because. This is due to the fact that God is such an infallible, eternal being, there is no possible way that any of us imperfect substances could have made it up because that would mean that a cause can have an effect that is greater in objective reality. This all sums to the conclusion that God is neither a fabricated idea either.
he cannot just state that ‘’ God doesn’t exist’’. As rationalism demands logic and concept so he can’t even state that ‘’ God is the one moving this whole universe’’. So a rationalist will take the existence of god as logically meaningless and he will take the position of a noncognitivist. The above example does not mean that rationalist cannot have any opinion about anything. An opinion that does not contradict logic observation or evidence does not prevent from forming an indefinite opinion.
The universe itself does not have a clear purpose. Paley’s idea that both the universe and the watch have purpose is flawed, because while the watch was made to tell time, Paley’s concept of a universal purpose came from the Bible, which was written on the assumption that God exists. Therefore, it cannot be used to prove Paley’s point about purpose. It also does not make sense for some things to be made part of the universe, such as the blind spot in an eye, or vestigial structures like a tailbone in humans or hip bones in whales. These things do not have a purpose, and can even be damaging to the individual.
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
The second problem with his argument lied within the cause and effect argument, in which there must exists a God whose presence encompassed everything. Here, Descartes considered the negation of God’s perfection, which means without any flaw, would be nothingness and its only flaw was the absence of everything (Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, p.82). The fact that Descartes could conceive of nothingness and think that it was true, however, must also be subjected to the cause and effect argument, in which the element of nothingness could not exist unless it was caused. Should
But he notes that this need not convince anyone that there is no reason for believing in God:the theologian can, if he wishes, accept this criticism. He can admit that no rational proof of God’s existence is possible. And he can still retain all that is essential to his position, by holding that God’s existence is known in some other, non-rational way.”Mackie’s aim is to show that philosophy is not only capable of criticizing arguments for God’s existence, but also showing that God does not exist, thus closing off the position of the theologian
From this it is then reasonable to conclude that this causality was set in motion by a supreme being which is God. This argument answers the question of whether or not there is a God far better than the intelligent design arguments of William Paley. For, Paley’s argument easily invalidated by modern science because it argues that simply because there are complex features that can’t be explained by nature and that there are further complex forms in the universe then there must be a God who created the
that there exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or lesser evil.”(Rowe 370) In that case, the theists counterargument is as solid as that of the atheists’. With the G.E. Moore shift, the theists are able to argue for God’s existence without denying the premise presented by the atheists. However, the problem with those two objections is that they don’t necessarily prove God’s existence. For the objections only prove that it is difficult to assume God’s non-existence.
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.
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