Existence Of God Analysis

Descartes gave a few arguments that God exists and is real. Desocrates believed our idea of God is that God is a perfect being, he believed he is more perfect to exist than not to exist. Desocrates also believed that God is a infinite being. Descartes idea would be that God gave us this idea to type this paragraph about him so he must be real. When he thinks negative of an idea or thought he wonders if an evil demon plotted those thoughts.

What phrase does Anselm use to designate God? Explain why he formulates his designation in this way. Do you think this is an appropriate way to speak of God? The Phrase he used was “God is that than which no greater can be conceived”. There are two reasons as to why Anselm words this the way he does, reason one is the idea that “ no greater can be conceived” he doesn’t want you to be able to think about something greater hence the idea that no greater can be thought of by a person.

Another refuting claim would be of a ancient thinker known as Rene Descartes who stated “Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum” translated as “I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I am”. A great scenario where this argument would be considered false would be in a imaginary character such as Sherlock Holmes as he is a fictional character who thinks and doubts but he does not exist. In the same way we could think that we exist because we have thoughts but we could be just a computer program playing out its

The objection addressed the validity of the argument which had the premise 1, nothing is the efficient cause of itself except God and premise 2, a chain of causes cannot be infinite. The argument thus concludes there must be a first cause. This conclusion agrees with my thesis that Saint Thomas Aquinas’s argument formulated in the second way leads to a valid argument, which concludes that there must be a first cause and that God

(Anon., 2004) Anselm’s argument is a reductio argument, it seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that an absurd result would follow from its denial. I will be discussing three objections to Anselm’s argument which I will reply to, namely: “the perfect island” objection by Gaunilo; “existence is not a predicate” objection by Immanuel Kant and Aquinas objection “not everyone has the same concept of God”. I agree that that Anselm’s ontological argument does indeed show that God exists.

Upon a person believing this they will surely be thirsting for more information of who God is. While there is limitation on this argument with some questions

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.

This theory understands the problems and hypocrisy of the original argument and looks at it this way instead: everything that has a beginning in time has a cause of existence. Most scientists agree that the universe has a beginning in time – some say it is the big bang – and thus must have been caused by something. This something would then be God. This is the closest the argument gets to proving the existence of God.

God must exist in reality as well as in the understanding. This reading of the argument is amply confirmed by the final paragraph, and this is the way he proves that it is true: “Therefore, if that than which nothing greater could be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being than which nothing greater could be conceived is one than which a better can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible.

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.

As he goes into depth on his opinion of the existence of God with each point he gives and their explanations, it is clear to see that his “five ways” argument is persuasive and valid. With his helpful and insightful thinkings, it is evident that God does very much exist and is the all powerful being that created the universe around us. I also agree that this first cause argument on the cosmological argument is a sound argument and that God is the “something” outside the universe that is responsible to explain the existence of the

Anselm’s argument is based on the assumption of the universal definition of God being the greatest being. Descartes’ argument is based on the assumption that all humans have an idea of infinite perfection. They both do not take into account the fact that some people may have differing thoughts. Another way they are alike is that they are both based on logical evidence instead of physical evidence. Anselm’s argument focuses on the definition and the logic behind it while Descartes’ argument focuses on self-reason for the cause of the idea of infinite perfection.

The argument for God’s existence is that God is a perfect being, he is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, and supremely powerful. Descartes goes on to talk about how God exists because he can conceive of him as better than himself (AD 40). God is perfect and perfect at everything, and was the first thing that sent everything into motion (AD 45). God is the ultimate cause.

A lot of arguments have been known to prove or disprove the existence of God, and the Problem of Evil is one of them. The Problem of Evil argues that it is impossible to have God and evil existing in the same world. Due to ideal characteristics of God, evil should not have a chance to exist and make human suffer. In this essay, I will examine the argument for the Problem of Evil, a possible theodicy against the argument, and reply to the theodicy. First of all, to be clear, the Problem of Evil is an argument that shows that God cannot be either all- powerful, all-knowing, and/or all good.

In this essay, I will set out to prove that Thomas Aquinas’ First Cause Argument does not show that God exists and the conclusion that God exists does not follow from the premises of the first cause argument. I do think that the conclusion is valid and could be sound/or has the potential to be, but the premises fail to provide the basis upon which to reach such a conclusion. Hence, I will be raising some objections to the premises and will try to disprove any counter-arguments that could be raised in its defense. This would be done by examining Aquinas’ First Cause Argument and trying to disprove it whilst countering arguments in its defense.