Analyse the essential ideas in the Ontological Argument The Ontological (meaning ‘concerned with being’) argument is the only a priori argument for the existence of God. This means that it does not rely on the evidence of our senses for its premises or conclusion. It works by logical stages, which is self evidently true or logically necessary. This is one of its major strengths. It is also deductive, so the conclusion is the only possible one that could be deduced give the premises.
They say that God does not exist in an objective and real sense; they do not think he is a real human entity existing in the world. For the Deist, God is the creator of the universe. God really exists but he does not and cannot intervene within the world. And lastly, for the Atheist, there is no God to bring about any kind of miracle. I myself am an Atheist, and therefore in my opinion believe miracles are impossible as all miracles are by, definition impossible if they claim to be the action of a deity.
Calvin’s idea of predestination suggests that some people are God’s ‘elect’ and that, after death, these ‘elect’ will join God in heaven. Believers in predestination claim that our actions, whether ‘elect’ or ‘damned’, are predestined or decided by God; meaning that we have very little, if any at all, free will in our decision making or actions. This theory of predestination often leads people to believe in a God ‘who favours some but not all of his creation’, which would be intrinsically linked to miracles in the sense that, regardless of what we do, God has already decided whether he will interact with the world or perform a miracle. Miracles, in this sense, are seen not as unsystematic breaches of natural law but rather as the eternal intention of God for the world. For this reason, people who agree with Calvin in believing in predestination often find it difficult to understand why miracles aren’t common occurrences.
The issues with this option mainly deal with the definition of a theistic God. If morality is independent of God and God’s commands only exist because the moralities of actions are predetermined, then God is no longer sovereign. If morals are independent of God’s commands then God is not sovereign over morality. This goes against the definition of a theistic God which defines God as the creator and ruler over everything. It also puts limits on God’s power.
There is said to be no compelling rational argument to be found either against or for the existence of God, but James believed there to be some sort of God for everyone because he studied the effects of people involved in religion and people who were not. He referred to them as “healthy minded” and “morbid minded,” these are people who are either positive about life or negative about their life. James claimed that we judge the truth of religious ideas by what he referred to as, “immediate luminousness,” or philosophical reasonableness and moral helpfulness as the only available criteria. He said that religious faith is important and meaningful on pragmatic grounds: Its presence or absence makes a clearly observable, practical, and concrete difference in our lives
Taking Aristotle’s prime mover that exists outside of space and time and therefore cannot have any matter and so can’t run does this mean that we are better than God by being able to do something he cannot. Therefore God isn’t omnipotent. Even in the presence of such difficulties Rene Descartes holds the view that God can do everything; following the definition that omnipotence is a kind of
Therefore, Wiles comes to the conclusion that God's goodness and the concept of miracles are two incompatible ideas. When discussing God's omnibenevolemce, Wiles introduces the nature of God and its impact on miracles. However, this also anthropomorphises him. As humans, with a limited knowledge of what the word 'good' means, Maimonedes states that it would be disrespectful to attribute this equivocal concept to an unlimited God. We cannot judge God, nor his actions because he is a non cognitive being.
Most scientists argue that "God" is not a scientifically proven cause, whereas Aristotle would argue that God is ‘a remote and unchanging being who allows his world to be changeable so that it can gradually move towards the perfection which he already enjoys.’ A further fault with this would be the principle that the universe can’t explain its own existence, Why is it here at all? Why is it like this? Why isn’t it different? Why something rather than nothing?. Critics such as Dawkins and Russell say the universe is here today due to ‘brute fact’ whereas Swinburne would argue highly with that and say ‘God is simpler than anything we could imagine and gives an explanation for the system’.
An argument against this however is the cause of God. Experience shows that nothing can be the cause of itself. The first cause argument also states that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It also defines God as the uncaused first cause because he is the only being capable of existing without a cause. The second premise of the Kalam is that the universe began to exist.
Those who believe in the gnostic doctrine know that some claim to have touched Jesus when he arose, but sometimes Jesus ordered people not to touch him (6). This led some to believe that Christ did not physically rise from the grave, he just appeared to look physical to those who were in a time of high emotion and who may have been hallucinating. Some Gnostics believe that the only way anyone could have ever come in contact with Christ would be through dreams, trances, or spiritual illuminations. However, this point of view was condemned as heretic by the orthodox Christians, mostly for political reasons (6). Belief in the physical