Question No. 10 Answer:
Anselm guaranteed his ontological argument as confirmation of the existence of God, whom he depicted as that being for which no more noteworthy can be imagined. A god that does not exist can 't be that than which no more noteworthy can be considered, as existence would make it more prominent. Hence, as per St. Anselm, the concept of God essentially entails His existence. He denies Gaunilo a Godless epistemology. Gaunilo scrutinized Anselm 's argument by utilizing the same reasoning, by means of reductio commercial absurdum, to demonstrate the existence of the mythical Lost Island, the best or absolute best island possible: if the island of which we are thinking does not exist, it can 't be the best possible island, for, …show more content…
He looked for a sort of religion that does not guarantee happiness in paradise or in existence in the wake of death however guarantees that people achieve happiness on earth. While we discover this perspective in his journal composed amid his childhood, his position remained essentially unaltered even after he got to be stirred to religious faith at fifty years old. Tolstoy 's philosophy is frequently said to have a Buddhist standpoint. When he talked about religions, Tolstoy initially centered on all inclusive truths regular in each religion and after that endeavored to catch the remarkable elements of every religion. Tolstoy sympathized with the Buddhist philosophy of self-salvation through great deeds. In any case, in the meantime he thought Buddhism isn 't right in not perceiving the meaning and reason for this life (which prompts self-renunciation). This may have been because of the impact of the cynical Buddhist philosophy that was common in Europe at the time. While as indicated by Kierkegaard; faith and religion are the commitments despite uncertainty: and the more prominent that uncertainty, the more noteworthy the faith that is demanded. The best faith of all is belief in the outlandish and that is precisely how Kierkegaard saw the Christian faith. Christianity, he contended, is a conundrum and crazy in …show more content…
Paley depicted the design argument about existence of God. As indicated by Paley, the deduction from the observation of the unpredictable design of the universe to the conclusion of a universe-maker who developed and designed its utilization would be inevitable. He contends generally as the capacity and intricacy of a watch suggests a watch-maker, so in like manner the capacity and multifaceted nature of the universe infers the existence of a universe-maker. Paley attempted to accommodate the clear savagery and lack of concern of nature with his belief in a decent God, lastly reasoned that the delights of life essentially exceeded its distresses. Where Darwin withdrew from Paley was in his concept of natural choice as a procedure that could create adaptation and design without the comprehensive mediation of a benevolent
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
He also states, ¨he entertained no illusions that he was trekking into a land of milk and honey;peril, adversity, and Tolstoyan renunciation were precisely what he was seeking.¨ Tolstoy's philosophies were based on principles such as love and justice rather than
Religions have existed for millenniums, cultivation and sculpting the old world into what it is today. Each religion is unique in its own sense, meaning that each religion is its own mix, it’s own jam. Every one of these jams, or religions, have been spread across nations. Some jams are smooth like butter, finding easy acceptance and even easier assimilation, whereas some jams are chunky and laden with difficulties. Buddhism’s jam was one of interesting circumstance, containing a vary of smooth and chunky consistency.
Before restating the Anselm’s argument for the existence of God, it is important to understand who Anselm was and what might have compelled him to come up with the ontological argument for the existence of God. Anselm’s background information will be helpful in evaluating the validity and reliability of his arguments. Anselm was born in Italy in c. 1033. In 1063, he entered the famous monastery. In 1093, he moved to England, having been appointed Archbishop of Canterbury.
Philosopher David Hume’s argument against William Paley’s addresses the most common criticism in why Paley is wrong. Hume’s points out two major flaws in Paley’s argument that there is a creator of the universe. The first argument is the lack of evidence, in which he states that the existence of such a creator can only be proved through the a pattern of observation, which there is no pattern for. This addresses how without any form of pattern through observation that it is difficult to make a correlation between the universe and its designer (Speaks). Secondly he argumes that there are limitations to the design argument that Paley does not address.
Descartes, and Paley suggest that we can know God and that he is within our understanding. Throughout the readings they describe and argue how we can now the existence of God and the attributes that are associated with him. However David Hume would refute these claims saying through his dialogues more specifically through a character named Philo that we cannot know the attributes or even for that matter the existence. During this paper I will analyze Descartes and Paley’s arguments in comparison with David Hume’s arguments that we cannot know these things. In Paley’s argument he says that if we saw a rock lying on the ground and someone said that rock had always been there that is conceivable, whereas if a watch were lying on the ground that answer would no longer be acceptable.
Anselm’s “Ontological Argument” The general idea of the ontological argument is based on the notion that the concept of God as the greatest being implies that God exists—if not, there could be something greater, namely an existent greatest being—but this being would be God. The structure of the Ontological Argument can be outlined as follows (The argument is based on Anselm 's Proslogion 2): 1. We conceive of God as a being than which no greater can be conceived.
Anselm’s argument is based on this known definition of the concept of God alone. Descartes’ argument for the existence of God is based on his foundation of knowledge, logic. Humans have the idea in their minds of infinite perfection. Humans also have the idea of themselves as inferior to this idea as imperfect. For humans to have the idea of infinite perfection, there must be truth in the reason for them having this idea.
(Evans, Manis, 2009). Another way that McCloskey’s position can be responded to is by pointing to “creation science,” which continually presents more evidence that the evolutionary theory is itself faulty. If this evidence is true, then his entire argument that “evolution has displaced the need for a designer” is
There have been an innumerable amount of arguments for the existence of God for hundreds of years. Some have become much more popular due to their merit, and their ability to stay relevant through changing times. Two arguments in particular that have been discussed for a very long time are the ontological and cosmological arguments. Each were proposed in the period of the high middle ages by members of the Roman Catholic Church. They each have been used extensively by many since their introduction.
If god is that being which no greater can be thought, then it must exist because existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding. An objection to this that it is circular is overcome by the distinction of modes of being which finds that god is a necessary being as the unmoved mover. Any human objection stands insufficient, because human reason cannot even contemplate fully god’s essence. Because of this the stand point of atheism is one of ignorance where one does not fully grasp the concept of god laid before them. Lastly Guanilo’s critic falls short because his island moves closer and closer to divine until it becomes god; further proving god’s necessity.
He pointed out that “God has set up in the Church visible signs to make himself known to those who should seek him sincerely, and that he has nevertheless so disguised them that he will only be perceived by those who seek him with all their heart” (Pascal’s Pensees, p. 53). For those who truly believe in God, they will live their life with a sense of meaning. Pascal and Kierkegaard are similar when it comes to this belief because they are strong believers that one should trust that God will be in their life. Instead of going through the motions of religion, one should show their true belief in God by practicing good deeds. If good deeds are practiced throughout life, then the after-life would be highly likely if they believe.
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
Although he agrees that it is beneficial to learn from other traditions, but conversion from their birth culture and tradition will add confusion to their identity. To support this he tells the reader to ask this question to themselves, “Am I attracted to this new tradition because of the essential teachings; or, is it because I find the rituals more fascinating; or, is it because I imagine this new tradition will be less demanding?”(445). If the person still converts after thinking the question through then he thinks it is essential that he does not comment on his previous faith. Throughout the essay Dalai Lama has given the reasons why religion plays an important role to shape the person. Every religion has an essential part to share an enriched diversity.
Secondly, the lack of complete understanding of a God that is greater than any other is the basis of Anselm’s argument. In other words, one needs not understand how it is that no other greater God exists, because it is not possible to do that. It is the concept of understanding that such a being exists that is important. As long as it is possible to have such a state, then the definition given by Anselm is